This edition covers the I.33 plays of Underarm vs. Lonpoint.
As I progress, some of my opinions change, so any article is only a snapshot of my current thoughts. To counter this these descriptions can also be found at WikiDot (http://i33.wikidot.com/start).
The Guard
Longpoint is basically holding your sword out on the same line as your arms. I.33 shows Longpoint at a variety of angles. In the description of the guards at the start of the manuscript, Longpoint is shown perpendicular to the sloped stance, and hence pointing down. For the plays described here, the guard is held horizontal to the ground at shoulder height. However, to counter the expected angle of the Underarm attack, the buckler is rotated over the sword to protect the back of the sword hand. This demonstrates, again, I.33’s contention that no guard is static, and should always be considering the guard your opponent is presenting.
UNDERARM vs LONGPOINT
Plate 12
Text
Here again we resume the First Guard, or Underarm, and it is opposed with a counter called Longpoint. This is a common opposition, and the counters to this opposition, on the part of the one standing in the guard, are bindings below and above. Hence the verse: ‘When Longpoint is adopted, at once bind below and above’. But a bind above will always be more useful than one below.
Notes
Clearly though, from Underarm, the initial bind is limited to being from below.
Image 1.1
The Priest is in Underarm, the buckler level with the Scholar’s sword point. The Scholar is in horizontal Longpoint, with the buckler rotated over the top of the sword arm, to cover the back of the sword hand.
Notes
The buckler is shifted on account of the most likely line of attack from an opponent in Underarm.
Plate 13
Text
Here we will have the play of the First Guard, that is of the one who binds and the one who is bound. Hence the verse:
The one who binds and the one who is bound are contrary and irate;The one who is bound flees to the side; I seek to pursue.
Image 1.2
The Priest’s arms are both extended roughly perpendicular to his sloped body, and hence pointing downwards. The Priest’s sword extends this line, held with knuckles down. The shield hand is held slightly higher the the sword hand, and the buckler covers the sword hand, pointing out to the shield side. As per the verse above, the Scholar has clearly moved, most markedly sideways to the shield side of the Priest. As a result, the Scholar’s buckler has been rotated back across the sword arm and is now pointing to the Scholar’s shield side too. The scholar’s arms are also roughly perpendicular to his body, leaving the bucklers at the same height. However, the Scholar’s sword slopes down markedly from the Scholar’s hand, such that it it is roughly perpendicular to the Priest’s sword. They both appear bound about a third of the way from the hilt. The orientation of the Scholar’s hand is hidden, so the sword may have simply been dropped, presenting its false edge, or, more likely, rotated, to present the true edge to the bind.
Notes
To have reached this position, from the one in the first image, the Scholar has had to move substantially to his sword side. The verse implies that the movement was to escape the bind induced by the Priest, rather than moving ahead of being bound.
The Priest’s attack from Underarm would be substantially the same as that when attacking against Half-Shield, rotating his sword to bind with the false edge against the underside of the Scholar’s sword. This move can be delivered with substantial force. It would not be difficult for the Scholar to disengage his horizontal sword over the top, possibly also using momentum from the attack against him, and then dropping the sword on the other side. Simultaneously, the Scholar must step to his sword side and rotate the buckler to defend against the threat now on the opposite side to which it started.
Given the lower than horizontal position of the Priest’s sword, it seems likely that the Scholar in the initial stage, actually lowers the Longpoint to meet the incoming attack, and indeed this is shown in the next set of images. This would also provide more room for the Scholar to move and flee the bind.
In light of how this sequence finishes, it is notable how low the Scholar’s guard is during this image, leaving the head unprotected. However, raising the sword would give the Priest the advantage of leverage, and most likely the opportunity to thrust at the Scholars belly.
Image 1.3
The Scholaer is in essentially the same position as the previous image. The Priest now has his buckler against the Scholar’s, clearly as a Shield-Strike. The Priest’s sword is level with the Scholar’s head, almost horizontal with the knuckles, and true edge facing upwards.
Notes
The Priest has Shield-Struck, apparently almost directly sideways, rather than trying to force the Scholar’s hands down. This is accompanied by a rising cut to the Scholar’s face with the true edge of the Priest’s sword. The Priest will have had to have moved quickly to achieve this, as the Scholar, in fleeing the bind, will be moving away from the Priest, making an effective Shield-Strike difficult, as well as liable to leave the Scholar moving out of range even after an effective Shield-Strike.
Plate 14
Text
The First Guard, and the common opposition as above. But the play is different at the end of the sequence.
