Thank you.

Thanks for your questions. Here are my replies: 1.I have actually, for many years, not considered I.33 being any help with reconstructing earlier sword & shield systems. However, having examined many original artifacts over the years, and having progressed considerably with the reconstruction of I.33, I have come to the insight that there are crucial commonalities, and there even is according evidence for continuity (not surprisingly, really!) in earlier sources, some dating back to the 9th century (take a look here, for instance: www.patreon.com/posts/i-33-to-in-foot-21497215 ). 2. The Icelandic sagas, even though describing events set in the Viking Age, were only written down some 200 years later. I find the descriptions of violent encounters very interesting. However, they are not at all contemporary. When it comes to fighting details, they probably tell us more about feuds between 13th century Icelandic farmers than about the Viking Age. 3. I pressure-test my fighting skills against people from all sorts of backgrounds all the time, and you are welcome to join them. You can also always find me at the Berlin Buckler Bouts. Come and find out yourself, would be a pleasure. You would not be the first ones. However, I usually do not video-record such sessions for two reasons: Those fights tend to make the other party look clumsy or foolish. The encounters are usually short and not particularly appealing to watch. I will not present such material to prove my point. In fact, I do not have to prove anything to anybody. I am only interested in improving my skill at arms and learn more about historical swordsmanship. Hope this helps. All the best, Roland

@@swordandshield Greetings. Thanks for answering. I looked through your link - there is nothing about fencing in the 9th century) There is an illustration from the Psalms, but you! you see in it (and speak only about it) a certain medieval gait. And on the basis of this, we conclude that the fencing of the 14th and 9th centuries is similar. This is a VERY controversial statement. And a very weak source, though. (I am a history teacher by education and am familiar with the program of "analysis and criticism of sources") That's right. Many Icelandic sagas describe exactly the events of 9-10 centuries. Moreover, some of them, with great historical and chronological certainty. Why do we exclude the fact that describing combat situations, they described them as characteristic of the 10th century (for example) I saw fights from Berlin Buckler Bouts) There you do exactly the same thing and your opponents do not try to fence with you in a different manner. So - alas - this question remained unanswered) Of course, I understand your position. You are a renowned researcher and fencer. Therefore, even in our community they are so interested in your work)) But in the scientific community it is accepted that when you popularize a thesis, sometimes you have to "prove" it))) Respectfully! Makar

@@Kawaiko13 id like to see this guy pull this off when some one is trying to close the distance and punching with there shield

@Chris Miller Hello I also studied and was a history teacher) I know very well about criticism and analysis of sources. And also, I know that the practice of using sources that are several centuries older for earlier periods is doubtful. Moreover, there are text sources of the 10th century. With descriptions of battles. And there is no such "system" in them. And also, I have been practicing fencing in various forms for 20 years. From the Viking Age to HEMA on different weapons. We have made experiments several times, where I, or my opponents tried to fence on the basis of the I33 manuscript with replicas of shields and swords of the "Vikings" against an opponent who did not fence in this tradition. But he tried not to give the opportunity to such actions. beat in openings and stabbed with a sword. And none of the experiments have yet ended in favor of Roland's theory. The opponent who does not lend itself to such a "game" won in all cases. Practice and theory are different things ( Best regards.

@Chris Miller Thank you for the discussion. I will answer "from the end"))) And in parts. About training weapons. In ancient Russian archeology there are finds of wooden children's swords. Which repeat in their shape steel swords. This is already an indirect confirmation of the fact that they were taught to fight from childhood. True, what was the form (play or something else) - it is impossible to say (

When they switched sides, you could see that the opponent's sword was trapped between the shields. I don't know how effective it would be against a noncompliant opponent, but it works in this demonstration.

@@siestatime4638 I mean even if it is trapped, all the opponent has to do is to pull the blade back and out. That would also help the blade up in a protective guard. I see this as a dangerous move. The opponent gets access to your shield arm, and your sword arm is away from the opponent. You do get out of the situation though, but you can also get out by taking a step back so not sure if it's useful.

@@5chr4pn3ll but by doing so you are giving up the centre to the opponent. So he will dictate what is going to happen next. However since he is now on top anyway you already have lost the initiative. ^^

@@peterspatling3151, also real shield is kinda heavier than training ones, that they use. If you step back, most likely, opponent will need to step forward to regain balance, so his next move will be predictable.

@ Alexander Brayman: Which "real" shields are you refering to?

No stitching as such remains on any shields, only holes near the edge with some finds, e.g. the Gokstad ones.

Speculative. And impractical, just as the 'lesson' was.

I think that's very hard to know considering how few sources there are. It will likely end up in hypothetical "I think..." and "what if's..."

I for one would love to see a reconstruction of Anglo-Saxon combat.

Planks.

He does... in several other videos

@@alexandercocke2303 can u link me to them? Which technique dose he do?

In battle you’re more there to get killed than to kill (Pareto’s 20/80). Where training is mostly about finesse as brutality is short lived for most. Here we still got a close quarter cavalry charge in 1914, I dont know exactly where they came from but it could be close to his part of Europe.

@@2adamast you heard of the Maori battalions bayonet charge in the battle for 42nd street in Crete? My grandfather was involved in that. The killing was so thing that the dead didn't have room to fall down. That was 70 years ago

I understand that this looks like it's all finesse, but that's largely a product of training for maximum efficiency. It's similar to doing form training, katas, even shadow boxing in martial arts. You do them with as much grace and finesse and precision as possible. First train for accuracy, then for speed and power. Not so you can replicate that finesse in the fight, but so you don't end up just flailing when things go wrong. Essentially, you're training to reduce your margin of error. You won't box like you shadow box - you won't even spar that well - but by having this layer of finesse in your muscle memory you prevent truly abhorrent diversions in form.

@@tanegurnick5071 Only the _42nd street_ musical, must have been commonwealth humor.

@@2adamast Australia  New Zealand GermanyCasualties and losses52 killed or wounded280 killed, 3 captured The Battle of 42nd Street (27 May 1941) was a battle fought during World War II on the Greek island of Crete The charge resulted in the Germans retreating over 1,500 metres (1,600 yd).[8] Over 280 Germans were killed and three taken prisoner; 10 Australians from the 2/7th were killed and 28 wounded, while the Maori Battalion suffered a further 14 casualties.[12]