This entry is a partial interpretation of the sword and buckler techniques depicted in the I.33 Manuscript. The I.33 Manuscript (so called because of the catalog system of some previous librarian) is a medieval document held in the library of the Tower Armouries in Leeds, England. It has been tentatively dated to as early as 1290AD, though this is the subject of some debate, and contains 64 pages of color illustrations and text in Latin and German.

Period Material:

The I.33 manuscript (one-thirty-three or ‘eye’ thirty-three) is sometimes called the Walpurgis Fechtbuch (after the woman who appears on the last two pages) or the Tower Fechtbuch (after the Tower Armouries where the manuscript currently resides). It is a German manual of instruction in the art of sword and buckler combat. The document is done in watercolor and ink on manuscript and contains both color illustrations and explanatory text and verse in Latin with some contemporary German terms thrown in. The manuscript has been dated to as early as 1290AD and as late as 1350AD. The earlier dating is currently the most widely accepted.

It is uncertain who authored this manuscript and if it represents original work or not. The text in the manuscript comes in three varieties: text added by later collectors, merkverse (instructional verses), and commentary that explains/introduces the merkverse. Early German fighting manuals were apparently un-illustrated and composed of collections of instructional verse from an oral tradition. The verse, though rythmic and catchy, was deliberately obtuse as the authors intended for it to be a mnemonic device for advanced students who studied under the master. Given that the I.33 contains both verse and commentary it is possible that it represents an expansion upon an existing tradition. A theory has recently been advanced that the author of this document was a German monk named Luitger (lit. spear of the people). This is interesting because one researcher has found a record of a monk named Luitger in the records of the monastery of St. Walpurga (Walburga). Walpurga (under her Latinized name Walpurgis) appears in the last two pages of the manuscript. Walpurga was an English missionary to Germany, an assistant to St. Boniface, who died around 799AD.

There is some debate as to whether or not the I.33 represents a martial art or a martial sport. Proponents of the martial sport theory point to the lack of blood and severed body parts (common to other German fechtbucher) and the decidedly non-martial figures involved in the swordplay; the priest, the scholar, and the woman. At the other end of the spectrum are those who believe that this is, in fact, a martial art intended for use in the full spectrum of combat; from civilian encounters to the field of battle. Proponents of this view cite many points in support of their assertions. The figures of the priest and scholar may be strictly allegorical, representing the teacher and the student, rather than literal depictions. While the images are clean and un-bloody, the text itself makes reference to cuts to the head and stabs to the body. Images from the 13^th and 14^th Century show the buckler in use on the battlefield and being carried by armored (and unarmored) warriors. An excellent in-depth article on this subject can be found at the ARMA website.

The I.33 document is a perfect example of the problems facing interpreters of early fighting documents. Simply put, the document assumes that the reader already has a familiarity with the basics. Fundamental matters such as theory and footwork are not discussed, with the exception of some footwork for one ward. Additionally, in the I.33 document it is apparent that the illustrations do not show correct body positions. All of the images apparently show the figures with their far foot leading and near foot trailing. While it is possible that this is meant to be an accurate depiction the prevailing opinion is that this is simply an artistic convention. This artistic convention results in an open stance that doesn’t obscure the weapons, but is completely uninformative where actual body-positioning is concerned. It is also possible that the distance between the combatants is incorrectly, or inconsistently, depicted. It is certain that the proportions of the combatants do not agree with reality. The basic human proportions were known as far back as Roman times. The Architect Vitruvius said “…from the bottom of his chin to the top of his head is one eighth of his height…” Leonardo da Vinci would later produce the famous Vitruvian Man sketch based on Vitruvius’ dictates. These basic proportions, however, are not always followed in Medieval Art (which was more concerned with adhering to heavenly ideals than earthly realities). The I.33 is no exception to this. A comparison of proportions in the I.33 shows that the fighters do not conform to basic human proportions, but they are fairly close.

It is important to bear all of this in mind when studying the material. This manuscript was intended to build upon a base of knowledge and context that we lack and are unlikely to ever come close to re-creating. Any interpretation of this material should not be construed as definitive. Another point to bear in mind is what I refer to as the ‘best case scenario’ fallacy. This is the tendency of researchers to assume that the authors of these manuscripts knew what they were talking about. (In this we have turned 180 degrees from the position of Victorian historians who tended to view any knowledge pre-dating their own as being primitive.) It is entirely possible that the author of the I.33 knew absolutely nothing about his subject and was simply a theorist with no practical experience. And while it is reasonable to assume that after more than 1000 years of combat in the age of the sword that folks were reasonably competent, it would be an error to assume that they knew everything, or that they always made the best choices. More likely is a position somewhere between the two extremes.

