Caveat: This is meant to be a practical guide on fighting with the sword and buckler 'inspired' by i33. It is my own interpretation and will be updated over time.
1.1 A note on this interpretation
1.1.1 Introduction to i33
I33, or the Walpurgis Fechtbuch, is a fencing 'manual' from the turn of the 14th century from southern Germany, or what would have then been the Holy Roman Empire. It uses illustrations and text to depict a Priest (a fencing master) teaching a Scholar (a student) to fight with the sword and buckler. The sword is some sort of arming sword (one handed sword) with a simple cross hilt and likely a disk pommel, and the buckler is a small round shield of some size, likely 9 – 12 inches in diameter. The sword is held in the right hand and the buckler in the left hand, as is most common. The book is available to buy from the Royal Armouries: The Medieval Art of Swordsmanship: Royal Armouries MS I.33 - Royal Armouries Publications - Royal Armouries Museum Shop
I33 uses the illustrations and text to teach a fairly large number of techniques, and it splits these into a series of 'plays'. Each sequence in the play builds on the previous sequence, and together they illustrate various positions in which you can hold the sword and buckler, ways to attack those positions, ways to counter the attack, and ways to counter the counter.
Many people have attempted to create an interpretation of I33 as – let us be clear – the illustrations and the text are cryptic, and so interpretation is needed to try to understand what is going on. Noteable interpretations include those of Guy Windsor (Home | Swordschool) and Andrew Kenner (I33: Fencing in the Style of the Walpurgis Manuscript : Kenner, Andrew: Amazon.co.uk: Books), but also Federico Malagutti, Roland Warzecha, and many others have also documented interpretations of various elements on the web and on video steaming websites such as YouTube. I myself developed a more or less complete interpretation, based in large part on Guy Windsor and Andrew Kenner, but incorporating others' interpretations as well. I have made this available here as a download for posterity, but note this is now out of date:
However, after watching a video by Petr Kavan (Core terminology, tactics of attack - MS I.33 Interpretation), which seemed to build on a partially formed idea that I had while developing my previous interpretation, I was inspired to create this updated interpretation.
1.1.2 Interpretation problems
The problem with i33 is that it is cryptic and missing information that we would expect to see in a fencing instruction book. Firstly, it introduces us to wards (or guards), which are clearly positions from which we can make attacks, yet the book (on first reading) shows no attacks being made from these positions. The book does show, and seems to tactically prefer, the use of counter wards or 'siege' positions (that are seemingly unlreated to the wards on first reading) being used to attack the ward positions. However, the images are clearly (or not so clearly!) stylised in some way as it is often difficult to understand from the images alone exactly how the counter ward is formed, where and how it is held, and how it opposes the ward – especially since we have not been told what attack is made from the ward in first place. What we are shown, however, are counter attacks that counter the counter ward, making us question whether i33 is a book about showing us how counter wards defeat wards, or whether it is actually a book showing us how wards defeat counter wards. The result is that you will often see i33 practitioners forming strange looking counter wards that seem to do little, and fighting with a limited set of techniques and tactical approaches. All of this is very strange, does not reflect how an untrained person (or even a trained person) typically fights with a sword and buckler, and so – if your system of fighting is not good against someone who is untrained – then i33 must be trash or 'bullshido'. Or is it?
As I developed my first interpretation, I noticed several things:
A straight attack to the head from one of the high wards (which is not explicitly shown in i33) passes through a counter ward called halpschilt (which is shown). So clearly there is some relationship between the wards and the counter wards.
Counter wards oppose wards in i33, and often the easiest way to reach those counter wards is by starting in a certain ward, often the same ward that you wish to attack. In one instance in i33, one of the wards is said to be a counter ward for itself (first ward), therefore adding credence to this argument.
The counter wards, in practice, can be cut into as a parry in response to an attack, and do not need to be held as static 'half-way' positions like shown in the book. When I led an i33 study group as I was developing my interpretation, we found this to be effective and make sense.
The extra step that Petr Kavan made in his video was to assume that i33 does tell us how to attack from the wards, and that this information is codified in the counter wards themselves.
Each play in i33 shows a ward that is being attacked with a counter ward.
While i33 suggests this is not a direct attack but the use of some sort of cover to approach the opponent safely, the same geometry would also allow the play to function as a direct attack. The plays should work whether the attack is made in one time or two times, with variations in timing.
This opens up the possibility that the counter wards represent the same basic action (an attack) which can be used in different ways and for different uses depending on things like the distance at which it is made, the time in which it is made, and the target it is aimed at (e.g. to the opponent, to the opponent's weapon, or to a space in between yourself and the opponent).
Upon further examination of the other counter wards it now seems clear to me that this interpretation has some merit, and I like the idea that we can form many of the actions seen in i33 by building on the wards and attacking motions. Like in other fencing systems, from the ward positions flow the attacks. From the attacks flow the parries. From the parries flow covers and counter wards. In other words, the same small set of core techniques form the basis of the system, and then other techniques may be 'bolted on' as variations or where useful. I33 should be no different.
