If one tries to reconstruct a system on the base of medieval artwork, how does he know that the weapons pictured there weren't optimized for use against giant snails?
I was watching a few of Roland W's videos, and I was intrigued that he seemed to suggest that most of the fight was shield against shield and that the sword was just the instrument to end the opponent after besting him in that fight for position.
In a duel, yes. I'm pretty sure this would change in a battlefield situation. On the battlefield you'd probably just be looking for a moment where you can find a gap in the defence of any enemy and exploit it. Like "Oh, that enemy isn't aware that I can stab his side, while he's bashing my mate? Let's stab him! Oh that one isn't aware of me and his head is exposed... Let's cut it!" And of course... try to not be the guy who's getting his gaps abused... Wait... that sounds awkward...
As someone with no experience, if I were to see all these positions in art I would probably not take it to be that one may ALWAYS holds the shield close, another ALWAYS holds it far, etc., but that the shield is moved around dynamically. I could really see it being used in part as a counterweight to help with motion and/or balance, as well, of course, as a protection. It would seem natural to draw it in when lunging forward and to push it out when stepping back.
christosvoskresye good thought processes. Yes shields as well as weapons are intended to be used dynamically with the body as opposed to struggling with it. Basically the more you fight against your equipment the less you can fight your opponent.
This discussion reminds of the one about hammer, thumb and handshake grip on longswords. While in the beginning everyone thought only his favorite grip is the right one, now it seems clear that we have to take a dynamic approach. I think the same is true here: In my opinion each of the three shield positions (close, medium extended and fully extended) has certain advantages and disadvantages. Now we only need to find out which action each shield position is good for.
test and what type of shield and which requires what strength / bodytype on what terrain. In the end the technique that allows you to survive is the correct technique. :P
While using a shield dynamically would be correct, using it as a counterweight wouldn't. As Matt, and others, have pointed out in numerous movie/TV sword and shield fight reviews you want to strike an opponent with your shield in front of you and not off the to the side. Reason being is that if you use your shield as a counterbalance when attacking and throw it to the side or back it leaves you exposed and negates any advantage you might have by using a shield.
There are advantages to holding the shield close to the body at certain points during combat. First of all, stamina. It is tiring to constantly hold a shield at arms length, so resting the arm against the body help you stay in the fight longer. Second, it also gives you more flexibility with the attack directions of your sword or spear arm at the cost of higher vulnerability. Third, it gives better support when using the shield to give or take body blows. If you run into an opponent to put him off balance, you get more force behind the charge if your shield is in close contact with your body.
The examples of Medium Ward (shield held close to the body, flat towards the opponent) that you show are all with domed shields. As I argued in my paper in Spada II back in 2005, curved shields are shown in period artwork being used fundamentally differently to the way flat shields are shown being used. I'll be releasing some videos on this on the Stoccata youtube channel in the near future.
Great point, Matt. Lots of people focus on sword and shield (and for good reasons), but I've noticed in my own reenactment group and others a surprising lack of focus on spear and shield, minus a few I know that recreate Spartan phalanx tactics. I know of many people who practice spear as well as sword and shield, and you'd think it'd be just common sense to practice spear and shield as much as either of the others. But I guess not. Personally, I'd love to focus on spear and shield when I pick up fighting again.
Another potential cause of difference is the type you are fighting, shield out in front edge on is great one on one, but leaves you very vulnerable to anyone attacking from the side and would get very tiring in a shield wall.
This is why in period artwork people with flat shields in shield walls tend to be shown with their shields flat in front of them while people in single combat are usually shown with the shields edge towards the opponent.
I wonder if shield distance also depends on whether it is a formation fight, a broken melee, or one-on-on? I could see holding the shield close in the first, medium in the second, and extended in the third. Roland's shield bind style is facinating and looks very effective is a duel, but I think even he has said that is what it is ideal for and it does not seem best for a formation fight.
Roland acknowledges that his work is inspired by two papers I wrote some years ago looking at the surviving evidence for how people fought with large shields. In those papers I argued based on period artwork that flat shields tended to be held in front of the body (Medium Ward) as passive defence in melee and with the edge out (Outside Ward) in single combat. Curved and domed shields function differently and are always shown flat towards the opponent.
Stephen Hand thank you for the clarification! I find Roland's demonstrations and teaching videos very convincing and have been a fan of his for a while (both viking sword and shield and I.33). However, I did not know it was based on a paper. I mistakenly thought his viking sword and shield was mostly trial and error based off of a martial foundation. Are your papers available somewhere?
Roland's stuff is excellent, but we differ on a few minor points that we could probably sort out in a few productive minutes if we were ever in the same room together (which unfortunately to date we haven't been). The papers I wrote were in two volumes, Spada and Spada II published in 2003 and 2005 respectively. Matt was actually one of the referees on the first paper and spoke very highly of it. The two volumes of Spada are out of print and you may have trouble getting them. I've digitised a bunch of my papers and have put them up on a site called selz. I've had trouble in the past putting urls in youtube comments, but if you search for my name and selz it will come up. It's one of the main systems I teach at my school. I also have some videos up on the Stoccata youtube channel. I will be producing a new series of videos soon as I've been making different styles of shield and exploring interesting matchups between different historical shield types. Lots of fun!
@@stephenhand4722 Got your papers, interesting speculation there. However, as of today, there is plenty of traditional sword/mace and shield techniques available in writing or on film, some of these living traditions, and I would advise anyone interested in sword and shield to pay careful attention to those. If we would at least try to learn the traditional techniques first, understanding them on rudimentary level, before jumping into speculation.
Nice video, as always. I'm a French reenactor trying and reenactoring a viking man from the Xth century. The main reason we always use our shields very close to the body is that the great majority of viking reenactors play by the eastern rules. These rules come from Wolin, Poland. According to these rules, the hands, feet, legs, forearms, knees and elbows don't count as hits. So we protect the torso with our shields and the upper body with our swords. Also, in melees, if we extend the shield arm, it makes us easy targets for spears. But reenactors playing by other rules (like "full target" rules) use their shields very differently.
My personal experience fighting with a boss shield I find that I am using the shield close to the body all the way to extended in a single exchange- so dynamically
Also, holding a shield out like that, especially if its a larger shield, gets tiring really quickly. So it might be that you keep the shield close when approaching the opponent, and extend when you are actually moving to engage the opponents weapon/shield/body.
Looking at the artwork you referenced it appears that when facing archers or ranged attackers they’d push the shield out which would cover more of their body. Then when fighting hand to hand they’d pull it in to protect their core & buttress against their bodies to take heavier blows.
My guess is that a flat shield would be better at close quarters, especially if used for binding the opponent's weapon, or striking with the edge, but a domed shield would be better at deflecting missiles or long range spear thrusts. Any thoughts, Matt? (Good video, by the way.)
Matt, could you do a video on exactly how much we can rely on artwork of a period to learn and or prove things about historical peoples and activities? I personally don't see how they could be very reliable, but that's probably because my mindset is using modern artwork to make that judgement.
Out of (very short) experience of fighting with sword and shield. The main reason i see for a center grip shield held close to the body, is because it is less exhausting than holding it out from the body. do admitted that temporarily i occasionally extend it away to create a gap, tempt the opponent to try to "bend" my shield, this is very tiering, and i would not hold my shield out far from my body longer than necessary for the sole purpose of conserving energy. A alternative is to hold it close to my shoulder, and point the edge towards my opponent instead of the flat tho when in line battle, this is rarely optimal. I see a lot of comments related to optimal way to hold a shield in relation to protection, but little in relation to conservation of energy or combat when there is more than two people...
Hi Matt. So I just watched the Skallagrim's "HEMA Talk: Feints are no good" video and the comment section (like any other YT video) is slowly becoming a battleground of opinions. I personally think it would be very interesting to hear your insight of this particular topic. Cheers from Bulgaria :)
Kind of off topic, but I was at the Arnold Classic today, which I've been too a few times to watch strongman competitions, and managed to watch some HEMA matches (specifically longsword) live for the first time. Your channel reminded me of my brief time foil fencing in the past and I was hoping to also catch some sabre fencing (which you've peaked my interest in) yet missed it and ended up getting some time to handle a few HEMA swords instead, which balances a bit better than I expected (though majority of practice swords I've used in the past were either underweight foils or heavy bokkens, so I was hoping to be surprised). Anyway, just figured I'd let you know how you inspired me to try to get back into fencing and the people who run the fencing portion of the Arnold is local, so I may be getting into the sport sooner than expected. Also, this actual vid was good as well, lol
IIRC Mr W. that you mention doesn't deny domed shields were used. I think he said they were typical in Frankish lands, but the flat shield was typical in Norse lands. In Britain and other areas it might not be unusual to see both.
Really interesting point about the sword and shield combo being super effective against spear and shield, the most common weapon combo of the time. This could prove a useful insight into why the sword was so revered and such an important symbolic item. I am wondering is this a generally accepted notion, the sword and shield combo being super effective against the spear and shield combo, or is it just one of your own experiences? Also, no doubt there are regional and personal preferences in how to use a shield. But it is also easily imaginable how one might carry the shield closer to the body when that person's arm is getting tired, as it is easier to hold it close. No matter how well you are trained after a long fight everyone will get tired at some point and not all people will have had the stamina to hold the shield out for ever, even though they might want to do so. So comfort might also explain some of depictions of shields closer to the body.
What is your opinion on flat shields being so common because the non-professional warrior; which would make up the bulk of any ancient fighting force, would have used them for as you stated "they were easy to make". Where as the professional warrior would have most likely used a domed shield because of superior defensive capability combined with the money or interest of time to build/buy them. In turn this being one of the possible reasons for different fighting styles that utilize a shield. By necessity the way you fight with a domed shield would very even if slightly from a flat shield due to the differential in weight and therefore balance?
