Find hundreds of related posts here: / posts You are welcome to get in touch e.g. via my Facebook page: / dimicator-266934476773420 Or send an email: dimicator.com/c...
Hi sword people! Would you like to receive weekly up-dates on weapons research, sword-fighting, living history and more straight into your inbox? To read previous newsletters and to sign up, go here: exciting-pioneer-6049.ck.page/a8f72e8432
I can’t think of a better way to spend my train ride to work, than to view videos on this channel! But it does have the tendency to make me wish I had a different job!
This is a fantastic video! Cornelius, your explanations are quite clear and compelling. Roland, the introduction for context was an excellent opener. Thank you all for your continued investigation and enthusiasm, as well as a willingness to share with us.
Granted i've never done HEMA before (unfortunately) but I'm quite a good left handed sabreur (if i don't say so myself 😉) as i've fenced since I was a child. I can imagine having access to a buckler offering quite a few advantages. For example, parrying with a buckler would allow you to Riposte from an unorthodox/unexpected line of attack. Plus considering how common simultaneous or near simultaneous touches are in fencing (and I'm guessing swordplay in general). Access to any type of armour that gives you the ability to "to"take/tank" a hit (for want of better words) could make all the difference in a real life situation...
Thanks for that! So why is a buckler apparently more popular and legally attention worthy than carrying a main gauche or even a non-specialised dagger used in the off-hand? A buckler has a clear intent for combat, while a dagger is a tool everyone carries, a buckler is mainly for defence while a dagger can both defended and offended? Was sword and dagger even practised in the 1300/1400's?
It is easier to defend yourself from a cut with a buckler and protects the sword hand better. Daggers as a companions swords came when enclosed hilt were introduced and their was more thrusting focused weapons. With a basket hilt or swept... the hilt of your weapon acts as a buckler so the hand protection issue isn't that much of an issue anymore. A parrying dagger or blocking dagger (basically a basket hilted short sword) is more usefull.
@@PJDAltamirus0425 Interesting, from extensive study on youtube I suspect sword guards developed as shields lost their utility? I agree the shift in important of thrust over cut - especially as armour lightened on the battlefield, played a part. But perhaps shields lost favour for the same reasons that drove the evolution of armour, more effective firearms on and off the battlefield?
The popularity of sword & buckler fencing in the late 13th and early 14th century was likely due to the fact that the system for military sword & shield of the day did not differ much. So if you could master sword & buckler, other types of shield are relatively easy to use. Anyway, there was no sword and dagger fencing at the time, even though daggers were well known and wide-spread, and apparently also used in violent encounters and crime, as you can see in one of the images from the Saxon Mirror used in the video. However, for thousands of years, sword-fighting equated to sword & shield-fighting, and this only changed very slowly in the course of the 14th century. Late 14th century images still suggest that, if you had no shield, you would improvise by wrapping a cloak around your left (a practice, dating back to ancient times): facebook.com/266934476773420/photos/a.267550296711838/414716188661914/?type=3&theater
@@swordandshield So it essentially saved time training. By training sword and buckler in certain, you don't actually have to lug a big piece of wood around to train sword and shield?
Interesting! Keith Johnstone, an acting teacher and improvisation innovator, spoke of ones 'Space' as 'a wedge shape', or 'comet tail' that extends forward from an individual. High-status persons seem to allow this 'space' to flow out and into the room or other people. Low-status people seem to allow this 'space' to crash in and diminish. The martial technique described here seems to match, or at least corroborate, this observation.
My martial arts instructor spoke of the structure as a pyramid but essentially it was the same idea. Force, energy or motion travel along these lines. He described turning your pyramid to deflect your opponents pyramid along your structure and driving your point through them. I like the idea of this also applying to social spheres or other areas of life. Thank you for sharing this insight.
Looks like the "teaching" excuse for engaging in a duel is older than dirt. Or rather, the "training accident" as an excuse for a fatality. That one's a classic as well.
They need to be at least 3 feet closer to each other to even begin. If you are out of range of an effective blow, every bit of energy you expend is in vain. You are not fighting your opponent's weapon, you are fighting your opponent. I spent nearly 3 decades specializing in great sword. My favorite spot was about 12 to 16 inches away from my opponent. People get real uncomfortable when you jump in their underpants to fight them. ;)
A question: why do you teach fencers to keep the buckler in the middle, as opposed to keeping it facing the opponent's weapon? This isn't a criticism, but a question from ignorance.
If I may, as long as the measure between the two opponents is not too short, keeping the buckler in the centre (and adjusting its orientation, of course) is enough. This is because any weapon that could harm us would eventually have to get close to the centre - if it stays away from it, it remains too distant to be a threat. Another benefit is that the buckler needs to be moved only a little to adjust to a change in situation. Only if one gets into grappling range, it can be a good idea to secure the opposing weapon with one's own buckler outside the centre, depending on the situation.
I need to ask this. Why do you always start in the bind? Is it just for the drill or do you sparr like that? If it is a drill I understand all this but I have yet to see a video from Roland where you do not start in a bind. That seems unrealistic & against the manuals.
It might be that be being in the bind you gain ( some ) control of the opponents weapon and you gain information about his intention. Yes, so does he about you, but the main thing is to not get hit by the sword, that would be Bad (tm). You want to be in a bind and ideally, acting on the information you gain before the other guy does.
@@dwwolf4636 but the bind is inevitable. In is what occurs in a sword fight. The issue isn't them being in a bind. It is how they always start in a bind. Which is not how a fight occurs. Most manuals are explicit in how most fights begin with an overhau or othrer strikes & when you block a bind may be established. This is why i ask if this is a training drill about the bind in specific or not. If it is than it is a good drill. But if they think that is how sword fights began than we have no evidence for this. Yeah, you wanna avoid getting hit. Usually that is accomplished by blocking or deflecting a strike not volunteer to the enter a bind.
It depends on the manual. From the majority of my understanding, from talking to a pupil of Roland (Cornelius Saglado-Nacke in the English Vike), Roland's work is primarily based on 1.33 which almost always starts with a hip hinge into a bind. Later manual's, the Talhoffer for example, do not always lead with a bind and have the buckler in a different position, often closer to the body. There are a few theoretical explanations of the decline of both a hip-hinge and a leading bind. One is the change of societal standards with it being seen as a more cowardly way to fight. Another being that the target area of duels was different. Either way, the bind is the best way of staying alive. When you engage in a bind you know all your opponent's intentions, they cannot hit you through it and you can gain control of the weapon. The bind comes from intense respect for the weapon that HEMA often ignores. A mutual is a loss, not a draw. Historically they wouldn't care to hit their opponent if it put them in risk if it was a duel to the death as it is trained in 1.33. Therefore the bind is necessary to stay alive.
@@dominicking3217 but that makes no sense. Sure respect for weapon & avoiding suicidal attacks. But willful entering the bind rather than the bind being a consequence of attacks is suicidal. It is not accepting or being prepared for someone attacking with killing intent or full force. It is just a friendly thing. If i attack you with my sword, i would never enter into a bind before the attack. The bind would occur in case you defend & our swords come in contact. It is similiar to trapping in unarmed arts, right. Trapping is absolutely a useful tool but you don't expect fight to start with sticky hands.
