Logically, the post apocalypse would be a black powder world, since smokeless powder needs lab conditions to produce, while any old town could create black powder so long as they've got wood, sulfur, pee, and poo through nitrate leeching. Sulfur is the most difficult ingredient to get - because they'd need a mine, but they could use rust to refine it (somehow).
I think it would actually be much more likely than the classic Mad Max set up. Black powder and steam engines are much easier, simpler technology to rebuild than modern nitrate-based explosives and internal combustion engines. Both would also be more feasible for modest-sized survivor communities to create, and would offer significant advantages once the supply of modern ammo and fuel ran out.
right? The Walking Dead literally had a guy fully equipped in riot gear plowing through hallways of zombies for a bit and then they just decided welp, that worked great so let's never do it again!
or polearms. You see them use swords, but with polearms you could kill zombies before they get within arms reach. I think a halberd or glaive would be pretty nice.
@@michaelfranciotti3900 What about a staff? Staff's are the best. Okay trolling a bit, but they are really simple, you'd think everyone in a zombie apocalypse would have a staff or war club with them instead of roaming around unarmed or with just a knife.
@@benjaminwright5936 no dude, staffs ain't bad. Not as good as a polearm with some kind of head, but you got range and they're a lot easier to make/find.
Bucklers maybe, boxing is slightly closer quarter and possibly less tiring than dual welding shields. (bossgiped ones possibly being the Moast desirable for rage, agilety and deversety of options)?
Not too far off, those boxing gloves function very much like small strapped shields (but they're all padding without the hard shell of course.) As Matt points out when boxing was done bare knuckle the guard and everything else was different as a result of not having those shields to fill in space and effectively expand the hands, as well as protect them from damage.
NO NO FUCKING NO I'VE BEEN WRITING A CHARACTER FOR MONTHS WHO USES THIS STYLE IF ANYONE STEALS STEALS MY IDEA I'M HOLDING YOU PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE SIR
But now you know how to use a shield so you can't use this information. But if you can't use the info, then you can make use of the video... Shield inception...
I train Muay Thai, have done so near 4 years now; and prior to that, jiu jitsu for over a year. No Matt, fighters have ALWAYS blocked like that; its called a wing guard, some people call it "combing the hair", some call it many other things but its essentially just grabbing the back of your head while blocking incoming punches(or head kicks) with your forearm/elbow bunched up, presenting both an incredibly hard knot of muscle but with enough give so you dont get hurt blocking anything. The glove itself is only really used to cover the very back of the head, which you ARENT gonna get punched at, though you can definitely get roundhouse kicked there(since the foot whips around the neck and strikes the back of the head on headkicks in muay thai). Blocking, parrying these things are in both bare knuckle and fighting with gloves...only minor adjustments are necessary from one to the other. The sword and targe combo does look look very much like a boxers guard, even guarding the body. If I had to use a sword and shield, if I was trained in swordsmanship like you are, since I already have significant training in Muay thai(and jiu jitsu), I would prefer keeping that shield practically glued to my body and raising to defend the head when needed. I do the same thing in Muay Thai in sparring and training and competition and shadow boxing anyway lol. Its not new to me. Though getting used to fighting in southpaw would be time consuming.
When you discuss mamluke, Persian round shields they do have straps that can be worn over the arms, but it was used in combat with the straps gripped in the hand similar to a center boss shield It was looped over the forearm when loosing arrows or handling the lance as they tended to use the lance with both hands.
Most rotellas and other shields seem to be noticeably larger than the one you show in the Italian manuals of the 16th - 17th century, as you indicate. I have experimented and found that in combat a roughly 30 - 33 cm 12 - 13 inches or so) radius works well and is in agreement with the proportions seen in virtually all of the surviving Italian manuals of the period. Smaller ones require greater skill and increase the chances of errors. They also lower your chances of using them somewhat aggressively by limiting your ability to control the opponents blade. Enjoying your channel. Great stuff.
15 years of SCA combat taught me that in no way are shields intuitive enough for most people if they don't work with them first a bit. Some think they are Magic stones of defense, some forget they are there, some use them as counterbalancers, and new folks (like I did once) do all 3 and get punished for it.
Oh yes very much so, so long as you don't try to get clever it'll be a hell of a lot better than nothing. Same with having a sword vs not having a sword.
I've pondered similar as I've always boxed "fencer," as in right hand dominant southpaw, and, while the point work of foil fencing naturally kept me lead hand focused, I kept finding myself wanting to use my left hand in military sabre. The dagger combo of rapier doesn't make as much sense for sabre, so the shield/buckler came up due to the pairing by Mamelukes & whatnot. Switching back to the orthodox right-handed stance (right leg back) seem to give up reach, so naturally I pondered remaining southpaw using the military sabre style but with the shield held close to the chest and therefore out the way until needed. As for that squared off approaches you briefly mentioned, I can't remember whose channel I saw it, but someone countered a longsword with a buckler & sabre using that tactic. Well, strategically, charging in covering high with both hands when the longsword committed too much to an high action. Otherwise, he stuck to typical sword and buckler, but extending both at the right time did manage to trap the opponent's longsword surprisingly efficiently.
That Mad Max reference reminded me that your shield is about the same size as the hubcaps on a lot of semi-tractor trucks. All you need is a punch, some leather strapping and some pop-rivets.
Block, and Poke is really easy to pick up, in your first melee. (Or melee games.) This is basically the start of Hopletes training, as far as I can tell. Just boffing around the park with boffers, we often get kids and adults coming up, who want to play. We stop, pick sides, line up, and give basic instruction: Here's a Shield, and a Sword. Even if we didn't bring any polearms, because let's face it, they're cumbersome to carry out to the park. Block, and poke can be picked up in seconds. It's not going to turn you into D'ardagnan, scheduling 3 honor duels back to back, but in a line, it'll make the typical 8 year old reasonably effective.
I was once in a LARP battle where swords and foam dart guns were allowed and I held the gun in the same hand as the shield. It worked well because I could use the sword and shield well and having the ability to shoot from behind the shield was effective against multiple opponents.
I'm used to switching weapon sets - I'd change my stance and footwork to make the shield more effective, presenting the shield arm forward a bit more to cover more angles and using passing steps, although I don't prefer strapped shields of any sort. I'd be putting a center grip on that if my life depended on it.
@Matt please do another shield video! Comparison of flat to domed, and sizes too, I have a buckler, and I’m always amazed at how well it works despite its small size!