I've never used dome shields in particular, but I would imagine that techniques could vary at least a bit from flat shields. Just having that extra curvature would probably provide much more coverage from smaller pivots and angles than you'd have to perform with flat shields. That might be why domed shields often were much larger, multiplying the effect of its higher efficiency, therefore providing greater coverage with even less movement and pivoting. Most very experienced fighters I know than can fight much longer than the average fighter because they've become so much more efficient in moving less with greater effect and accuracy, so maybe multiplying this effect on a domed shield by making it larger is a good way to mechanically raise the efficiency of your shield. And like you were implying, most of these very experienced fighters would be the more professional ones, who are more likely to be aware of the advantages of such shields and techniques.
"They are easy to make" today. Back then there were no plywood boards. Unprocessed wood is also easy to curve. Making a curved shield would have been harder but not as dramatically as it is today with modern materials.
Joaquim: Back then, no, they didn't have ready made plywood boards, but that does NOT mean that they didn't have, or use, plywood. Partly because what is plywood, but simply thin layers of wood glued together. Rather then making a shield out of simple boards, making it out of plywood (or then equivalent back then) would be stronger and lighter the equivalent made from simple boards. Start with a dome of some kind, and place a thin piece of wood over it. Cover it with glue, and then place another thin piece of wood at right angles to the first. Repeat until you have reached the desired thickness, alternating the grain of the wood. And you end up with a domed shield. Using simple boards it would be easier to make a flat shield. Least wise that's my guess.
I’d say that a domed shield would also limit the amount of techniques that one could use as well. To use it in the manner of a buckler would be quite an awkward task. I speculate that they were mainly used very close to the body. I think I’d prefer a flat shield due to it’s versatility
I seem to recall a coment by nick thomas on using a shield against a rapier in which he said that holding the shield away from the body made it harder to actually see incoming thrusting attacks. the conclusion was something along the lines of, against thrusting attacks shield close, against cutting attacks shield away from the body or something like that.
As for holding shields, holding it closer provides more room for swordwork, while the sword is held in reserve or prep, the shield is pushed forward to cover more area or interrupt attacks. The shield would never be used strictly as a defensive, that would limit your options which is always terrible. Haha but always great videos haha
I've always loved shields. I dominated our sparring-based LARP because I rocked a "tower shield" Roman style. We even padded it so I could bash and shove, I'd make a good riot cop! I'm learning to use and love bucklers (I'd totally carry one back in the day, even now if it was IIIa+ ballistic rated). I want a good gothic or kite or heater shield, those are the ones I know the least about. Side note, being an armored dark knight > armored paladin, I ditched the sword and holy magic and went with black magic and fried people like a mage tank and only needed a short sword just in case. Tho I did a LOT of pally time to and pwned noobs with a bastard sword in one hand. All weapons were dowels with duct tape, electrical tape, and pipe padding. Simple, effective, durable, and easy to customize. I used a US Vietnam era helmet and we made a sort of brigantine out of license plates and old jeans, we called it my "license plate mail" lol
Well done! I'd really like to see some more videos on how you use a spear with a shield. We see the pictures, tapestries, etc., but when I hold a spear with one hand, necessary if you've got a shield in the other, I find it very unwieldy. You have reach, but I don't know how to use one properly.
I have to say thank you because I've been writing a fiction book and I've been trying to figure out how Viking Era combat would be done, I mean Bernard Cornwell does a great job at writing but words are different than picturing and seeing. Anyway love the sword.
I just hade a thought when I saw you extending and pulling back the shield. (I have no experience in sword and shield fighting what so ever) And that's why I'm asking this I guess... But do you ever use the extending and retraction of the shield to control the speed of the cut? Sort of the way like dancers do when they do a spin. When you pull your arms in the angular velocity increases. So maby you can use the shield like a sort of sword cut accelerator? Maybe it sounds stupid. But in theory if the shield weight is greater than the sword and you have the shield arm extended and pulls it inward to your body the sword rotation / cut should be easier to accelerate. Compared to if you didn't have a shield...
It's an interesting thought but I can't see this being done while maintaining the shield in a defensive position. Maybe it's just the way I'm simulating it in my head, but the shield always ends up well out of line.
The problem with this is that if you withdraw your shield as you cut, you're withdrawing your protection. Specifically if you have your shield in Outside Ward (edge towards the opponent) and withdraw it as you cut, you will be exposing your forearm to a countercut.
This would physically only work if a) the shield is revolving around the same axis as the strike and in the same direction--or at least some component of its motion is--and b) the body structure is rigid enough that that momentum transfer actually makes it to the sword blade. Both of which are shaky assumptions at best. Interesting thought though.
Well it's not too dissimilar to the later British principle of equilibrio, where the off hand is swung in the opposite direction to the strike, just that with equilibrio you're swinging back a target while with this idea you're swinging back your primary defence.
Uncephalized thanks for your thoughts on this subject. I pictured me the pivot point being the spine going from the hips to the shoulders,and since both shoulders rotate in different directions when you turn your torso, the shield and the sword is always on the same axis more or less.
Against the body seems to be a resting position where you cant really afford to have it dangling by your side so like before and just within bow range as armies approach each other the extended positions seem to be more often seen in combat then again we do see the against the body in duels and other depictions where they are in combat, maybe for the quick extension (like punching out) to block obscure or strike
Would be nice to have the opinion of modern day riot police on shield use: they are the ones who still use it regularly (in of course not completely similar situations, thankfully). I imagine the scandinavian "flat shield" preference might have something to do with the transportation on longships: hanging from the sides or stacked together in the boat. Thanks for this great informative video!
i imagine the sword and shield combo would be mainly for higher ranking warriors, a spear (ignoring its effectiveness) or indeed ax, is undoubtedly less expensive/complicated to make. i wonder though what the training thresholds are? how quickly/easily (average person) could you become competent with either forms?
Ringen across the MS has commonalities but also varies a lot, as do the sword and buckler systems, as you say (I am not that familiar with SnB). I would agree that these variations are the result of style choices made by the proponents of these different systems. You can find the same thing in Japanese kenjutsu and jujutsu.
Taking a wild guess and assuming the shield wasn't just purely defensive but can be used in a offensive way having multiple ways to hold the shield may prove beneficial. Depending on stance, opponent, and your current distance from your opponent, it may prove beneficial to hold the shield close if you're standing toe to toe and use the shield to bash the other person to make space whether it be to strike or create distance to outflank them. Perhaps holding it in the middle will allow more freedom of movement while at the same time having the shield arm in a position to strike with the edge of the sword. As for the extended shield perhaps its purely defensive designed to glance any on coming strike while you close the distance or to strike with your sword while simultaneously block an incoming attack. Either way I'm sure all three were used in a fight depending on the circumstance. Its always good to have multiple stances to transition to when the course of the fight changes.
About the full extention of the shieldarm: I think maybe those pictures where meant to be "action-shots"? When you're fighting with a large centergripped shield your shield arm would tire very quickly when you hold it away so far. Especially in a Battle, where you'll have to fight for a longer time (if you survive that long), you'd really want to hold your shield closer most of the time, I think. Holding it further out is something you'd maybe do in smaller skirmished I guess? So basically I think your favourite word is important here: CONTEXT! In what context is the shield used? In longer battles? Preserve your stamina and hold it close. Short skirmishes or duels? Hold it further out to get the full advantage of the size of the shield... Or do it like me and hold it close to yourself at start and only extend to strike or to protect your swordhand while striking with the sword (or axe, or any other weapon). My vikingshield is rather heavy and my stamina sucks. I can't hold it too far away from me for minutes and still have enough power in my arm to move the shield around quickly enough to respond to my opponents movements. But that may be just me. An experienced martial artist will have less problems here.
What do you think about Roland's emphasis on the bind in his recreations of period combat? It seems like for him that the fight happens in the bind rather the bind being part of the fight if that makes any sense haha
One thing I've noticed about Roland is that his sword strikes are relatively light, and may not have enough force to penetrate any kind of armour. Obviously not everyone wore armour, and not all armour would be good protection against a stab, which Roland's style should be quite effective at creating an opportunity for. Having a shield bind lets you force your opponent to give you room for a good strike, binds are less useful with axes/spears compared to swords. The kite shield and spear combo doesn't really lend itself to binds that much. A sword bind is excellent for duelling (which Vikings certainly did a good deal of), not that useful in line combat I'd suggest. I do like Roland's work with thin-edged shields, which are arguably much more accurate than the thick-edged shields that a lot of us re-enactors use.
In mma we call it a clinch and its grappling range and as a striker in mma i'd prefer to stay out of that unless i grab him in a front headlock, and as a viking combat reconstructor i disagree with his exessive use of a bind with a sword that lends itself to heavy cuts which it is a heavy cutting sword in the context of many medieval swords being cut and thrust blades in later periods, and the axe is more likely to be used with a shield than a sword since most people actually couldnt afford a sword with it being a weapon of jarls or lords of the period... And throwing cuts always beats thrusts in my opinion unless your using a spear or lance... I beat rapier with broadsword every time because i beat the rapier aside and crack em with the guard then slash at their head, even better with a shield because rou can block then punch and slash
@@Ocker3 I encourage you to watch more of Roland's work on this. He speaks of the head speed of the sword being more than enough energy to make a hard strike. Like a whip speed from a quick flick. The more I watched his demonstrations the more I think he's correct. His sword and buckler work is outstanding.
@@PilgrimBangs I see him make this cut often, and often from a structurally weak position. This short edge, wrist flicking cut... may have enough energy at the weak of the blade to lacerate...but at best..It would only cause superficial damage. Often I see Roland Terminate a fight at this cut...It would be a great and penetrating cut, with a saber. Possibly with an arming sword... with a Viking era Sword? There are only a few of the types that would benefit from such a cut.