I began by reading the manuscript in English translation and looking up many of the most commonly used Latin terms. From there I began to create visual diagrams, identifying situations repeatedly illustrated. The most commonly illustrated situations were the 4 binds. A bind is sword to sword contact. I.33 considers that all binds fall into four categories: under the sword on the left hand side, over the sword on the right hand side, under the sword on the right hand side, over the sword on the left hand side. By using these key illustrations, some clues in the text, and examination of sword and buckler material in other fechtbucher it was possible to piece together ‘flowcharts’ of the techniques. The text itself was very helpful in identifying the key elements of the system. I.33 has a great number of techniques, but the vast majority of them lead to one of four binds. Armed with this information I was able to create the chart displayed here.

The chart displays some basic information related to one ward and one of its oppositions. This chart is, by no means, a complete representation of the I.33 system. It is not even a complete representation of all the possible outcomes for this single block of instruction. But the chart is sufficient to give a general impression of the basic principles, techniques, footwork, and flow of combat. I have used images from the manuscript, augmented by some simple graphics, to create this flowchart. The graphics depict footwork and sword motion. Green is the color given to the person with the initiative, orange to the person who is reacting. A solid line indicates the path a sword or foot has already traveled through. A dotted line indicates the path a sword will follow in its future motion. In the case of one image a purple dotted line indicates a possible alternate interpretation of a sword path. Because the manual deals with some of the actual techniques in later blocks of instruction, the figures sometimes switch roles. An example of this is found in the illustration from the top of page 18, the durchtrit. In the context of the 1^st block of instruction it should be the priest executing the action. But in this case the manual illustrates the durchtrit in a later block of instruction so it is the scholar who is actually depicted executing the action. Of course, this arrangement also makes the point that either party could execute the action. I have annotated the chart to highlight these situations by putting the images in red boxes and adding references in the explanatory text.

The manuscript begins by displaying seven wards. These wards, according to the manuscript, are used by all sword and buckler combatants, even if they are untrained in the use of sword and buckler. The first of these wards shows the sword being held under the left arm. While this position seems rather strange to most casual observers it was very common in illustrations of Medieval sword and buckler. It can be found described as late as 1551 in the instructions of Manciolino. The 1^st Ward is one of the initial wards on the chart. The priest is standing in this position.

The priest is opposed by the scholar in Half-Shield. Half-Shield is the second most common position found in the manuscript, but it is not considered one of the seven wards. The exact reason for this is unclear. The manuscript introduces several positions that are considered variations on the seven wards. One possible explanation for this lies in Medieval numerology; seven was the number that signified perfection and completeness (as in the seven days of the earth’s creation).

The scholar, in this case, has the initiative. The initiative could just as well belong to the priest, but giving it to the scholar allows the manuscript to demonstrate two applications of the same technique. This information compression is typical of I.33 and Medieval documents in general. The scholar is attacking along the path indicated by the green arrow. His hope is that the priest will fail to react in time and he will strike the priest on the buckler side of his head. This sequence of events is illustrated by the images from Page 3 –Top and Page 22 –Botom (P3T->P22B) and can be seen with the red arrow in Image 1.

The priest defends himself by ‘falling under’ the sword and shield of the scholar, as seen in P3B. This action is a weak bind for the priest, but it places his sword in position to attack the scholar. The scholar cannot ignore this and continue with his attack. If he does, then the priest will push his attack aside while counterattacking by thrusting the scholar in the face. This sequence of events is illustrated by P3T->P3B->P33B and is highlighted in Image 2.

The scholar must react to the priest’s action by pushing the priest’s sword offline. He does this in the image from P4T. In doing so, he places himself and the priest in one of the four binds. The scholar is above the sword on the right (one bind) while the priest is below the sword on the left (a second bind). This sequence is illustrated by P3T->P3B->P4T in Image 3.

The scholar’s defense is actually a counter-attack. The preferred method is for the scholar’s sword to follow the dotted green line and strike the priest on the buckler side of his head. This is essentially the same attack the scholar was originally trying to accomplish, but with a slight defensive detour thrown in. This sword motion should be familiar to just about everyone in the SCA who has ever picked up a piece of rattan. It is the basic teardrop pattern written about by Duke Paul of Bellatrix and many others. This option is illustrated by the red line in Image 4, below. The priest can easily counter this attack by, essentially, performing the exact same action. This is illustrated in P38-B (the blue line counter). You can also see this action illustrated, in a more condensed fashion, in P4T in Image 3. You will notice that in this illustration the priest is shown with two different colored lines. The dotted orange line is an illustration of the option we have just discussed. The dotted purple line is an illustration of a possible alternate sword path. It is beyond the scope of this paper to delve into this possible alternative in any sort of detail.