That's actually the same thing I came up with for using two sabres; I saw some video of 2 vs 1 sparring with sabres, and the person who was alone had two swords(might even have been on this channel) but as they were doing military sabre, they didn't really get much use out of the off-hand weapon. So I started thinking what one should do with two sabres, and I came to two possible ways to use them: 1) drop the sabre style and use them like sideswords as that way your body is squared toward your opponent and you can more easily use both of them, or 2) turn the off-hand one around and hold it facing down in the boxer's stance, that way you can block with it or punch with the hilt while basically fencing with a single sabre in the way you are used to.
Matt, this was an awesome video concept, perfectly executed. Please contact Superdry and persuade them to fund Mad Max Meets The Crimean War the movie!
Excellent points, Matt. As always. I always enjoy your comments. Interesting info about broadsword and shield stance. A lot of HMB duel fighters adopt a similar stance. I've done it in my practice and it works well. Holding the shield up with the left hand level with your shoulder is also a fantastic position to punch with the shield at the opponents sword hand. If the shield counter gets close enough to their hand it closes off lots of attack lines and physically pins their arm momentarily. Long enough to create an opening for a counter attack.
About stopping bullets: a round bullet from a black powder musket or pistol looses power quite fast, at least compared to a modern gun. At really close range - a few meters - they can be very powerfull. But as soon as you come to any more then 5 - 10 meters, the round bullet will loose speed and effect very fast. A pistol obviously loose the speed faster then a musket. To stop a stray bullet with a shield is possible, with some luck.
They don't lose velocity that quickly. At 75 yards I find that my shot regularly penetrates completely through a deer. In my area, mature bucks average 150-180 lbs. So that's a pretty good analogue for a regular sized man. I use 100gr of FFg powder behind a .50 cal ball, so at long range I'm carrying less energy than military muskets, which tended to be .58 to .69 cal
Jack Kardic - I was thinking more in line with the possibility for a shield to stop a bullet and in comparison with a modern gun. There are a few caviats about that: you had to be lucky. And you had to be some distance away. And you probably needed to be hit at an angle. Thing is, body is soft human or bucks alike, and an old black powder gun usually had a large bore, wish create a large hole. But at 75 yards the black powder gun with a round bullet will have lost significantly more of its speed then a modern bullet from a modern gun (lets say a 7.62x51, wish is a Nato caliber). If you would do a serious penetrering test with ballistic gel at - lets say - 10 yards, 20 yards, 30 yards, 60 yards and 100 yards with a black powder smooth bore pistol, smooth bore musket, a 9 mm glock and a rilfe chambered for 7.62 nato, you would see that the difference between old and new increased rappidly the longer from the barrel the bullets came. The last two distances you would be lucky to even hit a target with a black powder smooth bore pistol, even if the thing was bolted down on a rig. There are several reasons for this: a round ball is not the most efficient aerodynamic shape. It creates lots of drag and turbulence, wish slows it down faster then a better design; there are also a lot of windage on any black powder weapon with round bullets by necessity. That means the thing does not come out of the barrel in a completley stable course, wish affect both speed and control. Rifled muskets get marginally better results here, but was never big in military circumstances (yes, they did exist, but wasnt issued en masse) in the late 18th century/earliest decade of 19th century. And the minnie ball didnt show up until later (1848-ish), wish is kind of the wrong period.
A pistol ball and a musket ball lose speed at the same rate. The BC of a round ball doesn't magically change just because you shoot it out of a different gun. These guys break it down way better than me. www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=modernheritage.net/Scott_etal_2017.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjThNiriM7cAhVNUK0KHRH_B3IQFjAZegQIABAB&usg=AOvVaw0wtKt4QkEa0pHvtL4rnKnh
Pistols have less muzzle velocity than rifles - barrel length has a major effect on chronometer speed. And while 75 meters is likely farther than 18th and 19th century combat distances, a battle is exactly the kind of place where stray shots can hit you from hundreds of meters away. www.luckygunner.com/lounge/revolver-velocity-vs-barrel-length/
I have been watching the turkish dramas Dirilus Ertugrul and it's sequel Kurulis Osman and have been impressed by the shieldwork shown, not just as a defensive but also an offensive weapon in group combat, if someone ( man or woman) lose their swords, the shield , grabbed by two hands, is swiped, thrown or backhanded, even downswiped on an opponent lying on the ground ( throat smash).I have no idea who their chorographer is, but the fight scenes are impressive, individual and melee
I've always wondered, how much training did the average British Army infantry officer have during the Napoleonic wars? Was there a culture of learning to fence in the nobility or would they have had to pick it up when they joined their regiment?
Whoaaa.. I like that shield... Wish it was a bit thicker.. oh and bigger like you say... But more thickness more me... But I like the look and the style... I like the shinny aspect. Gives me kool ideas for defense
Matt- Appreciate the comments with regards to a boxing stance, but boxing is something I somewhat know something about, and competition gloves really aren't all that big. It ranges from 8 to 12 oz, depending on your weight, which basically means you're wearing a glorified winter chopper. You may as well not even be wearing anything. Defensively speaking, competition boxing gloves aren't that protective against incoming strikes, and certainly don't come close to the capabilities of any type of shield. A traditional gloved boxer's stance is an evolved response to a specialized fighting system that only targets the waist up, and with the reinforcing to the hand provided by wraps and a glove it heavily encourages head-hunting. Bareknuckle fighters of the past seem to have largely targeted the body, which is why their traditional stances are closer to a modern MMA fighter's stance- hands lower. With no hand protection, striking bony skulls leads to broken hands. It's much safer to body punch.
I've found the most practical use of a shield or buckler, when paired with a more modern system like saber, is to use to defend from an after blow. It also allows you take more risky attacks, as you'll have additional protection recovering.
There was a form of the ancient Greek Pelte that was pretty damn similar to the Rotella as well, in essence a miniature Aspis, used by a variety of troops, including Phalangites.
As I said, a *variant* of the Pelte. Pelte is just a word for "small shield". The thing you are talking about is entirely different, and probably wasn't even used by the Greeks all to frequently, but by neighbouring cultures. Google "Peltophoroi" to see some depictions from a game that takes historical accuracy almost a bit too seriously, you'll see what sort of shield I mean.
That game (well, game mod, actually) has a lot more historical research behind it than any documentary in the past 20 years or so. Also note it takes place in the Hellenistic/Early Roman period, so long after Xenophon's life, the Peloponnesian War, etc.
I understand, as I said, we are talking of two fairly different things from two very different approaches and this is pretty pointless. At least, it made me dig in my old uni researches folder for good memories so thank you for that.