@@thefourthcrow5627 It would be interesting to see some experiments gauging the force of these strikes. There are pressure plates that can accurately measure in foot lbs. I am confident you'd be surprised by the results.
Looking at the illustration at 11:01 I notice that what I thought was poor artwork showing the 'round' domed shields with pointy tips (in other illustrations), might actually be a depiction of elliptical shields with points at both ends. Note the fellow on the left side showing the inside of the shield. Thoughts?
How about a video about the best budget weapon and shield combos. Like viking sword + viking shield. arming sword plus knight's shield. Norman sword + norman kite shield. Etc. And a low budget, medium budget, high budget versions.
Gotta wonder how good those boss shields are in melee combat. Considering that strapped shields became the fashion and hoplite shields were strapped, you can see that people who expected a lot of grueling melee used strap shields. It makes sense, the boss relies on the strength of your grip and it's kinda got mechanics against it since it is held further away from your body. Using it offensively is probably really useful since you can only take so many strikes against the rim before your arm is exhausted. Your point about using the shield against the spear is really good, since I find that just about anything placed between you and the spear is enough to turn the strike away from your body.
Boss gripped shields were in use continually by various cultures at the same time as strapped shields - the Romans used various kinds of boss-gripped shields, both in the military and for gladiators, and most shields still in use in the 19th century were boss-gripped. Strapped shields have been historically less common, even though they were dominant in the late-medieval period (though even then, boss-gripped shields still existed, most famously pavises and bucklers).
I'll admit, there's a discrepancy between what I've learned myself and what you've said on your channel. To my knowledge, the primarily issued melee weapons after the medieval period were the bayonet, the pike, and maybe some thrusting swords, if those were issued to common soldiery at all. This supports my statement above. You however detail a lot of how swords were in use after the 16th century. I think there are two contexts here : one where people trying to kill men as efficiently as possible in organized combat, and another where people are peacekeeping and wieldliness has a much stronger influence. So far as all that's concerned, I can only say that strap shields come into play more as combat becomes more organized and boss shields are favored when you're still in a more mobile form of warfare.
Sorry I don't understand what you are saying :-) The Romans were pretty organised and used boss-gripped shields. The same for Charlemagne's army. I don't know what you mean by "more mobile form of warfare" :-) There is no direct correlation between boss-gripped and strapped shields and some wider development of warfare. They are simply two different types of shield that offer different advantages. Strapped shields have in most cases been favoured because the shield hand was required for another task, such as holding the reigns of a horse or supporting a pike. The bayonet and pike in modern European warfare were originally defensive items to protect people shooting firearms from sudden cavalry attacks. Man for man (given equal numbers and no superiority of firepower) 19th century colonial warfare showed that the bayonet was not a good match for people with shields and swords or spears (eg. Zulus, Afghans or Dervishes). The bayonet is a short very heavy spear - it's not as good as a spear because it has less reach and weighs about 3 times as much.
In regard to the term "mobile warfare," I've come to certain conclusions that there are modes of strategic warfare that change over time. Fundamentally, maybe 80% of any fighting man's career is either moving arms and food or storing them. Maybe 10% moving loot. If that's true, then I think we can see that as things become more centralized, the average soldier relies less on existing infrastructure and becomes more focused on building new infrastructure for a permanent presence, with Rome and modern combat being the prime examples. What does this have to do with shields? I dunno. Just seems to me when a soldier can reliably store fiddly gear for a month before actually using it, he tends to carry it more.
Holding the shield flat against the body, or flat but extended, is a much better defense against spears, particularly multiple spears in mass combat, than holding it with the rim pointed toward the opponent. Missiles are also worth taking into consideration, this method of holding the shield presents a passive defense against those attacks you might not see coming. Shield walls don't work unless you're all holding your shields flat. Rim pointed toward the opponent covers lines of attack that you would expect from swords or axes, you don't expect to be speared in the side by someone standing in front of you. It also allows for a more active way of engaging with individual opponents, shield-fencing as you see with Roland Warzecha. Potentially, in mass combat, combatants transition from the passive defensive method to the more active rim-foremost method as formations break up and spears are lost or discarded in favour of sidearms.
Though on the contrary, spears and arrows penetrate shields and stick out the other side (I can easily demonstrate this and it is shown in the period art) - if you hold the shield right against your body, the spears or arrows will still spike you.
scholagladiatoria it would be less of a problem with domed shields I assume... Also Vikings were more about skirmishes than big battles that would be why their shields were flatter: more adapted to looser formations and one on one fights
Matt makes a good point about having the shield directly against your body, but in essence you are correct. As I argued in two academic papers I wrote on surviving evidence for shield use, period artwork shows flat shields held in Medium Ward (flat towards the opponents) in formation, but in Outside Ward, (edge towards the opponent - specifically towards his left shoulder - and yes, sometimes the artwork is that accurate) in single combat. Curved and domed shields aren't used in Outside Ward because it makes no sense with a curved shield. Basically standing in Outside Ward in massed combat is a good way to cop and arrow or javelin, or just to get a spear under your right arm from the bloke two over and a couple of ranks back who you're not concentrating on. Shields are a more passive defence in melee and a more active one in single combat (though if we follow the Bolognese rotella sources AND the German duelling shield ones, both tell us to step around the rotating shield to defend ourselves, NOT move the shield around the body.)
Stephen Hand I understand Matt's point about holding it right against the body. I understand you'd want a bit of leeway. I discovered the Open/Closed ward method of shield use posted by you in an Australia reenactment magazine 11-12 years ago and adopted it immediately. It's interesting to see the amount it has been taken up in the time since.
Every day I worry all day that I will be caught without my sword and shield at the ready. This is well founded as I do not actually own either. I also have experience in using either. Ugh, I need to get my life in order.
Medieval artwork isn't big on perspective. I wonder if, in that *context*, the out-held shield might not actually be intended to be flat on, in that particular image, to receive missiles?
Doesn't the fact that most combat would have been formation fighting mean that most of the time the shield would have been held in a wall and therefore imply that you probably shouldn't be moving your shield a tremendous amount?
Good video. Personally i prefer to keep the shield away from the body, having it close to you is a good way of getting your teeth knocked out from a blow on the upper section of the shield and also allows you to use the shield more offensively. Unless its a skirmish i think spear and shield will always beat sword and shield as its a formation weapon.
Viking shields were typically pretty large - some 80 to 115 cm from the archaeological evidence, and were obviously sized to the wielder. Roland W. has stressed this point. (Btw the one in this video, albeit a nice shield, is not of authentic size for you Matt. Just saying 😊👍) I know there are no treatises regarding Viking Sword and Shield techniques, but the available Medieval imagery, e.g. the I.33 manuscript, and the pics you used are so full of artistic license. Shields may be drawn as to be visible to the reader but can be out of context for the activity. One has to be very careful drawing any conclusions. I guess the only way is to pick up authentic kit and try to work it out. Which is what we do. Even then we might be off the beaten path. Anyway, keep up the excellent work Matt. All the very best. Keep safe, stay strong 👍
You got an ad a little past the middle of your presentation! Holding the shield close to the body might let an arrow, dagger point or other fine point stick through and hurted you. Much bad juju and you could get a bad bubu. Seriously keeping the shield several inches from the body would seem the better option with round shields. The big kite shields and other forms might suggest other uses.
Really interesting thanks Matt, fandabidozi has a good video on Scottish Targe and dirk
6 ปีที่แล้ว
quick question or three for those who know. do bladesmiths work exclusively with 10xx steels such as 1095? Would 52100 make a good sword blade? What about D2, S7, or A2? (all of which can be ordered as flat ground stock.) All of these steels can be tempered but unlike the 10 series steel, I've never heard of anyone trying to forge it.
What about fighting in formation, which should've been more common than individual fighting and absolutely dictated by the shield? It's so much harder to reconstruct, but isn't there merit in attempting to recreate two shield walls fighting each other (both attacking and defending), in a plausible way , that's wouldn't be downright suicidal? Maybe then the different shield placements would make more sense, perhaps?
I have a tangential question about secondary weapons. As you have discussed, and as other HEMA-related TH-camrs have discussed, the sword was often a secondary weapon, with the main weapon being a spear or another weapon with a long reach. But what about a small axe as a secondary weapon? A small axe (an axe usable with one hand, that could be worn on the belt relatively easily) would be cheaper to make than a sword (I think), and also would be very handy as an accessory outside of combat, since you could use it for chopping wood and those types of tasks for which a sword would be very ill-suited. So, were these ever used as secondary weapons, ideally with a shield? If not, why not?
Though there is some truth to what you say, the kind of axe useful for chopping people is not terribly useful for chopping wood, and vice-versa. Depending on the period axes were used as sidearms by many various users. - Those who could not afford swords. It's often noted that viking warriors who could not afford swords would instead take axes, these are not wood-axes mind, they are light, swift, and keen by comparison. I have heard it quoted, _(though I cannot recall from where,)_ that an early viking period warrior could buy a spear, shield, and axe for the price of a sword. - Specifically to counter enemy armour, in many periods. - By those on horseback, Persian and Scythian warriors were known for this in ancient Greek sources, the greeks seemed to see use of the handaxe as barbarous and exotic, they stuck to spear and sword themselves. In later periods the horsemans axe maintains it's place. - The ancient Egyptian armies fielded two different kinds of axe, one longer and sturdier with a shorter edge for piercing, the other a slashing axe as mentioned earlier, though these were superceded by piercing and chopping swords respectively as metallurgy progressed.
