TAMA Pensum II – III.

Tower FechtBuch – Theory, Footwork &

History

A Partial, Possible Interpretation of the I.33 Manuscript

By
Lord Jester of Anglesey
John (Tony) Jordan

Synopsis:

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
1
 TAMA Pensum II – III. Tower FechtBuch – Theory, Footwork &
History

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 13th and 14th 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.

My Methodology and Results:

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
2
 TAMA Pensum II – III. Tower FechtBuch – Theory, Footwork &
History

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 1st 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 1st 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.

3
 TAMA Pensum II – III. Tower FechtBuch – Theory, Footwork &
History

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.

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.

4
 TAMA Pensum II – III. Tower FechtBuch – Theory, Footwork &
History

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.

5
 TAMA Pensum II – III. Tower FechtBuch – Theory, Footwork &
History

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.

6
 TAMA Pensum II – III. Tower FechtBuch – Theory, Footwork &
History

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
7
 TAMA Pensum II – III. Tower FechtBuch – Theory, Footwork &
History

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.

8
 TAMA Pensum II – III. Tower FechtBuch – Theory, Footwork &
History

Image 5

Conclusion:

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.
Bibliography:
AEMMA Website
http://www.aemma.org
-This website is a treasure trove of original documents and links to other collections and
researchers.

ARMA Website
http://www.thearma.org
-This website has number of useful articles on the sword and buckler tradition as well as some
facsimiles of historical documents.

Dieter Bachmann‟s Website

http://freywild.ch/i33/i33en.html
-This website contains a complete transcription of the I.33, a complete translation into
German, a partial translation into English, and color images of the manuscript.

9
 TAMA Pensum II – III. Tower FechtBuch – Theory, Footwork &
History

Forgeng, Jeffrey, The Medieval Art of Swordsmanship, Union City: Chivalry Bookshelf,
2003
-This book contains color images and a complete transcription of the manuscript as well as a
complete English translation.

Swordforum Website
http://www.swordforum.com
-This website has a discussion forum where I routinely speak to other, much more
accomplished, students of the I.33.

Wagner, Paul and Stephen Hand, Medieval Sword and Shield, Union City: Chivalry
Bookshelf, 2003

-This book contains a complete interpretation of the manuscript.

This Document is allowed for Public Domain – TAMA Pensum 2010

10