We can illustrate this in the following image:
Figure 1 does not show all techniques used in i33. Rather, it visualises the relationship between the seven wards, the attacks that flow from these wards, the parries that are created from these attacks, the counter wards that flow from these parries, and the counter attacks that flow from the counter wards. It also shows how each element counters the other elements. This is not meant to be a complete tactical framework, but more to illustrate that the same core set of techniques form the bulk of the system.
In other words, if you can learn the wards, and learn the attacks, you have already learned the parries and the counter wards – it is just a matter of understanding which one to use and when. This is good because it makes i33 easier to understand and to teach, and opens up the tactical possibilities in i33 far beyond previous interpretations.
But is this interpretation supported by i33 itself?
1.1.3 Three interpretations
I have written an article comparing three interpretations of i33, which I call 'Obsesseo first', 'Direct attack' and 'Demonstration purposes only':
The basic idea is that the Obsesseo first interpretation supposes the i33 plays teach us not to attack from wards. Instead, you approach the opponent in a counter ward and attack from there, or (if your opponent attacks your counter ward) you counter their attack. This leads to the opponent being able to counter your counter and so on.
The Direct attack interpretation is as I've described above, that i33 is depicting attacks and we only believe they are counter wards because of a quirk in how the manuscript teaches these things. However, as direct attacks pass through counter wards, this interpretation allows for the use of counter wards, but that these counter wards must be more closely related to attacks than in the other interpretation.
The Demonstration purposes only interpretation basically suggests that the actions the fencers are performing are not always meant to be martial. The book depicts a priest teaching a student, and so the priest asks the student to form certain positions, which the priest binds, and then the student counters. It presents us with general lessons on what sort of binds will occur if you attack and they parry (or vice versa) and how you can then respond.
In short, there is evidence for and against each interpretation, but I believe the 'Direct attack' and the 'Demonstration purposes only' interpretations offer us the best hope of creating a practical guide that allows us to use the i33 techniques in a competitive sparring environment. This is because we can ignore this idea that there is only one tactical approach to fighting with a sword and buckler and present techniques that have broader applicability.
All fencing systems include multiple tactical approaches to winning a fight. This is nicely summarised by the 'fencers' tactical wheel' in modern fencing. This is shows that, when fencing, we can make:
simple attacks – direct attacks to the opponent;
this is countered by a parry and then a riposte (a block and then a returned attack);
the parry and riposte can be countered with a compound attack – i.e. several attacking actions, such as feinted attack to one side to draw the parry followed by a real attack to the other side;
we can counter these with counter attacks – attacks into the feint, or attacks that simultaneously parry the attack and hit the opponent; and
lastly we can perform a 'feint in time' – that is, we feint an attack to draw out the opponent's potential counter attack, which we then parry and then deliver a riposte.
All of these tactical approaches are viable if done at the right time and from the right distance, and you cannot have an effective fencing system that is based on only one tactical approach. I believe the same is self-evidently true for i33.
This means that, rather than trying to cover all of the plays in i33 like I did in my last interpretation, I will instead try to describe the principles of the system and some use-case examples.
I hope that you enjoy reading this and that you find the system of i33 to be intuitive and effective, and remember that this interpretation is only possible because 'I am standing on the shoulders of giants'.
I have called this 'Sword and buckler 102' as it is my second interpretation.
1.2 Equipment
You will need a buckler, such as the Cold Steel synthetic buckler or a steel one of 9 – 12 inches diameter. You will also need some sort of arming sword – synthetic or steel – with a simple cross guard with fairly short quillons, no knuckle bow and a short grip length. An overly long grip length and overly long quillons make some of the actions in I.33 difficult to do.
You will need gloves: padded leather gloves for light training, as there is a tendency to bump the sword or buckler into your opposite hand, and for sparring you will want the least-bulky yet most protective gloves you can find, appropriate to the type of weapon you are using and the intensity of your sparring.
Other normal HEMA equipment is also needed, including a mask, fencing jacket and padded trousers, hard protection for knees and elbows, throat protector, etc. In sword and buckler, the legs are often a target (despite what I.33 might suggest).
1.3 Basic fencing concepts and terminology
In this interpretation I use a variety of fencing terminology, some of which is based on classical or modern fencing terms, some on i33 terms in Latin or German, some are translated terms, and some are just invented by me. One of the problems with i33 is that it does not explain its terminology and it does not explicitly name every position or technique that it uses, so we have to invent terms to communicate what is going on.
As you read through this interpretation, you may decide that you disagree with a term I've used. My goal is not to recreate the i33 system exactly as it was practiced, discussed and thought about in 1300 AD, as that is impossible. Instead, I am trying to codify the dregs of the system that have been written down for us into a simple and cohesive framework that modern people can understand and use.
The below are the basic terms that will be used throughout this interpretation. It is not a complete list of terms, but it should allow you to follow the interpretation more easily. The terms are not in alphabetical order because each term flows into the next one. Lastly, these are my definitions.