An excellent point about how an axe for combat differs from an axe for camp chores and tasks. Mostly I was thinking about how it would be cheaper, and thus poorer soldiers might want to have one to keep costs down.
Hi Matt, in relation to the shield's effectiveness, I think we need to keep one thing in mind in addition to what may happen in sparring: Sharp things are sharp. We don't spar with sharp things, though. In all tests, the degree to which a sharp or pointy object gets stuck in a shield or buckler is actually quite surprising, see here: th-cam.com/video/3FfmBMa-1EQ/w-d-xo.html This means that it was most likely even easier to bind and close the distance than we may intuitively think today!
Definitely - I would say that even more important than sharp edges are sharp points. Edges don't tend to get stuck in things unless you strike excessively hard at the shield while not really trying to hit the person, whereas points (especially of spears) get stuck deeply in wood really easily.
Awesome video as always! Doesn't holding out a flat bossgripped shield all the way with a completely straight arm, the way Roland tends to do, provide way too much leverage to a hit on the rim? Also in the artworks you show it seems to be used to protect against projectiles rather than against a direct opponent...
Manipulating a shield is done by pressing with the shield edge on the shield flat (though it can on occasion be done with the weapon and Talhoffer even shows the shield being opened up with a kick). Therefore if you are in Outside Ward with the edge towards the opponent, you are not presenting the flat of your shield to be bound by your opponent. A lot of the skill in fighting with flat centre gripped shields lies in not giving the flat of your shield to your opponent to bind or hook.
Thank you for the clarification dear Sir. So basically this makes it ideal for single combat against a similarily armed opponent. I take it this is also the only situation this would be used? As from the amateurs perspective it seems by controlling one opponent by binding his shield with yours and fighting around them you open yourself up massively to attacks from all other directions.
Spot on, which is why we see illustrations of melee with the shields held face forward (Medium Ward) and single combat edge forward (Outside Ward). Outside Ward works well with flat shields against any other weapon, but becomes suicidal when there's a possibility of being attacked from other directions. Marozzo in 1536 stated that you should hold the rotella edge forward against one opponent and flat in front of the body against multiple opponents, particularly those with spears. Deeply curved shields are always shown being held in Medium Ward and really nothing else makes any sense. Interestingly there are a few illustrations of deeply curved shields in Medium Ward being opposed by flat shields in Outside Ward.
Hi Matt--This video implies that there were fairly elaborate systems martial arts in the early middle ages. What is your opinion on the comparative systems of early medieval vs. later medieval systems? Is it likely that the early medieval systems (most of the probably local) were as well developed?
Very difficult to answer that. We know that the Romans had 'fencing' schools and gladiatorial schools. So the passing of time does not always go hand in hand with development of an art or science. We simply don't know how developed fighting systems were in different areas in this period, but given that even in the late medieval period most martial training seems to have been conducted between one person and a student (rather than in organised fencing schools) I don't see why there couldn't have been some individuals teaching quite complex systems in the viking era. It just would have been in more isolated and insular traditions, rather than as part of guilds or schools as we see in the late medieval period.
keeping the shield close to the body, or far away, or somewhere in between depends on what weapon you're facing or what kind of tactic you're gonna use. axes can hook and hit behind the shield with the head, so you dont wanna keep your shield close, or you might get hit in the shoulder for example. keeping the shield close while facing a sword, you just need to move your shield with little effort where the strike is gonna land and its blocked. spears are diffrent again, goal is to gain control over the spear tip with your sword and then dash in out of the spears danger zone. doing re-enactment in norway, you usually face these three types. kinda hard to explain this shit when you're a dyslextic. :D great video anyway.
its also about resting your shield hand. keeping the shield tight is not as heavy as keeping the shield way out. if you fight for long periods of time in a big fight.
Would there be an advantage to having a strap over your forearm to stop the shield from piviting. It seems that it would be easy to push the shield against the bearer to disadvantage him.
As with all rounded things, it would make it harder to get a solid hit on it. I’m sure some were rounded for that reason, as to wether it was common practice, eh debatable. At that point I would assume it would come down to aesthetic, or economic. For the knights and wealthy, rounded would probably be more common, for levies it’d be flat.
There are more remnants of shields surviving than just Gokstad, but they have all been flat, that's true. But of course they have nearly all been in Scandinavia and there is a fair amount of evidence that Frankish and Anglo-Saxon shields were different - smaller and perhaps often domed, with different styles of boss.
I would imagine shield placement and use might also differ depending on the armor being worn by the user. Someone with no armor, or extremely light armor, may feel more protected and 'safer' by keeping the shield closer to the body, whereas someone in full mail may feel more at ease relying on their armor to protect them, especially against a sword, and use their shield in a more extended, or 'free', fashion.
so if boss held shield gives such an advantage in terms of reach, why would they change the preferred shield style to strapped shield later on? I understand it for horse combat, but on foot?
Boss gripped shields never disappeared - of course bucklers are small boss-gripped shields and they remained in use throughout history all over the world. But large boss-gripped shields remained in use during the later middle ages as well (see how a pavise it held for example). The real question is; What advantages do strapped shields have? I'll do a video about that.
I think that would be very interesting. The first thing that comes immediately to mind is that with a strapped shield you gain more use of the shield arm, so a cavalryman could use a spear two handed without having to juggle the shield or risk dropping it. If cavalry at that time, rather than charging into the enemy, instead rode along the front of an enemy using a sort of pool-cue stabbing motion (this is a frequent debate as im sure you know) it would fit pretty well with both the elongation of the norman shield and the freeing up of the hand.
A boss gripped shield can be quite easily manipulated by an opponent in a melee, and I guessing could be quite tiring to hold in a battle. I think strapped shields come along to perhaps make it a bit more comfortable to hold in a long melee; and perhaps a bit more secure too. Idk, just guessing
Hello Mr. Easton! Any chance you could recommend a book on historical sieges from the perspective of the men being attacked? It's my birthday and I'd very much appreciate it for a book I plan on writing
Hello Matt, as a topic for a future video, can you talk about swords and swordsmanship during the American Civil War? The impression I have is that most officers and cavalry were not well-trained with their swords, and that poor-quality swords were common. These stereotypes are perpetuated by famous stories like the 1859 raid on Harper's Ferry (before the war, but still a related event,) where a Marine Corps officer stabbed the enemy militia leader in the chest and "The blade bent double." Even though swords didn't have any impact on the war due to the heavy use of firearms, I'd still like to know from a swordsmanship historian like yourself if these stereotypes are founded or if they are based on rare exceptions.
I have a question about domed shields: Were they held a specific way to keep a blow from glancing off and clipping the person holding it? I've seen a bunch of helmet tests where the blow deflects out but still catches a dummy in the shoulder, what stops domed shields from doing the same?
Is there any evidence for center gripped dome shields made of steel like the much later High Middle Ages and early Renaissance, but center gripped rather than strapped?
what if the way the shield is being held is in relation to the person they are fighting? i just noticed that in the examples you showed the closer they have the shield to the body the closer the fighter seems to be to their opponent.
Just a thought: some modern art forms (movies and games) deliberately gives us wrong ideas of fighting for the purpose of "looking good", such as spin kicks and bad fighting stances, so what IF some of the pictorial evidence of medieval/ancient times were also deliberately wrong just for the sake of "looking good" ? Of course i'm not talking about fighting manuals, they do have the obligation to show the reality of the moves and stances, the reader can't misinterpret the information so it's got to be clear, but out of the manuals, what if the artist wanted to give an empowered vision of a fighter, or that same old question "what if the artist didn't know anything about fighting and just depicted something that made sense for him ?"
Love all the source material photos. Thanks for the comprehensive discussion.
Can't wait for Roland Demicator response!
You know so much about Bolognese sources, have you ever considered writing a kukri book? .... I'm sorry... I'll get me coat.
Wow. Ultimate dad joke.
Rofl *choke*
Oh I get it
Would that be currying a flavour?
@Murdo; That's pretty good :)
If one tries to reconstruct a system on the base of medieval artwork, how does he know that the weapons pictured there weren't optimized for use against giant snails?
We have to assume that the butt trumpets were made to scare off the giant snails. I mean you don't see any around today so they must have worked
10:32 "The Bolognese sauces are standing more upright" I couldn't stop myself from laughing
www.google.co.uk/search?q=black+books+tower+of+soup&rlz=1C1CHFX_enGB526GB526&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEuoLZkd_ZAhULM8AKHXlkBGMQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=662#imgrc=TWKCxqq48bCVrM:
I was watching a few of Roland W's videos, and I was intrigued that he seemed to suggest that most of the fight was shield against shield and that the sword was just the instrument to end the opponent after besting him in that fight for position.
In a duel, yes. I'm pretty sure this would change in a battlefield situation. On the battlefield you'd probably just be looking for a moment where you can find a gap in the defence of any enemy and exploit it. Like "Oh, that enemy isn't aware that I can stab his side, while he's bashing my mate? Let's stab him! Oh that one isn't aware of me and his head is exposed... Let's cut it!" And of course... try to not be the guy who's getting his gaps abused... Wait... that sounds awkward...
"let's be Frank." Lmao
you suck
and you suck even more?
Tony, don't be that guy.
scholagladiatoria sorry matt
Kojii Naz lol you're awesome
As someone with no experience, if I were to see all these positions in art I would probably not take it to be that one may ALWAYS holds the shield close, another ALWAYS holds it far, etc., but that the shield is moved around dynamically. I could really see it being used in part as a counterweight to help with motion and/or balance, as well, of course, as a protection. It would seem natural to draw it in when lunging forward and to push it out when stepping back.
christosvoskresye good thought processes. Yes shields as well as weapons are intended to be used dynamically with the body as opposed to struggling with it. Basically the more you fight against your equipment the less you can fight your opponent.
