What Type of Arming Sword for Sword-and-Buckler?

[James Brazas]

A few of us in our group were discussing what Oakeshott Type of Arming Sword would be best for Sword-and-Buckler.

I.33 seems to favor the short, stout Type XIV style blade. It can cut and thrust well, but it's short.

Types XV and XVIII seem to have been quite popular later on. They would be longer and better at thrusting. They might lack slightly in the cut, but I don't know for sure.

Outside of the arming sword context, I've seen Talhoffer and Manciolino feature messers and falchions with the buckler. They'd be terrors in the cut, but not as good in the thrust and they are also short.

Sideswords seem to have been preferred later still. They would be very long and good at thrusting with great hand protection, but not as good in the cut.

I thought it would be enlightening to ask all of you on the forums what your opinions would be.

If you were to use one sword type for sword-and-buckler both for civilian self-defense and battlefield combat, what sword type would that be? Which sword would be best at dealing with the widest array of possible enemies? I am assuming you could theoretically fight enemies who are unarmored, maille clad, in full plate, or in partial plate.

[Randall Pleasant]

James

For the sword & buckler of I.33 any type of double edge arming sword can be used, excluding basket-hilt blades. A messer can be used for I.33 but I personally perfer a full double edge blade.

[Jonathan Hill]

Sword and Buckler is a very broad topic and your answer would have a lot of variables. I read a great response out of Roland a while ago (it was buried deep in a thread I can’t find now) about why 1.33 was differing from later sword and buckler, and a lot of the techniques revolve around the specific blade you are using. In summery 1.33 is great for a shorter blade with no hand protection and lightly armored fighting but once you move to a longer blade the techniques are not as ‘optimum’ and when you further go out to a side sword with hand protection the techniques become even less relevant.

When considering armor, you need to consider what armor you are wearing yourself. If you have a metal gauntlet then you need a standard arming sword and the buckler on the 1.33 side is irrelevant to protect your hand with thus you can easily detach it from your blade hand and use it as a shield in the left. You also can’t get an armored hand into a side sword as your gauntlet won’t allow the grip of such a hilt, and even at that the metal rings around the hilt are redundant.

So in the end each blade is made for a purpose and it suits those purposes just fine. I don’t think there is one universal shape that will fill all holes.

[James Brazas]

Randall Pleasant:

So how much benefit is there to having a straight double-edged blade for sword and buckler? I would think there would not be very many short-edge cuts with a one-handed weapon. I could be wrong, of course.

Jonathan Hill:

So I.33 is more-or-less optimized for Type XIV arming swords?

I can also see why gauntlets and sideswords would be redundant.

I'm guessing a Type XV or XVIII arming sword would be the best for sword-and-buckler dealing with armored enemies. Yet it would seem that most sword-and-buckler material is either for Type XIV I.33 style or the later sidesword-and-buckler fighting.

On a related topic, I read that Type XIV blades weren't very good for deep penetrating stabs due to how quickly the blade widens. Does that mean they would be significantly less effective at thrusting against maille or at joints in plate relative to Types XV, XVI, and XVIII? Type XIV sounds great for I.33 style and it sounds like a good balance between cutting and thrusting. But if it can't penetrate armor as well, I can't really see it as a good option for the battlefield.

Finally, for a good all-around arming sword for sword-and-buckler, would a Type XV or XVIII work well? They would seem to be a midway point between the earlier I.33 style and the later sidesword-and-buckler material. Am I on the right track there?

[Randall Pleasant]

Sword and Buckler is a very broad topic and your answer would have a lot of variables. I read a great response out of Roland a while ago (it was buried deep in a thread I can’t find now) about why 1.33 was differing from later sword and buckler, and a lot of the techniques revolve around the specific blade you are using. In summery 1.33 is great for a shorter blade with no hand protection and lightly armored fighting but once you move to a longer blade the techniques are not as ‘optimum’ and when you further go out to a side sword with hand protection the techniques become even less relevant.

I agree that I.33 is different from later sword & buckler but probably not for the same reasons Roland thinks. I also think any one handed arming sword will work fine with I.33. If the blade is too long for I.33 then you probably should be using the blade with two hands.

I strongly suggest getting out of the "best sword for whateve" mode of thinking. The best sword is the one you have in your hand. If you know I.33 then the length of the blade on an arming sword does not matter. It really is a non-factor. I much rather do sword & buckler with a hand-and-half sword than with a dagger!

[Steven Reich]

I strongly suggest getting out of the "best sword for whatever" mode of thinking. The best sword is the one you have in your hand. If you know I.33 then the length of the blade on an arming sword does not matter. It really is a non-factor. I much rather do sword & buckler with a hand-and-half sword than with a dagger!

I would definitely agree with this. One of the interesting things about the various 16th century Italian sources is the variety of the swords in the plates; they range from weapons you'd almost consider rapiers to stout cutting swords and several varieties in between the two extremes. However, the sources don't make any distinctions finer than daggers to one-handed swords to two-handed swords.

If someone insisted, I'd say that some of the actions in 16th century Italian treatises are helped by complex hilts (at least complex enough to safely finger the ricasso and with a ring to protect that back of the hand), but even that isn't strictly necessary. Beyond that, go with what you have.

Steve

[LafayetteCCurtis]

I would think there would not be very many short-edge cuts with a one-handed weapon.

But there are many false-edge feints, and once one gets into the bind a false-edge cut is often a very quick and effective way to get around the opponent's sword.

[Randall Pleasant]

I would think there would not be very many short-edge cuts with a one-handed weapon. I could be wrong, of course.

In my interpretation of I.33 there are a lot of false edge cuts. All right diagonal cuts are false edge.