Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2008 6:45:23 GMT
Okay I'm just going to throw this out for discussion......it came to me the other day that warriors throughout history who were armed with swords were often also equipped with shields, first as a defense against whatever the enemy was using against them, but also, I postulate, to protect them against accidental cuts from their own swords, which certainly could have been made easily enough in the chaos of battle. It's tough to cut yourself when half your body is covered by you own shield.
So what do we think about this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2008 7:57:20 GMT
Well, since mail+leather+padding=protection againt somebody ACTIVELY trying to kill you, I doubt accidental cut would have been much of an issue outside the OMFG freak accidents. And if you study the sword and buckler styles, you will note that there is very little chance of accidently cutting oneself. Once you get the body mechanics down, it rarely happens with sword and shield. Now with my dao techniques...I end up hitting myself in the head still...pretty often. That's why I like jians better .
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Nov 26, 2008 15:39:55 GMT
once again I agree with Cold Napalm: if you use your sword properly there is little risk of cutting yourself even if doing SCA style wrap shots. I have several cutting and dry-handling videos on this subject but cannot provide a link at this time since I'm at work and cannot access youtube. my youtube user name is ianflaer just like here so take a look.
on the other hand a shield could be used to attack. I've been hit be them before and even though it doesn't do a lot of actual damage to an armored person it does stun you considerably. most shields are 8-ish pounds and some are more and that is a heck of a lot of mass to get slammed with.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 26, 2008 19:12:04 GMT
Most shields were NOT 8lbish....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2008 3:00:15 GMT
As for shield weight...we need to figure out what kind of shield we are talking about before we can assign average weight. An 8 lb buckler is loo heavy. An 8 lb roman legionaire tower shield is too light.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 27, 2008 3:24:12 GMT
Let me preface this coming argument by saying SCA shields are not anywhere near historically accurate.
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Nov 27, 2008 3:53:21 GMT
Let me preface this coming argument by saying SCA shields are not anywhere near historically accurate. I have to only because I've been down this debate a few times. As loath as any might be to consider SCA material, here is a set of tables some might actually find some interesting statistics in reading. www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cariadoc/shield_and_weapon_weights.htmlWhile an SCA shield may be woefully innacurate for any given example, using anything as any absolute is (to me) generally poor research. This one began with "most shields were not 8lbs" and then excuse the remark that SCA are historical inaccurate? I may be detecting less consideration than one might. Cheers Hotspur; not the only set of tables for shields but I found that one useful and handy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2008 3:54:21 GMT
Let me preface this coming argument by saying SCA shields are not anywhere near historically accurate. That I agree with...mostly anyways. Most SCA shields are 1/4 inch plywood. Not anywhere near accurate. And the most popular shield style around here is the 24"x24" square shield...which I am fairly certain is not historical. In fact I kinda started that trend many years back because I was being too dang lazy to cut out the bottom of a bunny aka winkle(sp?) shield. Of course there are some who do actively make more accurate shields. But they are far and few around here.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 27, 2008 4:01:12 GMT
Let me preface this coming argument by saying SCA shields are not anywhere near historically accurate. I have to only because I've been down this debate a few times. As loath as any might be to consider SCA material, here is a set of tables some might actually find some interesting statistics in reading. www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cariadoc/shield_and_weapon_weights.htmlWhile an SCA shield may be woefully innacurate for any given example, using anything as any absolute is (to me) generally poor research. This one began with "most shields were not 8lbs" and then excuse the remark that SCA are historical inaccurate? I may be detecting less consideration than one might. Cheers Hotspur; not the only set of tables for shields but I found that one useful and handylooking at the site I stand by my comment. Those shields were, for the most part, under 8 lbs. And I'd say 8lbs is on the light side of SCA shields. Would you disagree that the average SCA shield is much heavier than the average historical shield?