Table 1: Terms
Term | Definition |
Ward | A resting position held with the sword ready to attack |
Attack | An attack made with a cut or a thrust |
Cut | An attack with the edge of the blade, made as a strike or a blow |
Thrust | A stabbing attack with the point of the sword |
Buckler | A small round shield |
Sword | An arming sword with a blade of around 33 inches in length |
Hilt | The portion of the sword that you hold, including a cross guard with quillons, a grip and a pommel |
Quillons | The protruding bars that form the cross guard |
Pommel | The weight on the bottom end of the sword |
Blade | The long part of the sword above the cross guard |
Point | The top of the blade that is sharp, used for stabbing. Also called the tip. |
Edge | The sharp sides of the blade used for cutting |
True edge | The edge that is facing in the same direction as your knuckles |
False edge | The edge that is facing towards your forearm |
Strong | The half of the blade closest to the hilt |
Weak | The half of the blade closest to the point of the blade |
Parry | A defensive action made with the sword or the buckler (or both together), made in response to an attack. |
Counter ward | A half-completed attack that provides cover |
Cover | A 'passive parry'. Counter wards provide cover |
Siege | The act of attacking someone who is in a ward through or from a counter ward. Can be, but is not necessarily, a direct attack, but is always made in opposition |
Opposition | The act of using your attack to provide cover and so defend against an opponent's counter attack |
Counter attack | An attack made into an attack. The counter attack should provide opposition to avoid a double hit |
Double hit | Where you hit your opponent at the same time they hit you |
Counter siege | A counter attack used to try to defeat a Siege, usually consisting of a bind followed by an attack |
Bind | The act of touching the opponent's sword with your own |
Time | A unit of measurement in fencing denoting a single action being taken without that action halting or new action being made. Actions can be made together, such as a step and an attack, and this would be a single time action. However, a step and then an attack would be a two time action, and likewise an attack that is halted or feinted followed by a real attack would be a two time action. |
Feint | A started but not completed attack, used to encourage the opponent to act, such as to make a parry |
1.4 Goals of this interpretation (back to basics)
The ultimate goal of this interpretation is to produce a simple to follow, practical guide for fencing with sword and buckler that is effective in competitive sparring against a resisting opponent.
It should describe a cohesive system of fencing that is in the spirit of i33 yet does not require the practitioner to learn too much additional jargon.
Importantly, the system must be in line with the principles of fencing. I can use concepts from later time periods to provide a theoretical framework. I'm not trying to get into the minds of the i33 authors, at least not fully. The system should be explainable using universal concepts.
However, the system must be able to reproduce the plays of i33, and be consistent with the text in i33, to a reasonable degree. I accept that there may be some vagaries and, given that i33 missing images and contains sparse text and confusing images, a certain level of incompleteness will be accepted.
Good fencing principles must be used to derive the plays of i33. The plays of i33 cannot be used to determine how we fence. The plays help us determine the building blocks of the system, and these building blocks, together with good fencing principles, must be able to recreate the plays. Actions or interpretations of actions that are ambiguous or not in line with good fencing principles will be ignored until a satisfactory interpretation is determined.
The interpretation will not be based on literal readings of the images or the text in i33. Good fencing principles will be applied, and where those principles lead to actions that match the images in spirit, this will be assumed to be correct. The images will be used to guide us, but we will not try to copy the actions exactly as seen, since these are drawn in 2D in a fairly crude style.
Other people's interpretations will be used where they meet these requirements, and conventional or unconventional interpretations that don't will be thrown out. Deferring to authority is not my goal, but I will listen to criticism and consider alternative options.
Ultimately, the system I describe should provide an easily applied framework to help us know how to proceed in a fencing bout when faced with an action from our opponent. The plays should flow from the fundamentals and principles of the system. Every action or option in any given scenario should be obvious once we know the building blocks and the principles.
Lastly, the system cannot only work if the opponent fences in a certain way with limitations that are unreasonable. For example, we can't require our opponent to always hold their sword and buckler together or always hold them apart. It must work naturally.
1.4.1 Good fencing principles
I will cover some fencing principles throughout this guide, however here are the basic principles that I think i33 needs to adhere if it is truly a usable fencing system. This of course assumes it is a usable fencing system and wasn't developed for some esoteric purpose, such as stage fencing or the like. The following are some key principles that need to be applied:
Vor (before) and Nach (after): in short, the actions of one fencer must drive the actions of the other. If your action does not lead to the expected action in the play then the action must be wrong.
Timing: actions take time, and that is equated to the distance the action needs to travel. There needs to be time (and distance) to carry out an action. Also, fencers will have timing advantages.
Strong and weak: Binds will result in fencers either being neutral, strong or weak, and this will determine what each fencer can do.
Lines: Attacks rarely come from directly above, but often from the left or right. Fencers need to be able to cover the inside (left) and outside) lines.
Comments