You could quite easily attach a strap from one side of the reverse side to the opposite side and carry it on your back. It. It would have to be loose enough to get your head through it so the strap rests across a shoulder.Doable at a pinch I would say.
Thanks for the video. You should definitely follow through and do a video on why you like your strapped shield. Some people probably don't realize just how different they are ("a shield's a shield right?") and of those that do it seems like most tend to favor the boss-grip, for range and versatility. What are the advantages to the strapped?
This kind of strapping let's you hold and use your shield on horseback, while also holding the reins. On foot I think center grip would be more effective
Interesting. I've been trying to use buckler (I.33 style) with a saber. Even a smaller shield works well that way. I like the ideas with the larger shield here. Steel shield with a liner - leather, kevlar ;) - could be made even more bulletproof without too much extra weight, I wonder... It would be interesting to have a set of straps that would allow you to use your hand to either control the shield more or push through to still hang on your arm while using, say, a revolver in your left hand. That would seem to be the best of all possible options.
Possibly, but I suspect that it would require a lot of Kevlar in the shield to make it truly bulletproof and a lot of Kevlar means a fair amount of weight. I don't know how much a regular steel or wood shield weighs but the old PASGT helmet from the '80s weighed from just over 3 pounds to a tad over 4 and they weren't really bulletproof. They'd stops shrapnel and shell splinters with no problem but they generally won't stop bullets, pistols maybe but definitely not rifle rounds. There are, however, newer and better aramids that could potentially be used that would offer better ballistic protection for the same weight as Kevlar. The real problems come from the way that aramids like Kevlar work, great for stupping bullets and shell fragments but not so good against sharp things like swords and arrowheads. For this to really work you'd probably have to make the shield with a layer of something like AR500 steel over the Kevlar (or whatever) liner on the inside. The AR500 would provide protection from melee weapons and some protection against bullets and the liner would provide further protection against bullets. But, to provide any real protection against even handgun rounds it might require a fairly thick piece of AR500 and that means that the shield would be fairly heavy. Of course, you could thin out the AR500 and go with a thicker lining, that might work but I honestly don't know nearly enough about either material to know if you could realistically combine the two materials to get something that's both melee and bullet proof while still being light enough to wield effectively.
Please note the winkie. Also, to stop a large lead ball or the spall from it being slowed by penetrating 15~16 gauge steel would not require anywhere near as much as stopping the projectile from a 7.62x39 rifle.
Recently Zna Production made a video on a type of lightweight homemade bulletproof armor with astounding results, maybe with more layers would make a good shield if shaped that way Or ,as i always wondered , put a bulletroopf vest on a large plank with handles and you have a shield
Junichiro Yamashita That wouldn't work very well unless it hard either ceramic or steel inserts because soft body armor deforms when hit. This means that either your planks (if made of wood) stand the chance of splintering or if hand held or strapped to your arm then your arm stands a chance of getting hit hard if a bullet hits the right area. Even though modern body armor prevents a bullet from going into your body there's still a lot of kinetic energy from that bullet and soft body armor doesn't do much to protect you from that kinetic energy which is why it still hurts like hell when shot while wearing body armor.
Pro shield tip: if you want to hold a shield with both sword and a pistol, use the left (shield-bearing) hand to hold your sword by the blade just below the guard. That way, your right hand is free to aim the gun properly and you can get to the sword in practically zero time. You won't be able to guard and point blank someone with a pistol the way you can when it's a pistol and a sword, but it's almost as good.
Considering the blocking of your line of sight with the shield - I think it was Capo Ferro who advises a feint cut to the head to bring the shield up and then going under it because now your opponent cant see your blade anymore.
Never fought with a sword or spear in my life, but I've always been massive on shields. Don't know what it is but they're my favorite 'weapon' besides the arming sword.
I like the experimentation with the opening. Maybe you could create a system where depending on the opening used we can tell how much context you injected into the video.
Ive always wondered about using a shield with the Sabre, as it so usual to get double hits with just a Sabre. (I’m not skilled with a Sabre though, despite the avi I’m a sword and buckler man, that also like the sabre) And I’ve also thought about which type of shield to use. Interesting topic. I can see that a strapped shield might be more useful than a boss held shield with the Sabre though, if we’re not talking about using a buckler.
I feel like anyone who faced an opponent with a shield in melee combat would want one. Sword and pistol isn't an insurmountable disadvantage against sword and shield, but it is a disadvantage if the pistol is no longer loaded. And for officers who need to be focused on command, a shield is super useful. Even today in close quarters urban combat SWAT teams and the military use shields. Today not everyone uses shields, but the person in charge who is giving orders should probably have one.
Reasons I have a rotella shaped riot shield... I feel like that in combination with one of my nylon side swords would be a fantastic 'loadout' for less-lethal civil unrest situations.
Using such a shield makes a ton of sense from a personal safety standpoint, but a significant part of the officer’s role in the nineteenth century was to demonstrate and model utter disregard for personal safety under fire. I admit I speak from a perspective most familiar with the American Civil War, but I can hardly imagine those troops respecting a shield-carrying officer of any rank. Of course by that time firearms were more powerful and there was very little sword fighting of any kind.
A shield would have to made of rather thick & high-quality steel to make it reasonably effective against even pistol balls. 14 gauge mild steel would decent protection against blades but not much good against bullets. Targets of proof existed in the 16th & 17th centuries, but soldiers found them extremely cumbersome because of their weight, so they saw use mainly at sieges & similar.
Sikh infantry in the 1840s often carried tulwars and shields in addition to their muskets and in the melee would sling or ditch the musket and engage British and Indian troops with shield and tulwar.
Bayonet against sword has an advantage? Interesting. I always figured the weight of the firearm would make it more easier for the swordsman to exploit how much faster he is than the bayonet user.
Any sources for something very much like this shield but a little larger? I'm a pretty big guy and a 20inch shield is just too small, might as well use a dinner plate, ha ha. I'd like to find something like this one but, say, 24 inch or so. Any thoughts?
Difficult to be sure, but I think the sword on the left is a richly ornamented Indian or Persian sword Matt has shown in a previous video , probably from the Wallace Collection.
So basically you hold the shield like a japanese sode (rectangular pieces held on the shoulder in the japanese armor) ? Also, what's with the ominous music in the intro? I mean, it sounds "good" but it's a strange change of style.
You probably won't see this, but would you mind doing a video on shields as weapons, in the offensive sense? I'm no fighter, by any means, but surely you can use the shield to bash, knock about and otherwise inconvenience your opponents?
honest question, why didnt people put blades or spikes on shields in front of the fist more often? not particularly long ones but like a katar blade, i cant see how it would realy hinder you mutch wile i would think that with the added weight of the shield you might get through mail with it, also your oponent will be dividing his attention to 2 deadly weapons now instead of 1.