A better option would be for the scholar to execute the attack and prevent the priest from countering. This is accomplished with a shield-strike. A shield strike is exactly what it sounds like, the face of the shield is forcefully pressed against the opponent, pinning his sword and buckler hands against his body. This option is illustrated by the green line in Image 4. The shield-strike is a very basic, recurring element of the I.33 system. It can, of course, be defended against but I will not be discussing this in the this paper.

A third option would be for the scholar to grapple the priest. Grappling can be done with the left arm (the buckler arm) or the right arm (the sword arm). Obviously a left arm grapple is the preferred option since it leaves the sword arm free to injure the opponent. In either case it is important that the grapple encompasses both of the opponent’s arms. If one arm remains free, then the opponent is in a position to inflict significant harm. The grappling option is illustrated by the purple line in Image 4. Please note that the actual grapple is not illustrated and the image used below, and on the main chart, has been inserted as a place-holder. The actual grapple in this situation would look a little different, but it would be a left arm grapple.

The fourth option is for the scholar to effect a separation of the sword and shield of the priest. In the I.33 system the primary use of the buckler is in protecting the hand, wrist, and forearm of the sword arm. If the buckler is not put to this use, then the opponent will reflexively strike at those targets. Even a weak slash to the hand or wrist will effectively end the combat and, in truth, the defender needs do little more than gently place his blade in the path of the attacking sword hand; the attacker will literally slash his own hand against the defender’s blade. In this case, though the priest is properly using his buckler, the scholar creates an opening by striking downward sharply. He then follows this by moving the point in a clockwise motion (holding it against the priest’s blade) and lifting the point. This appears to be a false-edge (back edge, that part of the blade that faces the wielder’s sword arm) cut to the forearm of the priest’s sword arm, as well as positioning the scholar to execute a thrust. This option is illustrated by the yellow line in Image 4.

Having discussed the scholar’s options, let’s take a look at what the priest can do. The manuscript says that after the scholar has counter-bound (P4T) the priest has the initiative. The simplest, and most effective, option is to effect a sword change. This involves getting his sword out from under the scholar’s sword and then back into a bind with his sword on top of the scholar’s sword. The best way to do this is to use the teardrop pattern. This is illustrated by the yellow and green lines in Image 5. The priest would finish the sword-change with one of two options. The common option is simply to cover i.e. to move to a defensive position without attempting to attack the opponent. The preferred option is to counter attack by ‘nodding’. Nodding is illustrated by P7T in an image as confusing as it is enlightening. The culprit, again, is information condensation. This image shows a possible variation of nodding and thereby saved the illustrator from having to draw yet another image showing the standard variation. Nodding is simply making a cut to the opponent’s head after having pressed his sword down to the side. The common counter to this action is for the scholar to separate his sword and buckler by lifting his buckler into the path of the priest’s sword, thereby defending his head. The counter to this counter is for the priest to forget about the head and just cut the exposed forearm of the scholar’s buckler arm. The counter to the basic sword-change is for the scholar to go with the motion (rather than resisting) and execute a thrust; see the image P19T.

The red line in Image 5 presents an interesting option referred to by the manual as the “durchtrit”. This is a German term, not the Latin that the rest of the manual is written in, and it translates to ‘tread-through’. This term is used by another author in his manuscript and the specific technique is different. Both techniques, however, have a common footwork element and I believe this is what the term is referring to. In Image 5, and in the master flowchart, the scholar is depicted as being the person executing the tread-through even though, in this particular instance, the manuscript identifies it as an option belonging to the priest. In fact, either combatant can execute this technique from the position illustrated by P17B. The one who has their sword farther to their left will have the advantage, however. The tread-through is accomplished by pressing the sword down towards the sword side of the opponent’s neck while moving the left foot forward and left.

Finally we have the grappling option. The left arm grapple has already been discussed, so here I have illustrated the right arm grapple with the purple line in Image 5. The right arm grapple leaves the combatants in the position of not being able to use their weapons (sword or buckler) to injure their opponent. Because he controls the grapple, however, the priest can break or dislocate the scholar’s arms and/or unbalance the scholar and drop him to the ground. The only option left to the scholar is to drop his weapons and turn the sword fight into a wrestling match. The priest, of course, should deny him this option by letting go and turning the wrestling match back into a sword fight (for which the scholar is now unprepared).

The fourth option, the two images in the single red box, is something I am not sure how to explain right now. The illustrated technique is simple enough to execute, but I have not yet been able to place this technique in an explainable context within the system as I understand it. So I will not discus it in this paper.

This study remains a work in progress so it is difficult to draw any defensible conclusions. It appears that this manuscript is describing a fairly involved system based on some simple and reasonable principles. Though the specific techniques are interesting, it is the underlying principles that are truly enlightening. Understanding the system requires at least a passing understanding of Medieval conditions and thought patterns.