English sword and buckler sources

[Tim Gallagher]

I have just re-read Terry Brown's "English Martial Arts" for the 1st time in several years and I know that he posts here from time to time.
He includes a section on standard cross hilted sword (broadsword) and buckler and I was wondering what English sources there are for this weapon. It is this early period sword in which I am interested rather than basket hilted back-sword type weapons.
I realise that there are an increasing amount of interpretations of the English longsword material available, and was wondering if there was much being done on the sword and buckler side of things.
As an added note, the material Terry shows us is obviously very different from 1.33 (and the other earlier period German sources) in its' various modern interpretations and was wondering if anyone more familiar with the English material would hazard a guess as to why this is so. For example, the English stances seem to be relatively upright and the sword and buckler seem to be seperate most of the time.
The English material also seems to be rather different from the Bolognese stuff, though that is presumably because the Italians are using side-swords that are slightly longer and balanced a little differently.
Many thanks for any help anyone is able to give me on this.

Tim

[Sal Bertucci]

Well,

If I remember correctly, there are 3 early English sources. One of which is only about the longsword. I don't know them well enough to tell them apart though.

As for style, there seems to be two trains of thought with the buckler. Generically they are "open" (when each is used separately) and "closed" (when they're used together). Being mostly familiar with "open" styles It almost appears that the two styles are meant to counter each other.

Sorry I can't be more helpful.

[Hayden Lapiska]

I believe Di Grasse has some sword and buckler and sword and targe but I dont recall how in depth it goes. I do think there are some good translations out there though.
Does Silver do sword and buckler? That would be ideal.

[Jon Pellett]

Silver does have sword and buckler, and his is the earliest native English source for it that I know of, apart from artwork and literary references. He is specifically talking about the basket-hilted broadsword, but it should work for cross-hilted sword as well with some minor adjustments (IMHO).

His instructions on the subject consists of a single sentence (Brief Instructions, Chapter 9), which says that you should use sword and buckler in the same way as sword and dagger. However, while sword and dagger should parry blows and thrusts double (that is, with the the sword and dagger together), with the sword and buckler you can parry blows and thrusts single (with the buckler alone) or double. He says that it is a great advantage to be able to do both rather than rely on only one.

So IMHO Silver did not want you to keep sword and shield together all the time, but he certainly keeps them together for some techniques.

Interpretations of Silver tend to vary a lot, nobody really agrees about him, but he certainly stands upright most of the time and uses a lot of parries. Depending on how you interpret I.33 and Silver they could look somewhat similar or completely different.

As for exactly where Terry got his stuff, I don't know, but he certainly used Silver and a range of later backsword sources, and I think he used literature and artwork as well.

[Stacy Clifford]

Di Grassi does include a few pages of sword and buckler. Although it's not a native English source, it was translated into English and published there in 1594, so it was known and used in England during George Silver's time. There's a fairly good possibility he knew about it. I haven't done much with that section yet, but it mainly focuses on keeping the sword and buckler separate from what I recall. It's a good idea to read the earlier sections of the book to understand Di Grassi's general principles before tackling that section, since he builds on earlier advice as he goes.

[Tim Gallagher]

Thank you for the information gentlemen, plenty to think about there.

I am already reasonably familiar with the differences between the earlier German sources (1.33 and co.) vrs. the later Bolognese ones. Roland Warzecha has kindly pointed out to me the practicality of standing upright and leaning forwards a little when using the longer Bolognese sword as opposed to the very low forward-leaning stance required by the shorter medieval sword (and messer, etc).
I was just rather curious where the any English stuff fitted into this continuum. It seems it rather depends, and is further complicated by the addition of basket hilts and the possibility of using a dagger in leiu of a buckler.
Once again, thank you for the pointers, they will be added to list of subjects to be researched.

Tim