I dont think that you could strike a effective blow against someone with a shild, because, if you use your shild you expose your body more. however im dont realy know a lot about fighting
arian wijkstra Becuase a blade or spike sticking permanently out of the rim of your shield is a danger to yourself when you go to guard your head or if you drop your shield to your side you could hit your thigh. It's also in a position where it could easily get in the way of your sword as you bring it around to your left side. If you just hold a dagger in your shield hand then you can point it out of the way or even drop it if you need to
Imagine walking around with a blade/spike constantly protruding from your shield. It would be really damn dangerous. There would be quite the risk of accidentally stabbing yourself or someone else when you're not even in a fight. I guess you could put a sheath over it, but that means removing it before the fight, combined with more added cost and such. Overall it's just not worth it. Also, a plain buckler to the face will ruin your day more than enough already.
Just a guess, but I'm assuming it would make weapons hitting the shield less likely to glance off it. Also guessing it would be a huge liability for the dudes next to you if you're in some kind of formation. Probably would make the shield more difficult and dangerous to carry, too.
i should have added context, i meant mostly for man to man combat, i have read that in india it was common for a mob of warriors to just charge as a mob rather then a formation just hacking around and looking for individual glory. As for the liability, wen placed in front of the fist i never had problems wile sparring (wooden fake spike ofcourse) iam talking a 10-15 cm blade, not some massive spearhead. This would also be a battlefield weapon so carrying isnt that mutch of an issue i think?
Britisch offers did do a poor job of "staying alive and commande" if they have been twice as likely to die as the lower ranks and needed to be commanded not to have tee in shooting range (afternoon walks do fall in the same category if your uniform is High visibility focused)
I would suggest that it would be bad for the morale of the regular troops. To see his officer having more protection than he does, would generate resentment and distrust in the officers courage. It's sort of the reason for the "battlefield stroll', to make the men see the officers are taking the same chances they are in order to maintain their morale.
I personaly find it hard to fight with a strap held shield of that size. It might be just a personal thing, but I think that strap held shields should be larger, due to them beeing nearer to your body than a boss held shield. Sure, a bigger shield held with straps is fine, but that size should come with a boss. I just wonder how many historical examples of small (round) strap held shields there are. I am aware of the macedonian pelta and some examples of cavalry shields, but those where not made for combat at sword length or were supposed to free up the hand in case of a rider. You talked about indian and near eastern shields beeing similar to yours (and I don't know much about those), but it wasn't very clear to me in which regard. And if that would be the case, there would be the question why? I know that it can be tiering to hold a boss held shield in quite an extend from your body for long and might be easier to hold one with straps for marching or prolonged engagements. What's your opinion on this matter?
I remeber reading that american indians used to stuff their shield with paper obtained by traded books and were quite effective ,to point if being able to stop bullets, one anectode says that a settler , upon inspecting one of them, found if stuffed with the entire Story of Rome.
I see Matt is now ready to go fight Medusa.
He could just use his head.
"Mad Max meets the Crimean War" A Hollywood producer needs to read this.
Ἀντίγονος Makes me think of Dooms Day. m.th-cam.com/video/mJMjiCxHLdg/w-d-xo.html
Joerg Sprave should be the armourer.
Logically, the post apocalypse would be a black powder world, since smokeless powder needs lab conditions to produce, while any old town could create black powder so long as they've got wood, sulfur, pee, and poo through nitrate leeching. Sulfur is the most difficult ingredient to get - because they'd need a mine, but they could use rust to refine it (somehow).
I'm sensing a new Matt Easton t-shirt.
A Guy With Zeratul as His Profile Pic I assume the sulfur mines will be ruled by brutal strongmen and worked by slaves
Mirrorpolished shield, elegant blade, pink attire, unnaturally handsome: Slaaneshi cultist confirmed.
MNK 90 - set flamers to flame
Purge the heretic!
(And then purge whichever citizen has studied enough forbidden lore to identify and name one of the Greater Daenons of Chaos )
Thanks, maybe, I think. Anything but Nurgle.
DAT'S NOT ORKY ENUFF! WAAAGH!!!!
That explains all the sexual jokes.
"Mad Max meets the Crimean War"
I'm intrigued.
I'd watch that.
Time for Matt to option the rights.
Don't you mean Mad Matt?
I think it would actually be much more likely than the classic Mad Max set up. Black powder and steam engines are much easier, simpler technology to rebuild than modern nitrate-based explosives and internal combustion engines. Both would also be more feasible for modest-sized survivor communities to create, and would offer significant advantages once the supply of modern ammo and fuel ran out.
I am always astonished that the characters in zombie apocalypse movies never use shields.
The art of having common sense was lost on screenwriters.
right? The Walking Dead literally had a guy fully equipped in riot gear plowing through hallways of zombies for a bit and then they just decided welp, that worked great so let's never do it again!
or polearms. You see them use swords, but with polearms you could kill zombies before they get within arms reach. I think a halberd or glaive would be pretty nice.
@@michaelfranciotti3900 What about a staff? Staff's are the best. Okay trolling a bit, but they are really simple, you'd think everyone in a zombie apocalypse would have a staff or war club with them instead of roaming around unarmed or with just a knife.
@@benjaminwright5936 no dude, staffs ain't bad. Not as good as a polearm with some kind of head, but you got range and they're a lot easier to make/find.
So boxing = dual wielding shields. All this time there it was, in plain sight.
Duel spiked tages with dirks.
Bucklers maybe, boxing is slightly closer quarter and possibly less tiring than dual welding shields. (bossgiped ones possibly being the Moast desirable for rage, agilety and deversety of options)?
I can already imagine the names for it: Boskk Jab, Testudo Cross, Kite Uppercut!
Not too far off, those boxing gloves function very much like small strapped shields (but they're all padding without the hard shell of course.) As Matt points out when boxing was done bare knuckle the guard and everything else was different as a result of not having those shields to fill in space and effectively expand the hands, as well as protect them from damage.
NO NO FUCKING NO I'VE BEEN WRITING A CHARACTER FOR MONTHS WHO USES THIS STYLE IF ANYONE STEALS STEALS MY IDEA I'M HOLDING YOU PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE SIR
So... now I know how to use a shield if I don't know how to use a shield.
But now you know how to use a shield so you can't use this information. But if you can't use the info, then you can make use of the video...
Shield inception...
The problem with a shield is, that you need the other hand to make rude gestures!