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Nov 27, 2008 4:16:26 GMT
I have to only because I've been down this debate a few times. As loath as any might be to consider SCA material, here is a set of tables some might actually find some interesting statistics in reading. www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cariadoc/shield_and_weapon_weights.htmlWhile an SCA shield may be woefully innacurate for any given example, using anything as any absolute is (to me) generally poor research. This one began with "most shields were not 8lbs" and then excuse the remark that SCA are historical inaccurate? I may be detecting less consideration than one might. Cheers Hotspur; not the only set of tables for shields but I found that one useful and handy looking at the site I stand by my comment. Those shields were, for the most part, under 8 lbs. And I'd say 8lbs is on the light side of SCA shields. Would you disagree that the average SCA shield is much heavier than the average historical shield? What on earth does the original poster have to do with the SCA? While you are considering that article from almost twenty years ago, you may have missed the point (or not) about averages per sq foot. The article itself revolved about marshalls and restrictions but the data is there (as old as it is). Maybe I'm lost but it seems to me you are more concerned about anyone with the SCA than the original premise. I honestly don't get the tangent you have drawn here unless you are saying that SCA participants have nothing to offer in the discussion regarding shields. Go figure. Hotspur; somehow I thought there was a different motive
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2008 9:08:13 GMT
Actually Rammy, SCA shields tend to be lighter then actual shield. Most SCA shields that are the size from the article weight around 4 lbs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2008 10:27:47 GMT
Okay I'm just going to throw this out for discussion......it came to me the other day that warriors throughout history who were armed with swords were often also equipped with shields, first as a defense against whatever the enemy was using against them, but also, I postulate, to protect them against accidental cuts from their own swords, which certainly could have been made easily enough in the chaos of battle. It's tough to cut yourself when half your body is covered by you own shield. So what do we think about this? I think that isn't plausible. When swinging a sword in battle, there is no chance of hitting yourself. Also, there is not one single report of an incident like that. These things happen in Fantasy RPG but not in reality.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 27, 2008 12:36:25 GMT
Actually Rammy, SCA shields tend to be lighter then actual shield. Most SCA shields that are the size from the article weight around 4 lbs. Not in my experience at all. It's common for them to be well over 10 lbs, thick, and bulky. Hotspur, the memebers arguing this point are SCA members.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2008 14:05:07 GMT
Shields primary function is to protect the bearer, and in a pinch it is a deadly force weapon. Not everyone had complete gear even if part of an army (either levied or professional), so my best guess is that a whack of an 8lb shield to one's skull might crack it mightily.........so it does warrant death if hit by one...............even with armor (mail) a mighty blow might fracture or injure the opponent. And lastly, let's stick to the thread and bygone the shield weight controversy
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 27, 2008 19:12:39 GMT
Shields primary function is to protect the bearer, and in a pinch it is a deadly force weapon. Not everyone had complete gear even if part of an army (either levied or professional), so my best guess is that a whack of an 8lb shield to one's skull might crack it mightily.........so it does warrant death if hit by one...............even with armor (mail) a mighty blow might fracture or injure the opponent. And lastly, let's stick to the thread and bygone the shield weight controversy Even the poorest soildiers wore some sort of head protection...usually.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2008 20:13:09 GMT
...so my best guess is that a whack of an 8lb shield to one's skull might crack it mightily.........so it does warrant death if hit by one...............even with armor (mail) a mighty blow might fracture or injure the opponent. ... AFAIK there is not one single report that such an incident might had ever happened. My guess is: in sports sword fencing or in reeanctment sword fencing we try not to suffer pain. Getting hit by a shield hurts. It does not break bones, it doens't kill you, it just hurts. So it's nasty if you get a whack with a shield. But it's completely useless in real combat when you try to kill an opponent. We tend to take our experiences in reenactment sword fencing for the real thing. Which it isn't. For hitting an opponent you've got a sword. It's not the job of a shield to swing it against an opponent. It won't have any useful result. If it had such a result, we would know from the sources. But nothing like this has ever been written down, told or whatever. To me, this is just fantasy. Sorry. If you know some sources that tell of any battles where warriors killed their enemies with swinging their shields instead of their sword, I'd be glad to learn from you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2008 20:13:35 GMT
A shield bash on it's own most likely won't kill. However it will stun you long enough to get killed. Although if your in a shield line, you really shouldn't be shield bashing anyways as that is a great way for your line to fall. This is more for duels or skirmish.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Nov 27, 2008 22:37:48 GMT
ok, when I said most are about 8 pounds that was being a little more specific than I really wanted to be. I'll rephrase: Shields in medieval warfare tended to be rather heavy and 8 pounds or more would not be an unreasonable weight. bucklers, certainly would be less but they would still be several pounds and often were made of all metal while your typical knightly shield was wooden. no matter what the shield, it's weight would be significant and enable a powerful shocking blow. unless the shield used is one of the types that has a spike it is unlikely that being hit by a shield in and of itself will cause a fatal wound to an armored foe. however, the concussive force of the blow will most likely be sufficient to stun him long enough to allow killing blow from a weapon. I think my first statement is still valid, just that it lost some "punch" (pun intended) in an effort to be succinct. the average weight of SCA shields really doesn't hold much bearing on historical shield weight, but I there are SOME SCA shields that very much DO resemble the historic equipment. it all depends on the individual who made the shield and what their goal was in the making.