This discussion reminds of the one about hammer, thumb and handshake grip on longswords. While in the beginning everyone thought only his favorite grip is the right one, now it seems clear that we have to take a dynamic approach.
I think the same is true here: In my opinion each of the three shield positions (close, medium extended and fully extended) has certain advantages and disadvantages. Now we only need to find out which action each shield position is good for.
test and what type of shield and which requires what strength / bodytype on what terrain. In the end the technique that allows you to survive is the correct technique. :P
While using a shield dynamically would be correct, using it as a counterweight wouldn't. As Matt, and others, have pointed out in numerous movie/TV sword and shield fight reviews you want to strike an opponent with your shield in front of you and not off the to the side. Reason being is that if you use your shield as a counterbalance when attacking and throw it to the side or back it leaves you exposed and negates any advantage you might have by using a shield.
Thanks for this video Matt! I've actually tried some of the things you talk about in my HEMA club and came up with very interesting results.
There are advantages to holding the shield close to the body at certain points during combat. First of all, stamina. It is tiring to constantly hold a shield at arms length, so resting the arm against the body help you stay in the fight longer. Second, it also gives you more flexibility with the attack directions of your sword or spear arm at the cost of higher vulnerability. Third, it gives better support when using the shield to give or take body blows. If you run into an opponent to put him off balance, you get more force behind the charge if your shield is in close contact with your body.
The examples of Medium Ward (shield held close to the body, flat towards the opponent) that you show are all with domed shields. As I argued in my paper in Spada II back in 2005, curved shields are shown in period artwork being used fundamentally differently to the way flat shields are shown being used. I'll be releasing some videos on this on the Stoccata youtube channel in the near future.
Where can we read that paper?
@@lxz9929 Most of my publications are available in electronic form at stephen-hand.selz.com/
"Let's be saxons..."
charlemagne does not approve
Thiago do you mean "angon"?
11:21. Stop fondling my boss.
Lol, I missed that!
It does look a bit molesty...
It's always Gary
Great point, Matt. Lots of people focus on sword and shield (and for good reasons), but I've noticed in my own reenactment group and others a surprising lack of focus on spear and shield, minus a few I know that recreate Spartan phalanx tactics. I know of many people who practice spear as well as sword and shield, and you'd think it'd be just common sense to practice spear and shield as much as either of the others. But I guess not. Personally, I'd love to focus on spear and shield when I pick up fighting again.
Another potential cause of difference is the type you are fighting, shield out in front edge on is great one on one, but leaves you very vulnerable to anyone attacking from the side and would get very tiring in a shield wall.
If you are holding the 'shield out in front edge on' then you are not in a shield 'wall' ;-)
This is why in period artwork people with flat shields in shield walls tend to be shown with their shields flat in front of them while people in single combat are usually shown with the shields edge towards the opponent.
Another great, informative video. Keep it up Matt. And that jacket is awesome.
08:20 - shield held close -> shield can be lifted into opponents line of sight as they start to strike.
I wonder if shield distance also depends on whether it is a formation fight, a broken melee, or one-on-on? I could see holding the shield close in the first, medium in the second, and extended in the third. Roland's shield bind style is facinating and looks very effective is a duel, but I think even he has said that is what it is ideal for and it does not seem best for a formation fight.
Roland acknowledges that his work is inspired by two papers I wrote some years ago looking at the surviving evidence for how people fought with large shields. In those papers I argued based on period artwork that flat shields tended to be held in front of the body (Medium Ward) as passive defence in melee and with the edge out (Outside Ward) in single combat. Curved and domed shields function differently and are always shown flat towards the opponent.
Stephen Hand thank you for the clarification! I find Roland's demonstrations and teaching videos very convincing and have been a fan of his for a while (both viking sword and shield and I.33). However, I did not know it was based on a paper. I mistakenly thought his viking sword and shield was mostly trial and error based off of a martial foundation. Are your papers available somewhere?
Roland's stuff is excellent, but we differ on a few minor points that we could probably sort out in a few productive minutes if we were ever in the same room together (which unfortunately to date we haven't been). The papers I wrote were in two volumes, Spada and Spada II published in 2003 and 2005 respectively. Matt was actually one of the referees on the first paper and spoke very highly of it. The two volumes of Spada are out of print and you may have trouble getting them. I've digitised a bunch of my papers and have put them up on a site called selz. I've had trouble in the past putting urls in youtube comments, but if you search for my name and selz it will come up. It's one of the main systems I teach at my school. I also have some videos up on the Stoccata youtube channel. I will be producing a new series of videos soon as I've been making different styles of shield and exploring interesting matchups between different historical shield types. Lots of fun!
Stephen Hand, excellent, I'll look for it and check out your channel. Thank you.
@@stephenhand4722 Got your papers, interesting speculation there. However, as of today, there is plenty of traditional sword/mace and shield techniques available in writing or on film, some of these living traditions, and I would advise anyone interested in sword and shield to pay careful attention to those. If we would at least try to learn the traditional techniques first, understanding them on rudimentary level, before jumping into speculation.
Nice that you did mention the different names of the eras.
Thx nice video.
Nice video, as always. I'm a French reenactor trying and reenactoring a viking man from the Xth century. The main reason we always use our shields very close to the body is that the great majority of viking reenactors play by the eastern rules. These rules come from Wolin, Poland. According to these rules, the hands, feet, legs, forearms, knees and elbows don't count as hits. So we protect the torso with our shields and the upper body with our swords. Also, in melees, if we extend the shield arm, it makes us easy targets for spears.
But reenactors playing by other rules (like "full target" rules) use their shields very differently.
My personal experience fighting with a boss shield I find that I am using the shield close to the body all the way to extended in a single exchange- so dynamically
Also, holding a shield out like that, especially if its a larger shield, gets tiring really quickly. So it might be that you keep the shield close when approaching the opponent, and extend when you are actually moving to engage the opponents weapon/shield/body.
Damn, we had to wait until 4:50 to take a shot in the "Context" drinking game, but it was a double shot:)
Looking at the artwork you referenced it appears that when facing archers or ranged attackers they’d push the shield out which would cover more of their body.
Then when fighting hand to hand they’d pull it in to protect their core & buttress against their bodies to take heavier blows.
My guess is that a flat shield would be better at close quarters, especially if used for binding the opponent's weapon, or striking with the edge, but a domed shield would be better at deflecting missiles or long range spear thrusts. Any thoughts, Matt? (Good video, by the way.)
Matt, could you do a video on exactly how much we can rely on artwork of a period to learn and or prove things about historical peoples and activities? I personally don't see how they could be very reliable, but that's probably because my mindset is using modern artwork to make that judgement.
Del tin has some very nice viking swords...I will eventually buy one.
I would not recommend Del Tin at all, there are better options.
Out of (very short) experience of fighting with sword and shield.
The main reason i see for a center grip shield held close to the body, is because it is less exhausting than holding it out from the body.
do admitted that temporarily i occasionally extend it away to create a gap, tempt the opponent to try to "bend" my shield, this is very tiering, and i would not hold my shield out far from my body longer than necessary for the sole purpose of conserving energy.
A alternative is to hold it close to my shoulder, and point the edge towards my opponent instead of the flat tho when in line battle, this is rarely optimal.
I see a lot of comments related to optimal way to hold a shield in relation to protection, but little in relation to conservation of energy or combat when there is more than two people...
Superdry check is late.
Superdry needs to make a fencing jacket. Matt would buy them by the dozen.
It's under the jacket
Hi Matt. So I just watched the Skallagrim's "HEMA Talk: Feints are no good" video and the comment section (like any other YT video) is slowly becoming a battleground of opinions. I personally think it would be very interesting to hear your insight of this particular topic. Cheers from Bulgaria :)
Kind of off topic, but I was at the Arnold Classic today, which I've been too a few times to watch strongman competitions, and managed to watch some HEMA matches (specifically longsword) live for the first time. Your channel reminded me of my brief time foil fencing in the past and I was hoping to also catch some sabre fencing (which you've peaked my interest in) yet missed it and ended up getting some time to handle a few HEMA swords instead, which balances a bit better than I expected (though majority of practice swords I've used in the past were either underweight foils or heavy bokkens, so I was hoping to be surprised).
Anyway, just figured I'd let you know how you inspired me to try to get back into fencing and the people who run the fencing portion of the Arnold is local, so I may be getting into the sport sooner than expected. Also, this actual vid was good as well, lol
I agree "context" can be an important word, but it all depends how and when you use it.
Roland's channel is called Roland Warzecha.
IIRC Mr W. that you mention doesn't deny domed shields were used. I think he said they were typical in Frankish lands, but the flat shield was typical in Norse lands. In Britain and other areas it might not be unusual to see both.
Really interesting point about the sword and shield combo being super effective against spear and shield, the most common weapon combo of the time. This could prove a useful insight into why the sword was so revered and such an important symbolic item. I am wondering is this a generally accepted notion, the sword and shield combo being super effective against the spear and shield combo, or is it just one of your own experiences?
Also, no doubt there are regional and personal preferences in how to use a shield. But it is also easily imaginable how one might carry the shield closer to the body when that person's arm is getting tired, as it is easier to hold it close. No matter how well you are trained after a long fight everyone will get tired at some point and not all people will have had the stamina to hold the shield out for ever, even though they might want to do so. So comfort might also explain some of depictions of shields closer to the body.
What is your opinion on flat shields being so common because the non-professional warrior; which would make up the bulk of any ancient fighting force, would have used them for as you stated "they were easy to make". Where as the professional warrior would have most likely used a domed shield because of superior defensive capability combined with the money or interest of time to build/buy them. In turn this being one of the possible reasons for different fighting styles that utilize a shield. By necessity the way you fight with a domed shield would very even if slightly from a flat shield due to the differential in weight and therefore balance?