Can still be done with that type of shield tho..
You can put the rude gestures on the shield!
schmid1.0 what a fuckin genius....
Isn't this why they started painting them?
TlsGrz make the shield see thru so you can flip em off while blocking and laugh
I train Muay Thai, have done so near 4 years now; and prior to that, jiu jitsu for over a year.
No Matt, fighters have ALWAYS blocked like that; its called a wing guard, some people call it "combing the hair", some call it many other things but its essentially just grabbing the back of your head while blocking incoming punches(or head kicks) with your forearm/elbow bunched up, presenting both an incredibly hard knot of muscle but with enough give so you dont get hurt blocking anything. The glove itself is only really used to cover the very back of the head, which you ARENT gonna get punched at, though you can definitely get roundhouse kicked there(since the foot whips around the neck and strikes the back of the head on headkicks in muay thai).
Blocking, parrying these things are in both bare knuckle and fighting with gloves...only minor adjustments are necessary from one to the other. The sword and targe combo does look look very much like a boxers guard, even guarding the body. If I had to use a sword and shield, if I was trained in swordsmanship like you are, since I already have significant training in Muay thai(and jiu jitsu), I would prefer keeping that shield practically glued to my body and raising to defend the head when needed. I do the same thing in Muay Thai in sparring and training and competition and shadow boxing anyway lol. Its not new to me. Though getting used to fighting in southpaw would be time consuming.
When you discuss mamluke, Persian round shields they do have straps that can be worn over the arms, but it was used in combat with the straps gripped in the hand similar to a center boss shield
It was looped over the forearm when loosing arrows or handling the lance as they tended to use the lance with both hands.
-Throw sword away
-Use shield two-handed, or pickup another shield
Dual shielding.
Most rotellas and other shields seem to be noticeably larger than the one you show in the Italian manuals of the 16th - 17th century, as you indicate. I have experimented and found that in combat a roughly 30 - 33 cm 12 - 13 inches or so) radius works well and is in agreement with the proportions seen in virtually all of the surviving Italian manuals of the period. Smaller ones require greater skill and increase the chances of errors. They also lower your chances of using them somewhat aggressively by limiting your ability to control the opponents blade. Enjoying your channel. Great stuff.
15 years of SCA combat taught me that in no way are shields intuitive enough for most people if they don't work with them first a bit. Some think they are Magic stones of defense, some forget they are there, some use them as counterbalancers, and new folks (like I did once) do all 3 and get punished for it.
but are they better than not having a shield at all?
Oh yes very much so, so long as you don't try to get clever it'll be a hell of a lot better than nothing. Same with having a sword vs not having a sword.
Vivat
I've pondered similar as I've always boxed "fencer," as in right hand dominant southpaw, and, while the point work of foil fencing naturally kept me lead hand focused, I kept finding myself wanting to use my left hand in military sabre. The dagger combo of rapier doesn't make as much sense for sabre, so the shield/buckler came up due to the pairing by Mamelukes & whatnot. Switching back to the orthodox right-handed stance (right leg back) seem to give up reach, so naturally I pondered remaining southpaw using the military sabre style but with the shield held close to the chest and therefore out the way until needed.
As for that squared off approaches you briefly mentioned, I can't remember whose channel I saw it, but someone countered a longsword with a buckler & sabre using that tactic. Well, strategically, charging in covering high with both hands when the longsword committed too much to an high action. Otherwise, he stuck to typical sword and buckler, but extending both at the right time did manage to trap the opponent's longsword surprisingly efficiently.
That Mad Max reference reminded me that your shield is about the same size as the hubcaps on a lot of semi-tractor trucks. All you need is a punch, some leather strapping and some pop-rivets.
Block, and Poke is really easy to pick up, in your first melee. (Or melee games.) This is basically the start of Hopletes training, as far as I can tell. Just boffing around the park with boffers, we often get kids and adults coming up, who want to play. We stop, pick sides, line up, and give basic instruction: Here's a Shield, and a Sword. Even if we didn't bring any polearms, because let's face it, they're cumbersome to carry out to the park. Block, and poke can be picked up in seconds. It's not going to turn you into D'ardagnan, scheduling 3 honor duels back to back, but in a line, it'll make the typical 8 year old reasonably effective.
Matt "Blindingly Pink" Easton
Just wait till you see what happened with Cat Easton and a vat of dye...
But give some credit, it is a Superdry shirt.
Goat Moag It's always a superdry shirt
LOL, that was the point. : )
It burns my eyes!
Horse with blinkers - boxing high guard exactly described.
I was once in a LARP battle where swords and foam dart guns were allowed and I held the gun in the same hand as the shield. It worked well because I could use the sword and shield well and having the ability to shoot from behind the shield was effective against multiple opponents.
Got Swordsmen of the British Empire for Christmas great book matt
I'm used to switching weapon sets - I'd change my stance and footwork to make the shield more effective, presenting the shield arm forward a bit more to cover more angles and using passing steps, although I don't prefer strapped shields of any sort.
I'd be putting a center grip on that if my life depended on it.
'Mad Max meets the Crimean war'
I want this movie now.
@Matt please do another shield video! Comparison of flat to domed, and sizes too, I have a buckler, and I’m always amazed at how well it works despite its small size!
That's actually the same thing I came up with for using two sabres; I saw some video of 2 vs 1 sparring with sabres, and the person who was alone had two swords(might even have been on this channel) but as they were doing military sabre, they didn't really get much use out of the off-hand weapon. So I started thinking what one should do with two sabres, and I came to two possible ways to use them: 1) drop the sabre style and use them like sideswords as that way your body is squared toward your opponent and you can more easily use both of them, or 2) turn the off-hand one around and hold it facing down in the boxer's stance, that way you can block with it or punch with the hilt while basically fencing with a single sabre in the way you are used to.
13:36 So, to use a shield... hold it, and put it between you and your enemy! Insightful!
Just giving you a hard time, Matt! Great video!
So...Mad Maximoff?
Matt, this was an awesome video concept, perfectly executed. Please contact Superdry and persuade them to fund Mad Max Meets The Crimean War the movie!
Excellent points, Matt. As always. I always enjoy your comments. Interesting info about broadsword and shield stance. A lot of HMB duel fighters adopt a similar stance. I've done it in my practice and it works well. Holding the shield up with the left hand level with your shoulder is also a fantastic position to punch with the shield at the opponents sword hand. If the shield counter gets close enough to their hand it closes off lots of attack lines and physically pins their arm momentarily. Long enough to create an opening for a counter attack.
Your videos are so interesting, I appreciate your hard work !