as for weight, I doubt historical shields would be too much heavier than 8-12 pounds since they were being carried by human beings and not gorillas and I doubt that they would weigh much less than 6-8 pounds with the exception of shields designed to be small such as the buckler. I feel that since we don't have any historical accounts of the techniques involved with larger shields many historical societies ignore them as non-historical. this is a shame too since it is obvious that larger "heater" "kite" and "scuta" type shields WERE used just to name a few, but go ahead and start to TALK about them and someone is going to jump down your throat. it is easy to see in tapestries and other pictoral representations of the times, from the times what the approximate size and shape of these shields were. it is also easy to extrapolate what materials they would likely have been made of. once you get to this point there only really remains the smaller details to work out. I think many of the knightly shields made by SCA and other people who have attempted to faithfully recreate the historical item can be said to be pretty accurate, and in those cases that I have seen the shields tended to weigh 7-10 pounds. no, we have no hard and fast historical data backed up by surviving artifacts (at least to my knowledge), but it isn't that hard to figure.
sorry to rant but I dislike the attitude that SCA equipment automatically HAS to be historically innacurate. many SCA fighters are very faithfull to history and study hard and accept disadvantageous equipment and techniques in order to more faithfully represent the history. I even more dislike the idea that just because there isn't hard evidence that we cannot figure something out. figuring things out is humanity's survival trait, we're good at it let us do it.
now one more thing: other uses for the shield. it is well established in I.33 that a buckler can be used to create openings through which your opponent may be attacked. I don't see any reason why a larger heavier shield could not also be used to create opening through which to attack. the weight of the shield would lend itself well to generating enough force to overcome your opponent's physical strength and a shield bash could certainly be a powerful tactic. physics worked just as well before newton wrote his theories about them as after. and a large shield is physical monster. also aren't there written accounts of Roman shield work involving great amounts of concerted pushing? wasn't it the fall of the Roman empire that created the Dark Ages that set conditions up for the middle ages to exist? therefor wouldn't Roman accounts count for something (assuming we have them, which I think we do).
no offense intended to anyone involved I just want to rebut.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2008 6:58:37 GMT
The shield does offer some protection to oneself against any on-side strike that will naturally flip over at some point and start coming back as a wrap if you miss your target. However, unless you are fighting in a tee-shirt it is not likely that it will maintain enough momentum that it would seriously harm you. When you make cut, you tend to focus the maximum acceleration at some point in the cut. That point may be near the start of the arch, at full extension, or on the wrap around. Unless, I specifically intend the focus point to be at the very end of a wrap it is not likely to come all the way around at me with peak speed. Also, if am making a strike and I miss, I will immediately try to pull the shot back to a defensive guard. That pulling works against reaching peak acceleration at the end of a wrap. In all my fighting experience with sword and shield I have never hit myself. I have done so against a pell, once with a sharp sword and it did not cut through my shirt. I still use a shield when test cutting, because I am wearing just a tee-shirt and I don't want even a minor cut. Medieval people did not wear just tee-shirts, they wore layers of linen. I am particularly conscience of off-side cuts that tend to come close to the head. A shield will not protect against that, a hard-cap is a better choice. Regarding shield weights. The following link should shed some light: www.myarmoury.com/feature_shield.htmlIt puts Greek Hoplons at about 15 lbs and Roman scutums at 22 lbs. In both these cases we are talking about men who average about 5'3". We would have to scale those shields up to the modern average of 5'10". That would likely add another 5 lbs. The Vikings used 30' to 36" rounds made of limewood which is lighter, but they covered that with rawhide which added strength. 8 oz rawhide over a 30" round will bring a weight of a shield well over 10 lbs. I use to fighting in 12 oz leather armor and I abandoned it for lighter linen. Leather really adds weight. In the case where a boss was used, a boss by itself can be over 3 lbs. My aluminum heater is 24"x36" and weighs 9 lbs with edging and the new straps I put on it. The same size in 1/4 inch plywood weights 12 lbs without a mettle rim. If I put a mettle rim on it the weight would probably be closer to 15 lbs. You would be amazed how quickly weight adds up. Imagine if I covered that with some skin too. If anything I would say SCA shields are on the lightside but not that far off.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 28, 2008 7:06:56 GMT
Nothing is said about the weights of viking shields that I can see. Normally, however, these shields were dispensable and not totally expected to survive more than a battle or two. Also, the shield in these times was a lot thinner than onemight expect.
Nothing at all is said about medieval shields in terms of weight as well.
Basically all the info that was provided by that essay is that roman and greek shields are heavy - which is irrelevent to the discussion of medieval shields which, I'm sorry to say, were not large, clunky, and heavy like SCA shields where.
|
|