Image 2.1
The Priest is in Underarm. The Scholar is in horizontal Longpoint, again with the buckler rotated over the sword arm to cover the back of the sword hand.
Text
<over the Scholar>. Superior
<over the Priest> Inferior. But the Priest bound, even though he is inferior.
Notes
The text above is very precisely positioned over the combattants in the image below: superior over the Scholar, and inferior over the Priest. The Royal Armouries translates the Latin ‘superior’ as simply ‘above’, and ‘inferior’ as ‘below’. In Latin these words are comparative, and at the very leasy convey a sense of higher and lower, and in my opinion are also chosen to convey the concept of stronger and weaker.
Image 2.2
The Scholar’s position is largely unchanged from Longpoint, arms still horizontal, with his sword now pointing down about 30°. The Scholar’s buckler is still protecting the back of his sword hand. The Priest’s arms are horizontal, with his sword at a 45° amgle, although the hand is hidden behind the buckler. The Priest’s stance is also a little more upright than usual, certainly about half as sloped as the Scholar. Perhaps unexpectedly, the Priest’s sword is on the shield side of the Scholar’s sword (as viewed by the Scholar), and hence also behind the Scholar’s buckler position. The Priest’s buckler is not rotated, pointing to the Priest’s shield side. Thus, both bucklers are pointing in the same direction. The bind is just past the half-way point on the Scholar’s sword, and about a third of the way from the Priest’s hilt.
Notes
The relative position of the Priest and Scholar’s swords shows that a significant sideways movement has occurred. A static attack by the Priest would place his sword on the other side of the Scholar’s sword, where the Scholar’s buckler is still covering the expected line of attack. One would expect the Scholar to have rotated his buckler back if he had initiated the movement, so the implication is that the sideways movement was initiated by the Priest.
Therefore, the Priest has started his attack and then stepped to his sword side in order to take himself off the line of the Longpoint and allow the attack to bind from that side. This would also require rotating around the Scholar so that the swords bound, rather than just passing. The initial attack must progress enough, without movement, to convince the Scholar before the step is made, otherwise the Scholar will just follow, rather than defend the expected attack.
For the Priest’s sword to bind at the drawn angle, the attack must be a straight arc with the true edge presented for the bind. Rotating the blade for a false edge bind would end up nearly horizontal and be better for beating the Longpoint away, which is not the goal.
Despite missing the sideways movement, the Scholar has dipped his sword to meet the attack. The text makes clear that the Scholar is still in the stronger position, with his sword over that of the Priest.
Plate 15
Image 2.3
The Scholar has dropped his arms so that they now are in line with the sword at about 30° from the horizontal, recreating the initial Longpoint. The Scholar’s buckler has now been rotated back to the default position on the shield side of his sword hand, facing to the shield side, now covering against the Priest’s sword.
The Priest’s sword has been depressed, now pointing down at about 60° from horizontal, but the Priest’s arms are still horizontal from the shoulders. Thus, only the sword is depressed.
The swords are both bound at about the halfway point.
Notes
The relative positions of the opponents are very similar to that in Image 2.3 in the plays of Underarm versus Half-Shield, although the swords are a little lower. The Scholar has the stronger position, and is pressing the advantage, but the Priest is giving way only with the sword, leaving his arms and hands above the bind, rather than being rigid and having his arms forced down with the sword.
Text
Here is executed a change of the sword that lies below.
Image 2.4
The Scholar is in Longpoint, now at about 45°, and his buckler has now rotated over the sword arm again to protect the back of the sword hand, facing the sword side.
The Priest is in essentially the same Longpoint, except that his buckler his rotated under his sword arm.
The Priest’s sword is now bound above the Scholar’s, bound about halfway down, with the Scholar’s bound about two thirds of the way from the hilt.
Notes
This image is essentially identical to Image 2.4 in the plays of Underarm versus Half-Shield. The Priest has ‘changed his sword’, executing the same manoeuvre to gain the superior position above the Scholar’s sword. In short, the manoeuvre is a moulinet, or tramazzone, using the momentum imparted by the Scholar’s press to take control, simultaneously rotating the buckler under the sword arm. As in the previous instance, the Priest needs to take care that the Scholar does not take ‘good advice’ and thrusts, especially if the Scholar responds quicker than is presented in this example..
I.33 does not bother to go beyond this point, having already covered this previously.
At the point of the initial attack, and at the successful change of the Priest’s sword, the Scholar could flee the bind as presented in the first play. That would be premature in the first case, but a good option for the latter.