About stopping bullets: a round bullet from a black powder musket or pistol looses power quite fast, at least compared to a modern gun. At really close range - a few meters - they can be very powerfull. But as soon as you come to any more then 5 - 10 meters, the round bullet will loose speed and effect very fast. A pistol obviously loose the speed faster then a musket. To stop a stray bullet with a shield is possible, with some luck.
They don't lose velocity that quickly. At 75 yards I find that my shot regularly penetrates completely through a deer. In my area, mature bucks average 150-180 lbs. So that's a pretty good analogue for a regular sized man.
I use 100gr of FFg powder behind a .50 cal ball, so at long range I'm carrying less energy than military muskets, which tended to be .58 to .69 cal
Jack Kardic - I was thinking more in line with the possibility for a shield to stop a bullet and in comparison with a modern gun. There are a few caviats about that: you had to be lucky. And you had to be some distance away. And you probably needed to be hit at an angle. Thing is, body is soft human or bucks alike, and an old black powder gun usually had a large bore, wish create a large hole. But at 75 yards the black powder gun with a round bullet will have lost significantly more of its speed then a modern bullet from a modern gun (lets say a 7.62x51, wish is a Nato caliber). If you would do a serious penetrering test with ballistic gel at - lets say - 10 yards, 20 yards, 30 yards, 60 yards and 100 yards with a black powder smooth bore pistol, smooth bore musket, a 9 mm glock and a rilfe chambered for 7.62 nato, you would see that the difference between old and new increased rappidly the longer from the barrel the bullets came. The last two distances you would be lucky to even hit a target with a black powder smooth bore pistol, even if the thing was bolted down on a rig. There are several reasons for this: a round ball is not the most efficient aerodynamic shape. It creates lots of drag and turbulence, wish slows it down faster then a better design; there are also a lot of windage on any black powder weapon with round bullets by necessity. That means the thing does not come out of the barrel in a completley stable course, wish affect both speed and control. Rifled muskets get marginally better results here, but was never big in military circumstances (yes, they did exist, but wasnt issued en masse) in the late 18th century/earliest decade of 19th century. And the minnie ball didnt show up until later (1848-ish), wish is kind of the wrong period.
A pistol ball and a musket ball lose speed at the same rate. The BC of a round ball doesn't magically change just because you shoot it out of a different gun. These guys break it down way better than me.
www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=modernheritage.net/Scott_etal_2017.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjThNiriM7cAhVNUK0KHRH_B3IQFjAZegQIABAB&usg=AOvVaw0wtKt4QkEa0pHvtL4rnKnh
Pistols have less muzzle velocity than rifles - barrel length has a major effect on chronometer speed. And while 75 meters is likely farther than 18th and 19th century combat distances, a battle is exactly the kind of place where stray shots can hit you from hundreds of meters away. www.luckygunner.com/lounge/revolver-velocity-vs-barrel-length/
I have been watching the turkish dramas Dirilus Ertugrul and it's sequel Kurulis Osman and have been impressed by the shieldwork shown, not just as a defensive but also an offensive weapon in group combat, if someone ( man or woman) lose their swords, the shield , grabbed by two hands, is swiped, thrown or backhanded, even downswiped on an opponent lying on the ground ( throat smash).I have no idea who their chorographer is, but the fight scenes are impressive, individual and melee
I've always wondered, how much training did the average British Army infantry officer have during the Napoleonic wars? Was there a culture of learning to fence in the nobility or would they have had to pick it up when they joined their regiment?
Whoaaa.. I like that shield... Wish it was a bit thicker.. oh and bigger like you say... But more thickness more me...
But I like the look and the style... I like the shinny aspect. Gives me kool ideas for defense
Matt- Appreciate the comments with regards to a boxing stance, but boxing is something I somewhat know something about, and competition gloves really aren't all that big. It ranges from 8 to 12 oz, depending on your weight, which basically means you're wearing a glorified winter chopper. You may as well not even be wearing anything. Defensively speaking, competition boxing gloves aren't that protective against incoming strikes, and certainly don't come close to the capabilities of any type of shield. A traditional gloved boxer's stance is an evolved response to a specialized fighting system that only targets the waist up, and with the reinforcing to the hand provided by wraps and a glove it heavily encourages head-hunting. Bareknuckle fighters of the past seem to have largely targeted the body, which is why their traditional stances are closer to a modern MMA fighter's stance- hands lower. With no hand protection, striking bony skulls leads to broken hands. It's much safer to body punch.
mad max meets the crimean war is my new dream rpg setting
You just gave me an brilliant idea for larp fighting :D
I've found the most practical use of a shield or buckler, when paired with a more modern system like saber, is to use to defend from an after blow. It also allows you take more risky attacks, as you'll have additional protection recovering.
There was a form of the ancient Greek Pelte that was pretty damn similar to the Rotella as well, in essence a miniature Aspis, used by a variety of troops, including Phalangites.
As I said, a *variant* of the Pelte. Pelte is just a word for "small shield".
The thing you are talking about is entirely different, and probably wasn't even used by the Greeks all to frequently, but by neighbouring cultures.
Google "Peltophoroi" to see some depictions from a game that takes historical accuracy almost a bit too seriously, you'll see what sort of shield I mean.
That game (well, game mod, actually) has a lot more historical research behind it than any documentary in the past 20 years or so.
Also note it takes place in the Hellenistic/Early Roman period, so long after Xenophon's life, the Peloponnesian War, etc.
I only used that game as an example because it depicts exactly what I meant very well, and it's backed by plenty of research.
I understand, as I said, we are talking of two fairly different things from two very different approaches and this is pretty pointless.
At least, it made me dig in my old uni researches folder for good memories so thank you for that.
They can also be used offensively to punch or swipe with with the edge.
Now I am convinced. I will go and get myself a shield! Just in case that mad max thing happens!
You could quite easily attach a strap from one side of the reverse side to the opposite side and carry it on your back. It. It would have to be loose enough to get your head through it so the strap rests across a shoulder.Doable at a pinch I would say.
Have you done a video on shields as offensive tools? Targe spikes, punching with the edge of the shield, etc...
Yes he has, just scroll through his videos.
Thanks for the video. You should definitely follow through and do a video on why you like your strapped shield. Some people probably don't realize just how different they are ("a shield's a shield right?") and of those that do it seems like most tend to favor the boss-grip, for range and versatility. What are the advantages to the strapped?
A video on different types of shields would be interesting!
