Swords were always for the nobility, and so was sword-training. But even the lowest peasant carried a knife. It might be the only metal object they owned, and was a tool and eating utensil first and foremost. It could be used as a weapon, but was not very effective against a gentry armed with better steel, and with the free time time to train for something that was a badge of their rank.
To this day, elites hate the thought that the common man (at least in America) can posess firearms. The elites don't carry weapons any more, but hire lesser people to carry guns to defend them. But an American commoner with an inexpensive firearm is still a substantial threat to the elites and their guards, despite the fancier weapons and training of the guard.
The Sword & Buckler Tradition - Part 2
There are accounts of sword and buckler practice having been a pastime enjoyed as a form of martial sport by commoners in both England and Northern Italy from the 1200s -1400s and it was also evidently a popular pastime in Germany. We also know “sword and buckler fighting remained a popular spectator sport, particularly in urban areas, well into the 14th century.” (Nicolle, Medieval Warfare, p. 252). The system was also common in judicial combats as one 15th century statement relates that in duels among commoners in France were “only fought with the buckler and baton...” (Gilchrist, p. 32) and in 1455 two commoners in Valenciennes were taught the use of the club and buckler for a judicial combat. . .It is known that English laws from as early as c. 1180 banned schools of fence within the city of London and Edward I, in the Statuta Civitatis London of 1286, ordered fencing schools teaching Eskirmer au Buckler (or eskirmye de bokyler) banned from the City of London –ostensibly to control villainy and prevent criminal mischief associated with such activities.[4] These edicts against the practice were aimed not specifically at swords and buckler fencing itself, so much as the whole teaching of martial arts to a civilian population. A skillful populace after all might be prone to using their arms in resistance against the civil authority. The restrictions were not at all intended to discourage fighting arts in general in England, but to prevent street-fighting among young “sword-men” bravados and to prevent any training in arms of common thugs and ruffians who did not have the desired social conscience to responsibly bear arms safely in good society. . . .By the 1500s the buckler continued to be recognized as a necessary tool of war as well as a foundational system for learning self-defense. Costume books from the 16th century also depict plebian urban youths around Europe wearing swords and bucklers. (Anglo, Martial Arts, p. 324, Note 111). The Bolognese master Achille Marozzo, in his famous 1536 fencing treatise, Opera Nova, made it clear the Spada e Brochiero (sword and buckler) as a foundational weapon suited to both war and common self-defense. . .
Thanks for the info! The question then for the character, who is based in the 18th century, and is of the middle class, is whether or not he would have the opportunity to train for the use of the sword. I am still unclear as to what level someone is determined a gentleman, as there was a rise in the landed gentry in the 18th century and more families prospering to the degree that they could take on 'noble' pretenses. But I am fuzzy on what distinctions would be made. For this character, he is in the 'family business' but has no financial sway over it. So I am not sure if he would have the ability to use his leisure time to study. My thoughts are that he would, since the younger siblings, left without a means of taking up the financial reins often entered into the military. I just havent decided about thsi character. I have let it languish for some time, and in pulling it out, am discovering there are still a lot of holes to be filled