I've never used dome shields in particular, but I would imagine that techniques could vary at least a bit from flat shields. Just having that extra curvature would probably provide much more coverage from smaller pivots and angles than you'd have to perform with flat shields. That might be why domed shields often were much larger, multiplying the effect of its higher efficiency, therefore providing greater coverage with even less movement and pivoting. Most very experienced fighters I know than can fight much longer than the average fighter because they've become so much more efficient in moving less with greater effect and accuracy, so maybe multiplying this effect on a domed shield by making it larger is a good way to mechanically raise the efficiency of your shield. And like you were implying, most of these very experienced fighters would be the more professional ones, who are more likely to be aware of the advantages of such shields and techniques.
"They are easy to make" today. Back then there were no plywood boards. Unprocessed wood is also easy to curve. Making a curved shield would have been harder but not as dramatically as it is today with modern materials.
Joaquim: Back then, no, they didn't have ready made plywood boards, but that does NOT mean that they didn't have, or use, plywood. Partly because what is plywood, but simply thin layers of wood glued together. Rather then making a shield out of simple boards, making it out of plywood (or then equivalent back then) would be stronger and lighter the equivalent made from simple boards. Start with a dome of some kind, and place a thin piece of wood over it. Cover it with glue, and then place another thin piece of wood at right angles to the first. Repeat until you have reached the desired thickness, alternating the grain of the wood. And you end up with a domed shield. Using simple boards it would be easier to make a flat shield. Least wise that's my guess.
David Briggs A flat shield is not necessarily simple. Roland Warzecha made some good videos about their construction. Check em out.
I’d say that a domed shield would also limit the amount of techniques that one could use as well. To use it in the manner of a buckler would be quite an awkward task. I speculate that they were mainly used very close to the body. I think I’d prefer a flat shield due to it’s versatility
I seem to recall a coment by nick thomas on using a shield against a rapier in which he said that holding the shield away from the body made it harder to actually see incoming thrusting attacks. the conclusion was something along the lines of, against thrusting attacks shield close, against cutting attacks shield away from the body or something like that.
As for holding shields, holding it closer provides more room for swordwork, while the sword is held in reserve or prep, the shield is pushed forward to cover more area or interrupt attacks. The shield would never be used strictly as a defensive, that would limit your options which is always terrible. Haha but always great videos haha
I've always loved shields. I dominated our sparring-based LARP because I rocked a "tower shield" Roman style. We even padded it so I could bash and shove, I'd make a good riot cop! I'm learning to use and love bucklers (I'd totally carry one back in the day, even now if it was IIIa+ ballistic rated). I want a good gothic or kite or heater shield, those are the ones I know the least about.
Side note, being an armored dark knight > armored paladin, I ditched the sword and holy magic and went with black magic and fried people like a mage tank and only needed a short sword just in case. Tho I did a LOT of pally time to and pwned noobs with a bastard sword in one hand. All weapons were dowels with duct tape, electrical tape, and pipe padding. Simple, effective, durable, and easy to customize. I used a US Vietnam era helmet and we made a sort of brigantine out of license plates and old jeans, we called it my "license plate mail" lol
6:26 So what you're saying is, that viking era anglo-saxons read late medieval, early renaissance fencing manuals.
No, just those late medieval manuals were just documenting thing that were in use for a long time before them.
Wait, so the anglo-saxons didn't time travel a few centuries into the future? ;-)
TlsGrz honestly that is the only thing that makes sense
"So what you're saying"? Strawmanning? Hmm... This seems familiar.
roughly speaking, of course.
Wouldn't it be more logical to think that those were traditions that influenced the future manuals?
Well done! I'd really like to see some more videos on how you use a spear with a shield. We see the pictures, tapestries, etc., but when I hold a spear with one hand, necessary if you've got a shield in the other, I find it very unwieldy. You have reach, but I don't know how to use one properly.
I have to say thank you because I've been writing a fiction book and I've been trying to figure out how Viking Era combat would be done, I mean Bernard Cornwell does a great job at writing but words are different than picturing and seeing. Anyway love the sword.
I just hade a thought when I saw you extending and pulling back the shield. (I have no experience in sword and shield fighting what so ever) And that's why I'm asking this I guess... But do you ever use the extending and retraction of the shield to control the speed of the cut? Sort of the way like dancers do when they do a spin. When you pull your arms in the angular velocity increases. So maby you can use the shield like a sort of sword cut accelerator? Maybe it sounds stupid. But in theory if the shield weight is greater than the sword and you have the shield arm extended and pulls it inward to your body the sword rotation / cut should be easier to accelerate. Compared to if you didn't have a shield...
It's an interesting thought but I can't see this being done while maintaining the shield in a defensive position. Maybe it's just the way I'm simulating it in my head, but the shield always ends up well out of line.
The problem with this is that if you withdraw your shield as you cut, you're withdrawing your protection. Specifically if you have your shield in Outside Ward (edge towards the opponent) and withdraw it as you cut, you will be exposing your forearm to a countercut.
This would physically only work if a) the shield is revolving around the same axis as the strike and in the same direction--or at least some component of its motion is--and b) the body structure is rigid enough that that momentum transfer actually makes it to the sword blade. Both of which are shaky assumptions at best. Interesting thought though.
Well it's not too dissimilar to the later British principle of equilibrio, where the off hand is swung in the opposite direction to the strike, just that with equilibrio you're swinging back a target while with this idea you're swinging back your primary defence.
Uncephalized thanks for your thoughts on this subject. I pictured me the pivot point being the spine going from the hips to the shoulders,and since both shoulders rotate in different directions when you turn your torso, the shield and the sword is always on the same axis more or less.
Against the body seems to be a resting position where you cant really afford to have it dangling by your side
so like before and just within bow range as armies approach each other
the extended positions seem to be more often seen in combat
then again we do see the against the body in duels and other depictions where they are in combat, maybe for the quick extension (like punching out) to block obscure or strike
Would be nice to have the opinion of modern day riot police on shield use: they are the ones who still use it regularly (in of course not completely similar situations, thankfully). I imagine the scandinavian "flat shield" preference might have something to do with the transportation on longships: hanging from the sides or stacked together in the boat. Thanks for this great informative video!
Can you do a video on the advantages and disadvantages of center-grip vs strapped shields?
i imagine the sword and shield combo would be mainly for higher ranking warriors, a spear (ignoring its effectiveness) or indeed ax, is undoubtedly less expensive/complicated to make. i wonder though what the training thresholds are? how quickly/easily (average person) could you become competent with either forms?
Ringen across the MS has commonalities but also varies a lot, as do the sword and buckler systems, as you say (I am not that familiar with SnB). I would agree that these variations are the result of style choices made by the proponents of these different systems. You can find the same thing in Japanese kenjutsu and jujutsu.
Taking a wild guess and assuming the shield wasn't just purely defensive but can be used in a offensive way having multiple ways to hold the shield may prove beneficial. Depending on stance, opponent, and your current distance from your opponent, it may prove beneficial to hold the shield close if you're standing toe to toe and use the shield to bash the other person to make space whether it be to strike or create distance to outflank them. Perhaps holding it in the middle will allow more freedom of movement while at the same time having the shield arm in a position to strike with the edge of the sword. As for the extended shield perhaps its purely defensive designed to glance any on coming strike while you close the distance or to strike with your sword while simultaneously block an incoming attack.
Either way I'm sure all three were used in a fight depending on the circumstance. Its always good to have multiple stances to transition to when the course of the fight changes.
Great video. Thanks!
About the full extention of the shieldarm: I think maybe those pictures where meant to be "action-shots"? When you're fighting with a large centergripped shield your shield arm would tire very quickly when you hold it away so far.
Especially in a Battle, where you'll have to fight for a longer time (if you survive that long), you'd really want to hold your shield closer most of the time, I think. Holding it further out is something you'd maybe do in smaller skirmished I guess?
So basically I think your favourite word is important here: CONTEXT! In what context is the shield used? In longer battles? Preserve your stamina and hold it close. Short skirmishes or duels? Hold it further out to get the full advantage of the size of the shield... Or do it like me and hold it close to yourself at start and only extend to strike or to protect your swordhand while striking with the sword (or axe, or any other weapon). My vikingshield is rather heavy and my stamina sucks. I can't hold it too far away from me for minutes and still have enough power in my arm to move the shield around quickly enough to respond to my opponents movements. But that may be just me. An experienced martial artist will have less problems here.
Another great video. Cheers mate!
What do you think about Roland's emphasis on the bind in his recreations of period combat? It seems like for him that the fight happens in the bind rather the bind being part of the fight if that makes any sense haha
One thing I've noticed about Roland is that his sword strikes are relatively light, and may not have enough force to penetrate any kind of armour. Obviously not everyone wore armour, and not all armour would be good protection against a stab, which Roland's style should be quite effective at creating an opportunity for.
Having a shield bind lets you force your opponent to give you room for a good strike, binds are less useful with axes/spears compared to swords. The kite shield and spear combo doesn't really lend itself to binds that much.
A sword bind is excellent for duelling (which Vikings certainly did a good deal of), not that useful in line combat I'd suggest. I do like Roland's work with thin-edged shields, which are arguably much more accurate than the thick-edged shields that a lot of us re-enactors use.