This kind of strapping let's you hold and use your shield on horseback, while also holding the reins. On foot I think center grip would be more effective
11:51 "I'll get my man to polish your shield" 😁
Interesting. I've been trying to use buckler (I.33 style) with a saber. Even a smaller shield works well that way. I like the ideas with the larger shield here.
Steel shield with a liner - leather, kevlar ;) - could be made even more bulletproof without too much extra weight, I wonder...
It would be interesting to have a set of straps that would allow you to use your hand to either control the shield more or push through to still hang on your arm while using, say, a revolver in your left hand. That would seem to be the best of all possible options.
Possibly, but I suspect that it would require a lot of Kevlar in the shield to make it truly bulletproof and a lot of Kevlar means a fair amount of weight. I don't know how much a regular steel or wood shield weighs but the old PASGT helmet from the '80s weighed from just over 3 pounds to a tad over 4 and they weren't really bulletproof. They'd stops shrapnel and shell splinters with no problem but they generally won't stop bullets, pistols maybe but definitely not rifle rounds. There are, however, newer and better aramids that could potentially be used that would offer better ballistic protection for the same weight as Kevlar.
The real problems come from the way that aramids like Kevlar work, great for stupping bullets and shell fragments but not so good against sharp things like swords and arrowheads. For this to really work you'd probably have to make the shield with a layer of something like AR500 steel over the Kevlar (or whatever) liner on the inside. The AR500 would provide protection from melee weapons and some protection against bullets and the liner would provide further protection against bullets. But, to provide any real protection against even handgun rounds it might require a fairly thick piece of AR500 and that means that the shield would be fairly heavy. Of course, you could thin out the AR500 and go with a thicker lining, that might work but I honestly don't know nearly enough about either material to know if you could realistically combine the two materials to get something that's both melee and bullet proof while still being light enough to wield effectively.
Please note the winkie.
Also, to stop a large lead ball or the spall from it being slowed by penetrating 15~16 gauge steel would not require anywhere near as much as stopping the projectile from a 7.62x39 rifle.
Recently Zna Production made a video on a type of lightweight homemade bulletproof armor with astounding results, maybe with more layers would make a good shield if shaped that way
Or ,as i always wondered , put a bulletroopf vest on a large plank with handles and you have a shield
Junichiro Yamashita That wouldn't work very well unless it hard either ceramic or steel inserts because soft body armor deforms when hit. This means that either your planks (if made of wood) stand the chance of splintering or if hand held or strapped to your arm then your arm stands a chance of getting hit hard if a bullet hits the right area. Even though modern body armor prevents a bullet from going into your body there's still a lot of kinetic energy from that bullet and soft body armor doesn't do much to protect you from that kinetic energy which is why it still hurts like hell when shot while wearing body armor.
Riceball01 mmh in the zna production case i think it would work ,maybe with some adjoustment,maybe a solid steel plate as base?
Pro shield tip: if you want to hold a shield with both sword and a pistol, use the left
(shield-bearing) hand to hold your sword by the blade just below the guard. That way, your right hand is free to aim the gun properly and you can get to the sword in practically zero time. You won't be able to guard and point blank someone with a pistol the way you can when it's a pistol and a sword, but it's almost as good.
Roman Gladiators who fought with spears with a dagger backup [usually nowadays identified as Hoplomachi] did exactly this.
Awesome video. Thank you for clarifying
Considering the blocking of your line of sight with the shield - I think it was Capo Ferro who advises a feint cut to the head to bring the shield up and then going under it because now your opponent cant see your blade anymore.
I like to feint with my shield, and strike underneath it. To quote a fictional book "its the attack that comes under the shield thats most deadly"
I think Schildwache Potsdam uses those for HEMA rotella practice. They're customizable if you're the artsy type.
Never fought with a sword or spear in my life, but I've always been massive on shields. Don't know what it is but they're my favorite 'weapon' besides the arming sword.
I like the experimentation with the opening. Maybe you could create a system where depending on the opening used we can tell how much context you injected into the video.
"mad max meets the Crimean war"
I'd watch that
As soon as I heard that, I started looking for this comment. If watch that as well.
Ive always wondered about using a shield with the Sabre, as it so usual to get double hits with just a Sabre.
(I’m not skilled with a Sabre though, despite the avi I’m a sword and buckler man, that also like the sabre)
And I’ve also thought about which type of shield to use.
Interesting topic.
I can see that a strapped shield might be more useful than a boss held shield with the Sabre though, if we’re not talking about using a buckler.
Might be useful in London.
No doubt.
Carry a shield and Shamshir and say you’re on Jihad. The police will simply point you to the nearest school.
@scholagladiatoria, could you talk a bit about domed shields, and why they were used over flat shields that were popular in the early medieval period?
Round allows blades or points to slide, but a flat plane that gets hit squarely allows penetration.
I feel like anyone who faced an opponent with a shield in melee combat would want one. Sword and pistol isn't an insurmountable disadvantage against sword and shield, but it is a disadvantage if the pistol is no longer loaded. And for officers who need to be focused on command, a shield is super useful. Even today in close quarters urban combat SWAT teams and the military use shields. Today not everyone uses shields, but the person in charge who is giving orders should probably have one.
I’ve always used messers with small center grip shields in melees, now I’m gonna have to try a rotella!
Dude you just got me thinking about a 19th century "captain America"....
The shield looks realy cool, its so shiny. :3
would like to see some sparring with shield in this type of use if that is possible for you Mat!
And you can duct tape a bag of snacks in there as well.
Reasons I have a rotella shaped riot shield... I feel like that in combination with one of my nylon side swords would be a fantastic 'loadout' for less-lethal civil unrest situations.
Now to find some Vibranium...
"Dished them out aye?" Apt expression for the type of shield you are holding. =P
Our daddy taught us not to be ashamed of our shields
Especially since they're of such a good size and all
I love you too~
Yeah, no homo
I'm straight as a sword
Ambiguous statement is ambiguous.
@Aldor - hai, wakarimasu.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
You can punch with the shield rim too. Imagine getting hit in the mouth by something like that, it would hurt.
Using such a shield makes a ton of sense from a personal safety standpoint, but a significant part of the officer’s role in the nineteenth century was to demonstrate and model utter disregard for personal safety under fire. I admit I speak from a perspective most familiar with the American Civil War, but I can hardly imagine those troops respecting a shield-carrying officer of any rank. Of course by that time firearms were more powerful and there was very little sword fighting of any kind.
Me from the future...
"HEY MATT!, DID YOU KNOW ROTELLA'S COULD BE FLAT!?!" :P
Enjoyed the video sir!!
