Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2006 23:29:15 GMT
I would like to talk about shields here. I think the usefulness of the shield does not get enough credit. It seems that hand and half swords or two handers are all the rage. I believe that the majority of swordmen historicly used a single hand sword with at shield.
First lets look at the hoplite shield. Made mostly of bronze with some wood and cloth in there weigthing about 15 lbs. The very word hoplite refers to the shield. The shield had a round bow (concave) shaped serface that allowed the Greek to hang it on his shoulder while fighting to support the weight. They used it with spears in a phalanx formation of overlapping shields. When the spears broke they drew xiphi (short swords). They esentialy formed a wall of shields with spears and swords sticking out. The shield protected them from the neck to the knee. Greaves protected the lower leg and a helmet the head. Breast plates were often worn too as a backup.
The shield was more then a weapon, it was a symbole. The legend goes that when a Spartan mother handed her son the shield she would tell him to return "with it or on it". Greeks often used shields as strechers for the dead. It was considered a disgrace to loose ones shield. A Spartan King was once asked why was it such a disgrace to loose the shield but not ones helmet or breast plate. The king replied, that a man puts on a helmet or breastplate for his own protection but he carries a sheild to protect the whole line.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Dec 9, 2006 0:13:26 GMT
Amen, Thank you for putting this. You are right, of course, on all of your points that I've noticed. However, you seem to have used group formations instead of individuals as examples (eg. hoplites). maybe you might want to elaborate on the shield purpoue as an individual in battle rather than a formation, if you see what I mean?
Other than that, I love this post. I've made 6 shields for myself, 4 large heaters nad 2 smaller heater-shaped fist shields. all are made from woo (not metal as is ommonly supposed) and serve me well in my mock combat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2006 5:00:51 GMT
Funny you mentioned singles combat with the sword and shield I have been researching that for the last week. The Iliad, one oldest literatures, is full of sigles combat with the shield and spear. Infact with a few exceptions it is the main focus of warfare. Most of the wounds are thrusts with the tip. Unfortunatly the Iliad does not give much more detail on the tactics other then they have two spears, the first of which they through. The warriors often ride up in their chariots, ask each other their names so that they don't fight relatives or family friends and then fight singles with sheild and spear. There are very few refences to swords, you will find more references to bows then swords. I suspect that in an age that the metalugy was not capable of producing long swords, they used short spears with wide flat heads for both cutting and thrusting. The reason that in Homer's Iliad they focus on singles combat is because they wanted to gain personal glory. It is easier to be noticed in singles combat when everyone is looking then in a mallie. How do you like my current shield? I got tired of wooden ones breaking all the time in SCA combat, I cut this one out of a 55 gallon plastic barrel. It is about 1/8 of an inch thick and nearly indestructable. A bit lighter then wood.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2006 5:09:44 GMT
And how about those Roman shields. About 22 lbs with a center grip. 4 feet tall, 2 inches wide. The interesting thing is that Roman men were only about 5 feet tall. In many instances they would rest the shield on the ground in front of them, crouch down and fight from behind it. They used shields very effectivly against German horsemen. The first row would hold their shields low and the second row would hold them high. To the charging horse this seemed like a wall and no horse will charge into a wall.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2006 17:01:52 GMT
I love fighting sword and shield, and have found that in single combat and melee it is the easist way to stay alive. Since we are sharing pictures here is one of me that I really like. I chose to fight with a longer shield to help protect my lead leg. At 6'2" there is a lot of let to protect. ;D www.gryphonskeep.org/images/Picture063.jpg
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2006 19:42:21 GMT
I have always loved the Roman shield. It truly is like a wall. There is no cooler sight than when the Romans make their infamous "wall" formation with their shields, then advance right into a storm of blades.
L.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2006 21:05:51 GMT
trueswordsman, nice picture. Very nice armor. I tried fighting in a great helm like that and found the low visibility anoying. I could not see undercuts very well, and if you lean forward to look down...baaam... to the top. I also find that the round tops or cone tops better deflect the blows, but what you have is very period realistic and looks good too.
The shield looks great. I am guessing it is alluminum. I started off with a wooden sheild about that size that was indeed very effective, but my arm would almost fall off. It weighed about 15 lbs. The one I am using now weighs about 8 lbs. It was tough moving from the big shield to the smaller one. I had to learn to move it around a lot more to meet the incoming blows. With the big wooden one, I only needed to protect my head.
I am currently experimenting with a big bad 4.5 lb bastard sword in combination with the shield above. The sword is 4'2" with a 12" handle. I am holding it onehanded and useing it as a regular sword with the shield mostly for defence. A sword this heavy will stop a wack from a pollarm which would normaly go through a lighter sword. The stratagy is extra length against other swords and extra power to go through sword blocks and an uncommited sheild blocks. Against spear and pollarm thrusts I plan to use it as a rapier/buckler. I have 7 inch qillions on each side that I can use to trap a spear and just slide in to the target. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Dec 10, 2006 2:12:05 GMT
Correct me if I'm wrong, this is just personal experience and opinion I find it diffuclt to weild a bastard sword in one hand. This is not because of any deficiency on my part (at least, I hope not!) but because a two handed grip is impractical to use one hand with. Its possible, in fact its relatively easy to do, but you will not get as good results with a bastard sword as a single handed one. This is because the grip is not what gives full control of the sword. it is the sandwiching of the hand against the pommel and crossguard that does. On a bastard sword, there is too much length to do this. I also find that I have more strength indefence with a single handed sword because I can hold it rigidly. here is a test: Take a bastard swod and hold it as tight as you can in one hand. then try to move the blade around while still maintaining a tight rigid grip on the hilt. does it move around a lot? in my tests, it does. Now take a single handed sword ("I" shaped viking/roman hilts work well at this) and try the same test. My results were that I got very little movement. Anyone concur?