In mma we call it a clinch and its grappling range and as a striker in mma i'd prefer to stay out of that unless i grab him in a front headlock, and as a viking combat reconstructor i disagree with his exessive use of a bind with a sword that lends itself to heavy cuts which it is a heavy cutting sword in the context of many medieval swords being cut and thrust blades in later periods, and the axe is more likely to be used with a shield than a sword since most people actually couldnt afford a sword with it being a weapon of jarls or lords of the period... And throwing cuts always beats thrusts in my opinion unless your using a spear or lance... I beat rapier with broadsword every time because i beat the rapier aside and crack em with the guard then slash at their head, even better with a shield because rou can block then punch and slash
@@Ocker3 I encourage you to watch more of Roland's work on this. He speaks of the head speed of the sword being more than enough energy to make a hard strike. Like a whip speed from a quick flick. The more I watched his demonstrations the more I think he's correct. His sword and buckler work is outstanding.
@@PilgrimBangs I see him make this cut often, and often from a structurally weak position. This short edge, wrist flicking cut... may have enough energy at the weak of the blade to lacerate...but at best..It would only cause superficial damage. Often I see Roland Terminate a fight at this cut...It would be a great and penetrating cut, with a saber. Possibly with an arming sword... with a Viking era Sword? There are only a few of the types that would benefit from such a cut.
@@thefourthcrow5627 It would be interesting to see some experiments gauging the force of these strikes. There are pressure plates that can accurately measure in foot lbs. I am confident you'd be surprised by the results.
Looking at the illustration at 11:01 I notice that what I thought was poor artwork showing the 'round' domed shields with pointy tips (in other illustrations), might actually be a depiction of elliptical shields with points at both ends. Note the fellow on the left side showing the inside of the shield. Thoughts?
Liking this before watching :)
How about a video about the best budget weapon and shield combos. Like viking sword + viking shield. arming sword plus knight's shield. Norman sword + norman kite shield. Etc. And a low budget, medium budget, high budget versions.
I like it when he talks about Bolognese sauces
Gotta wonder how good those boss shields are in melee combat. Considering that strapped shields became the fashion and hoplite shields were strapped, you can see that people who expected a lot of grueling melee used strap shields.
It makes sense, the boss relies on the strength of your grip and it's kinda got mechanics against it since it is held further away from your body. Using it offensively is probably really useful since you can only take so many strikes against the rim before your arm is exhausted.
Your point about using the shield against the spear is really good, since I find that just about anything placed between you and the spear is enough to turn the strike away from your body.
Boss gripped shields were in use continually by various cultures at the same time as strapped shields - the Romans used various kinds of boss-gripped shields, both in the military and for gladiators, and most shields still in use in the 19th century were boss-gripped. Strapped shields have been historically less common, even though they were dominant in the late-medieval period (though even then, boss-gripped shields still existed, most famously pavises and bucklers).
I'll admit, there's a discrepancy between what I've learned myself and what you've said on your channel. To my knowledge, the primarily issued melee weapons after the medieval period were the bayonet, the pike, and maybe some thrusting swords, if those were issued to common soldiery at all. This supports my statement above.
You however detail a lot of how swords were in use after the 16th century. I think there are two contexts here : one where people trying to kill men as efficiently as possible in organized combat, and another where people are peacekeeping and wieldliness has a much stronger influence.
So far as all that's concerned, I can only say that strap shields come into play more as combat becomes more organized and boss shields are favored when you're still in a more mobile form of warfare.
Sorry I don't understand what you are saying :-)
The Romans were pretty organised and used boss-gripped shields. The same for Charlemagne's army. I don't know what you mean by "more mobile form of warfare" :-)
There is no direct correlation between boss-gripped and strapped shields and some wider development of warfare. They are simply two different types of shield that offer different advantages. Strapped shields have in most cases been favoured because the shield hand was required for another task, such as holding the reigns of a horse or supporting a pike.
The bayonet and pike in modern European warfare were originally defensive items to protect people shooting firearms from sudden cavalry attacks. Man for man (given equal numbers and no superiority of firepower) 19th century colonial warfare showed that the bayonet was not a good match for people with shields and swords or spears (eg. Zulus, Afghans or Dervishes). The bayonet is a short very heavy spear - it's not as good as a spear because it has less reach and weighs about 3 times as much.
scholagladiatoria Eh just poking around to see where These strap shields come into play. Looks like I haven’t found it.
In regard to the term "mobile warfare," I've come to certain conclusions that there are modes of strategic warfare that change over time. Fundamentally, maybe 80% of any fighting man's career is either moving arms and food or storing them. Maybe 10% moving loot.
If that's true, then I think we can see that as things become more centralized, the average soldier relies less on existing infrastructure and becomes more focused on building new infrastructure for a permanent presence, with Rome and modern combat being the prime examples.
What does this have to do with shields? I dunno. Just seems to me when a soldier can reliably store fiddly gear for a month before actually using it, he tends to carry it more.
That jacket makes Captain Context look like a Bond villain.
Holding the shield flat against the body, or flat but extended, is a much better defense against spears, particularly multiple spears in mass combat, than holding it with the rim pointed toward the opponent. Missiles are also worth taking into consideration, this method of holding the shield presents a passive defense against those attacks you might not see coming. Shield walls don't work unless you're all holding your shields flat.
Rim pointed toward the opponent covers lines of attack that you would expect from swords or axes, you don't expect to be speared in the side by someone standing in front of you. It also allows for a more active way of engaging with individual opponents, shield-fencing as you see with Roland Warzecha. Potentially, in mass combat, combatants transition from the passive defensive method to the more active rim-foremost method as formations break up and spears are lost or discarded in favour of sidearms.
Though on the contrary, spears and arrows penetrate shields and stick out the other side (I can easily demonstrate this and it is shown in the period art) - if you hold the shield right against your body, the spears or arrows will still spike you.
scholagladiatoria it would be less of a problem with domed shields I assume... Also Vikings were more about skirmishes than big battles that would be why their shields were flatter: more adapted to looser formations and one on one fights
Matt makes a good point about having the shield directly against your body, but in essence you are correct. As I argued in two academic papers I wrote on surviving evidence for shield use, period artwork shows flat shields held in Medium Ward (flat towards the opponents) in formation, but in Outside Ward, (edge towards the opponent - specifically towards his left shoulder - and yes, sometimes the artwork is that accurate) in single combat. Curved and domed shields aren't used in Outside Ward because it makes no sense with a curved shield.
Basically standing in Outside Ward in massed combat is a good way to cop and arrow or javelin, or just to get a spear under your right arm from the bloke two over and a couple of ranks back who you're not concentrating on. Shields are a more passive defence in melee and a more active one in single combat (though if we follow the Bolognese rotella sources AND the German duelling shield ones, both tell us to step around the rotating shield to defend ourselves, NOT move the shield around the body.)
Stephen Hand I understand Matt's point about holding it right against the body. I understand you'd want a bit of leeway.
I discovered the Open/Closed ward method of shield use posted by you in an Australia reenactment magazine 11-12 years ago and adopted it immediately. It's interesting to see the amount it has been taken up in the time since.
My kind of educational video 😊
Every day I worry all day that I will be caught without my sword and shield at the ready. This is well founded as I do not actually own either. I also have experience in using either. Ugh, I need to get my life in order.
Damn Matt you look dope af
What are the names of these anglo saxon manuscripts that you've used? I'd like to see more of them
Hello! I am intrested in that manuscript you referenced, I am doing research and trying to do shield and other weapons combat.
Wearing the SWOLE jacket, I see
Medieval artwork isn't big on perspective. I wonder if, in that *context*, the out-held shield might not actually be intended to be flat on, in that particular image, to receive missiles?
Doesn't the fact that most combat would have been formation fighting mean that most of the time the shield would have been held in a wall and therefore imply that you probably shouldn't be moving your shield a tremendous amount?
Good video. Personally i prefer to keep the shield away from the body, having it close to you is a good way of getting your teeth knocked out from a blow on the upper section of the shield and also allows you to use the shield more offensively. Unless its a skirmish i think spear and shield will always beat sword and shield as its a formation weapon.
Viking shields were typically pretty large - some 80 to 115 cm from the archaeological evidence, and were obviously sized to the wielder. Roland W. has stressed this point. (Btw the one in this video, albeit a nice shield, is not of authentic size for you Matt. Just saying 😊👍)
I know there are no treatises regarding Viking Sword and Shield techniques, but the available Medieval imagery, e.g. the I.33 manuscript, and the pics you used are so full of artistic license. Shields may be drawn as to be visible to the reader but can be out of context for the activity. One has to be very careful drawing any conclusions. I guess the only way is to pick up authentic kit and try to work it out. Which is what we do. Even then we might be off the beaten path.
Anyway, keep up the excellent work Matt. All the very best. Keep safe, stay strong 👍
You got an ad a little past the middle of your presentation!
Holding the shield close to the body might let an arrow, dagger point or other fine point stick through and hurted you. Much bad juju and you could get a bad bubu. Seriously keeping the shield several inches from the body would seem the better option with round shields. The big kite shields and other forms might suggest other uses.
Really interesting thanks Matt, fandabidozi has a good video on Scottish Targe and dirk
quick question or three for those who know.
do bladesmiths work exclusively with 10xx steels such as 1095?
Would 52100 make a good sword blade?
What about D2, S7, or A2? (all of which can be ordered as flat ground stock.)
All of these steels can be tempered but unlike the 10 series steel, I've never heard of anyone trying to forge it.
Guardia Alta (Bolognese fencing): IPA "gwardja alta"
Is it possible that the Penicuick sketches show Highlanders using guards found in I.33 as late as the mid 18th century?
Of course you stand the bolognese sources up right, they'd roll off the table otherwise
What about fighting in formation, which should've been more common than individual fighting and absolutely dictated by the shield? It's so much harder to reconstruct, but isn't there merit in attempting to recreate two shield walls fighting each other (both attacking and defending), in a plausible way , that's wouldn't be downright suicidal? Maybe then the different shield placements would make more sense, perhaps?