A shield would have to made of rather thick & high-quality steel to make it reasonably effective against even pistol balls. 14 gauge mild steel would decent protection against blades but not much good against bullets. Targets of proof existed in the 16th & 17th centuries, but soldiers found them extremely cumbersome because of their weight, so they saw use mainly at sieges & similar.
I need to get myself a shield to protect me from a tax.
But,... now I know how to use a shield so I can't use my knowledge of how to use it... ow... my brain.
You have passed to the first level of enlightenment.
There are C21 UK circular strapped polycarbonate police riot shields that are very similar to that.
Culloden was 1746, not 5. 16 April to be precise.
Ah, got my years mixed up.
scholagladiatoria I forgive you... I was just trying to be helpful 😉😃
It's an easy mistake. I believe the uprising during which it happened (and ended) is called "the '45"
Rossome yes, it was the end of the 1745 rising and makes a classic ‘trick question’ for any pub quiz. As such, it’s worth remembering!
So: saber and buckler, anyone?
A little more dynamic movement with the buckler hand, and you can conk your opponent on the head.
Mad Max meets the Crimean War is a film I want to see!
Such as shiny shield would also have the added advantage of visually impairing an opponent should the sun be bright enough
Sikh infantry in the 1840s often carried tulwars and shields in addition to their muskets and in the melee would sling or ditch the musket and engage British and Indian troops with shield and tulwar.
Bayonet against sword has an advantage? Interesting. I always figured the weight of the firearm would make it more easier for the swordsman to exploit how much faster he is than the bayonet user.
6' gun and a 2' blade...this and leverage makes it quite effective.
Pugilism was mentioned. Shoutout to Martin "Oz" Austwick at EnglishMartialArts
That's what I'm looking forward to from now on, 17:40, Mad Max meets the Crimean war
Any sources for something very much like this shield but a little larger? I'm a pretty big guy and a 20inch shield is just too small, might as well use a dinner plate, ha ha. I'd like to find something like this one but, say, 24 inch or so. Any thoughts?
Love the shield
Any evidence of people reflecting the sun using shields to distract their opponents?
What's the sword on the left at 17:32
Shields with lanterns were used to ambush dudes at night, reflecting the sun would be tricky tho since you need a polished metal shield.
Theres a legend about Archimedes using polished shields to set fire to roman ships at the Siege of Syracuse.
Difficult to be sure, but I think the sword on the left is a richly ornamented Indian or Persian sword Matt has shown in a previous video , probably from the Wallace Collection.
So basically you hold the shield like a japanese sode (rectangular pieces held on the shoulder in the japanese armor) ?
Also, what's with the ominous music in the intro? I mean, it sounds "good" but it's a strange change of style.
You probably won't see this, but would you mind doing a video on shields as weapons, in the offensive sense? I'm no fighter, by any means, but surely you can use the shield to bash, knock about and otherwise inconvenience your opponents?
did you made a PSA video for 19th century people :D totally awesome!
honest question, why didnt people put blades or spikes on shields in front of the fist more often? not particularly long ones but like a katar blade, i cant see how it would realy hinder you mutch wile i would think that with the added weight of the shield you might get through mail with it, also your oponent will be dividing his attention to 2 deadly weapons now instead of 1.
I dont think that you could strike a effective blow against someone with a shild, because, if you use your shild you expose your body more.
however im dont realy know a lot about fighting
arian wijkstra Becuase a blade or spike sticking permanently out of the rim of your shield is a danger to yourself when you go to guard your head or if you drop your shield to your side you could hit your thigh. It's also in a position where it could easily get in the way of your sword as you bring it around to your left side. If you just hold a dagger in your shield hand then you can point it out of the way or even drop it if you need to
Imagine walking around with a blade/spike constantly protruding from your shield. It would be really damn dangerous. There would be quite the risk of accidentally stabbing yourself or someone else when you're not even in a fight.
I guess you could put a sheath over it, but that means removing it before the fight, combined with more added cost and such. Overall it's just not worth it.
Also, a plain buckler to the face will ruin your day more than enough already.
Just a guess, but I'm assuming it would make weapons hitting the shield less likely to glance off it. Also guessing it would be a huge liability for the dudes next to you if you're in some kind of formation.
Probably would make the shield more difficult and dangerous to carry, too.
i should have added context, i meant mostly for man to man combat, i have read that in india it was common for a mob of warriors to just charge as a mob rather then a formation just hacking around and looking for individual glory. As for the liability, wen placed in front of the fist i never had problems wile sparring (wooden fake spike ofcourse) iam talking a 10-15 cm blade, not some massive spearhead. This would also be a battlefield weapon so carrying isnt that mutch of an issue i think?
Can you recommend me a book with a lot of images of 16th century armet helmet ? Thanks a lot
I always felt Captain America needed a sword
I always felt captain America needed a spine to replace the stick up his backside XD
Matt, are you going to do something with "The Great War" about bladed weapons?
Love your work, would like to know your thoughts on the manga goblin slayer....
Britisch offers did do a poor job of "staying alive and commande" if they have been twice as likely to die as the lower ranks and needed to be commanded not to have tee in shooting range (afternoon walks do fall in the same category if your uniform is High visibility focused)
How do you counter proper shield usage with a single long weapon... like a greatsword?
"Mad Max meets the Crimean War"...? Hello Hollywood...!
I would suggest that it would be bad for the morale of the regular troops. To see his officer having more protection than he does, would generate resentment and distrust in the officers courage. It's sort of the reason for the "battlefield stroll', to make the men see the officers are taking the same chances they are in order to maintain their morale.
I personaly find it hard to fight with a strap held shield of that size. It might be just a personal thing, but I think that strap held shields should be larger, due to them beeing nearer to your body than a boss held shield. Sure, a bigger shield held with straps is fine, but that size should come with a boss. I just wonder how many historical examples of small (round) strap held shields there are. I am aware of the macedonian pelta and some examples of cavalry shields, but those where not made for combat at sword length or were supposed to free up the hand in case of a rider. You talked about indian and near eastern shields beeing similar to yours (and I don't know much about those), but it wasn't very clear to me in which regard.
And if that would be the case, there would be the question why?
I know that it can be tiering to hold a boss held shield in quite an extend from your body for long and might be easier to hold one with straps for marching or prolonged engagements. What's your opinion on this matter?
pink suits u pretty well
I remeber reading that american indians used to stuff their shield with paper obtained by traded books and were quite effective ,to point if being able to stop bullets, one anectode says that a settler , upon inspecting one of them, found if stuffed with the entire Story of Rome.
I wonder if that's why riot police still use 'em ;-)
Riot polices. And rioters also use shields