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Dec 10, 2006 2:13:31 GMT
Tsafa, that was a great idea to make a shield out of plastic. While obviously not historically accurate it would certainly save you money replacing shields. To date, none of my six shields have broken, but one is severely splintered and another one is a bit battered. the other four are about as perfect as the day I painted them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2006 3:56:15 GMT
The thing about shields (in a military setting, anyway) is that they were directly affected by advancements in armor. The shield became less and less necessary as fuller and fuller plate armor became available. To a soldier in 1150 wearing chain mail and padding, the shield was very important. To the soldier in the 1300's wearing large pieces of plate (legs and arms), the shiled could be made smaller and lighter, as it had less to protect. Not too long after, many soldiers would be wearing breast and back plates in addition to arms and legs, so the shield played an even slighter role. By the middle and late 1400's (what many consider to be a sort of pinnacle for plate armor), the shield was essentially gone, as even a "lowly" infantryman was kitted out with nearly full plate armor in many cases. If you're going to go the sword and shield route, the best way to go, sword-wise, is a single hander. My understanding is that the bastard (hand-and-a-half) and particularly two handers really only became popular at a time when shields were on their way out (consequently, becoming smaller and more maneuverable) or were already essentially gone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2006 21:06:47 GMT
There is a lot of confusion at times with the names of different sword types. They were called different things across a multilingual Europe. I guess that is why they come up with a standard sword typology in the modern era.
Usually I think that when people refer to a longsword they refer to a 15 th century hand and half, highly tapered and light sword. I think the term bastard sword more accurately reflects a 12th and 13th century hand and half sword that still had predominately parallel edges better suited to cuts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2006 16:52:57 GMT
... A Spartan King was once asked why was it such a disgrace to loose the shield but not ones helmet or breast plate. The king replied, that a man puts on a helmet or breastplate for his own protection but he carries a sheild to protect the whole line. That's beautiful!! I prefer the shield/sword combo. Speaking of shields, were there any swords that could do major damage to a shield? What types of shields were the toughest?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2006 22:33:44 GMT
I don't think that any sword could distroy a shield in one shot, but I think that all woooden shields eventualy start breaking apart after being repeatedly hit. My wooden shield lasted about 8 practice sessions. You figure 7 fights each session, and each fight lasting about 10 minutes. It was chipped at the sides and would have been functional for about another 8 sessions I think. Of course, it was not being hit with sharpened swords, but rather wooden, ratttan sword simmulators weighting about 3 lbs. I don't think a wooden shield could last for more then one battle against sharpened swords.
In general it is more efficient to try and get around the shield then crash through it. If you prefer the crash approch, the axe is you best bet. The nice thing about an axe is that you can use it as a hook to pull the shield, then lunge and poke to the face with the point of the axehead.
Most people today use alluminum shields to fight so they don't have to keep replacing them. I use plastic, it has been working well for me, very durrable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2006 20:28:22 GMT
To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
A very cool quote I found.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Dec 31, 2006 22:05:27 GMT
yes, I've seen that quote before in a my armoury member's signature. Interesting though that the roman legions considered that to be of the utmost importance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2007 17:12:37 GMT
And how about those Roman shields. About 22 lbs with a center grip. 4 feet tall, 2 inches wide. The interesting thing is that Roman men were only about 5 feet tall. In many instances they would rest the shield on the ground in front of them, crouch down and fight from behind it. They used shields very effectivly against German horsemen. The first row would hold their shields low and the second row would hold them high. To the charging horse this seemed like a wall and no horse will charge into a wall. 2 inches wide?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2007 23:07:34 GMT
opps. Typo. I ment to say about 2 feet wide. Funny no one picked up on that earlier.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2007 18:46:03 GMT
is there any record of shields being used as weapons also? like with blades on the sides or having sharpened edges? if so i would love to see one.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 4, 2007 18:49:53 GMT
sheidls are effective weapons without having blades and spikes and all of the thing you'd see in fantasy land. A shield is not a stationary object which you hide behind. It can be fluidly moved around, bashed against someone (causing damage), or else its not a shield, rather its just a hunk of wood.
Now, the reason why blades on the side would not work is because most people favored wooden edges as opposed to metal reinforce ones. This is because a swinging blade will get lodged into the side and takes a bit of force to remove. While the person is trying to remove the sword, you can have a split second time of attacking.
But, while a shield can be used for aggressive attacks, it is most often a unit of defense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2007 21:30:06 GMT
Also a horizontal blade on the side, might be more dangerous to your own men. Still, I am sure Romas would have experimented with such stuff and Gladiatorial games.
|
|