Hey Matt I've always wondered about the Halberd "mail peircers" and the bucklers from the icelandic sagas what's your opinion history? Or fantasy.
I have a tangential question about secondary weapons. As you have discussed, and as other HEMA-related TH-camrs have discussed, the sword was often a secondary weapon, with the main weapon being a spear or another weapon with a long reach. But what about a small axe as a secondary weapon? A small axe (an axe usable with one hand, that could be worn on the belt relatively easily) would be cheaper to make than a sword (I think), and also would be very handy as an accessory outside of combat, since you could use it for chopping wood and those types of tasks for which a sword would be very ill-suited. So, were these ever used as secondary weapons, ideally with a shield? If not, why not?
Though there is some truth to what you say, the kind of axe useful for chopping people is not terribly useful for chopping wood, and vice-versa.
Depending on the period axes were used as sidearms by many various users.
- Those who could not afford swords. It's often noted that viking warriors who could not afford swords would instead take axes, these are not wood-axes mind, they are light, swift, and keen by comparison. I have heard it quoted, _(though I cannot recall from where,)_ that an early viking period warrior could buy a spear, shield, and axe for the price of a sword.
- Specifically to counter enemy armour, in many periods.
- By those on horseback, Persian and Scythian warriors were known for this in ancient Greek sources, the greeks seemed to see use of the handaxe as barbarous and exotic, they stuck to spear and sword themselves. In later periods the horsemans axe maintains it's place.
- The ancient Egyptian armies fielded two different kinds of axe, one longer and sturdier with a shorter edge for piercing, the other a slashing axe as mentioned earlier, though these were superceded by piercing and chopping swords respectively as metallurgy progressed.
An excellent point about how an axe for combat differs from an axe for camp chores and tasks. Mostly I was thinking about how it would be cheaper, and thus poorer soldiers might want to have one to keep costs down.
Hi Matt, in relation to the shield's effectiveness, I think we need to keep one thing in mind in addition to what may happen in sparring:
Sharp things are sharp.
We don't spar with sharp things, though. In all tests, the degree to which a sharp or pointy object gets stuck in a shield or buckler is actually quite surprising, see here:
th-cam.com/video/3FfmBMa-1EQ/w-d-xo.html
This means that it was most likely even easier to bind and close the distance than we may intuitively think today!
Definitely - I would say that even more important than sharp edges are sharp points. Edges don't tend to get stuck in things unless you strike excessively hard at the shield while not really trying to hit the person, whereas points (especially of spears) get stuck deeply in wood really easily.
Awesome video as always!
Doesn't holding out a flat bossgripped shield all the way with a completely straight arm, the way Roland tends to do, provide way too much leverage to a hit on the rim? Also in the artworks you show it seems to be used to protect against projectiles rather than against a direct opponent...
Manipulating a shield is done by pressing with the shield edge on the shield flat (though it can on occasion be done with the weapon and Talhoffer even shows the shield being opened up with a kick). Therefore if you are in Outside Ward with the edge towards the opponent, you are not presenting the flat of your shield to be bound by your opponent. A lot of the skill in fighting with flat centre gripped shields lies in not giving the flat of your shield to your opponent to bind or hook.
Thank you for the clarification dear Sir. So basically this makes it ideal for single combat against a similarily armed opponent. I take it this is also the only situation this would be used? As from the amateurs perspective it seems by controlling one opponent by binding his shield with yours and fighting around them you open yourself up massively to attacks from all other directions.
Spot on, which is why we see illustrations of melee with the shields held face forward (Medium Ward) and single combat edge forward (Outside Ward). Outside Ward works well with flat shields against any other weapon, but becomes suicidal when there's a possibility of being attacked from other directions. Marozzo in 1536 stated that you should hold the rotella edge forward against one opponent and flat in front of the body against multiple opponents, particularly those with spears.
Deeply curved shields are always shown being held in Medium Ward and really nothing else makes any sense. Interestingly there are a few illustrations of deeply curved shields in Medium Ward being opposed by flat shields in Outside Ward.
Hi Matt--This video implies that there were fairly elaborate systems martial arts in the early middle ages. What is your opinion on the comparative systems of early medieval vs. later medieval systems? Is it likely that the early medieval systems (most of the probably local) were as well developed?
Very difficult to answer that. We know that the Romans had 'fencing' schools and gladiatorial schools. So the passing of time does not always go hand in hand with development of an art or science. We simply don't know how developed fighting systems were in different areas in this period, but given that even in the late medieval period most martial training seems to have been conducted between one person and a student (rather than in organised fencing schools) I don't see why there couldn't have been some individuals teaching quite complex systems in the viking era. It just would have been in more isolated and insular traditions, rather than as part of guilds or schools as we see in the late medieval period.
keeping the shield close to the body, or far away, or somewhere in between depends on what weapon you're facing or what kind of tactic you're gonna use. axes can hook and hit behind the shield with the head, so you dont wanna keep your shield close, or you might get hit in the shoulder for example. keeping the shield close while facing a sword, you just need to move your shield with little effort where the strike is gonna land and its blocked. spears are diffrent again, goal is to gain control over the spear tip with your sword and then dash in out of the spears danger zone. doing re-enactment in norway, you usually face these three types. kinda hard to explain this shit when you're a dyslextic. :D great video anyway.
its also about resting your shield hand. keeping the shield tight is not as heavy as keeping the shield way out. if you fight for long periods of time in a big fight.
Would there be an advantage to having a strap over your forearm to stop the shield from piviting. It seems that it would be easy to push the shield against the bearer to disadvantage him.
As with all rounded things, it would make it harder to get a solid hit on it. I’m sure some were rounded for that reason, as to wether it was common practice, eh debatable. At that point I would assume it would come down to aesthetic, or economic. For the knights and wealthy, rounded would probably be more common, for levies it’d be flat.
How about formation fighting?
Do you have an review About this beautiful sword? How thick is the blade and how much do it taper to the point?
i think one of the other reasons that people use flat shields is that the only shields from that survive are from the gokstad ship find in norway
There are more remnants of shields surviving than just Gokstad, but they have all been flat, that's true. But of course they have nearly all been in Scandinavia and there is a fair amount of evidence that Frankish and Anglo-Saxon shields were different - smaller and perhaps often domed, with different styles of boss.
I would imagine shield placement and use might also differ depending on the armor being worn by the user. Someone with no armor, or extremely light armor, may feel more protected and 'safer' by keeping the shield closer to the body, whereas someone in full mail may feel more at ease relying on their armor to protect them, especially against a sword, and use their shield in a more extended, or 'free', fashion.
Is that a fencing/HEMA jacket?
so if boss held shield gives such an advantage in terms of reach, why would they change the preferred shield style to strapped shield later on? I understand it for horse combat, but on foot?
Boss gripped shields never disappeared - of course bucklers are small boss-gripped shields and they remained in use throughout history all over the world. But large boss-gripped shields remained in use during the later middle ages as well (see how a pavise it held for example). The real question is; What advantages do strapped shields have? I'll do a video about that.
I think that would be very interesting. The first thing that comes immediately to mind is that with a strapped shield you gain more use of the shield arm, so a cavalryman could use a spear two handed without having to juggle the shield or risk dropping it. If cavalry at that time, rather than charging into the enemy, instead rode along the front of an enemy using a sort of pool-cue stabbing motion (this is a frequent debate as im sure you know) it would fit pretty well with both the elongation of the norman shield and the freeing up of the hand.
A boss gripped shield can be quite easily manipulated by an opponent in a melee, and I guessing could be quite tiring to hold in a battle. I think strapped shields come along to perhaps make it a bit more comfortable to hold in a long melee; and perhaps a bit more secure too. Idk, just guessing
Hello Mr. Easton! Any chance you could recommend a book on historical sieges from the perspective of the men being attacked? It's my birthday and I'd very much appreciate it for a book I plan on writing
Hello Matt, as a topic for a future video, can you talk about swords and swordsmanship during the American Civil War? The impression I have is that most officers and cavalry were not well-trained with their swords, and that poor-quality swords were common. These stereotypes are perpetuated by famous stories like the 1859 raid on Harper's Ferry (before the war, but still a related event,) where a Marine Corps officer stabbed the enemy militia leader in the chest and "The blade bent double." Even though swords didn't have any impact on the war due to the heavy use of firearms, I'd still like to know from a swordsmanship historian like yourself if these stereotypes are founded or if they are based on rare exceptions.
I have a question about domed shields: Were they held a specific way to keep a blow from glancing off and clipping the person holding it? I've seen a bunch of helmet tests where the blow deflects out but still catches a dummy in the shoulder, what stops domed shields from doing the same?
Is there any evidence for center gripped dome shields made of steel like the much later High Middle Ages and early Renaissance, but center gripped rather than strapped?
what if the way the shield is being held is in relation to the person they are fighting? i just noticed that in the examples you showed the closer they have the shield to the body the closer the fighter seems to be to their opponent.
Nice jacket
The puns are strong on this one ;)
You were talking about a early age fighting expert called "Roland" and a surname I cannot understand, is he in the UK? Does he have a school?
Just a thought: some modern art forms (movies and games) deliberately gives us wrong ideas of fighting for the purpose of "looking good", such as spin kicks and bad fighting stances, so what IF some of the pictorial evidence of medieval/ancient times were also deliberately wrong just for the sake of "looking good" ?
Of course i'm not talking about fighting manuals, they do have the obligation to show the reality of the moves and stances, the reader can't misinterpret the information so it's got to be clear, but out of the manuals, what if the artist wanted to give an empowered vision of a fighter, or that same old question "what if the artist didn't know anything about fighting and just depicted something that made sense for him ?"