According to the manuscripts I’ve read, shields are best used while worn on the back, with the user spinning in a circle as needed to block enemy strikes.
I know you intended this as a joke but backshields and spinning was pretty big in indigenous fighting systems in the Eastern Woodlands area of what is now the US and Canada.
Nah, the best way to use a shield is all by itself with no other weapon. Close in you bash people with it and at a distance you throw it at them like a giant frisbee.
When it comes to video game animations, I find it helpful to think of "sword&shield" as a single weapon, and need to have all their movements coordinated together. Too often shields are thought of as accessories unrelated to the sword, which convey defensive bonuses merely by existing. A shield is a defensive weapon, not armor.
Shields are probably the most overlooked part of fight choreography in film and TV. The actors keep swinging the shield out to the side or behind them when they strike, and only holding it in front to defend when they're being shot at with arrows, or at a dramatic moment where the shield is about to be swatted away or split by an axe or something. That has annoyed me since I was about 10 years old.
I can't even watch anything with hand weapons now that I understand the dynamics of actual fighting more, maybe one in a hundred movies is passable......and the thing that really gets me, is that making it more realistic would be fantastic visually.
I chalk a lot of that down to why Hollywood fighters never wear closed helmets. If you're properly protecting yourself with your shield, you're a lot harder to see/film.
That use of the camera was a great demonstration for the buckler and its defensive capabilites. Well done....also one of your more rigoruous videos, with all the removing and wearing shields one to the other!
With the kite shield something that we did with the Norman re-enactors was to stand side on behind the shield. This meant that the shield covered everything from the enemy position from knee to shoulder. This also let you have more flexibility in how you attack and where without it being as obvious . It also lets you brace against people charging at you and have a more uniform line with your formation.
one of the things i've learned from training people to use sword and shield is that Not pulling the shield back is a learned process. People will naturally pull the shield back as the sword comes forward to act as a balance.
This was not my experience as a child playing with my hand-made plywood shield. I think they may be un-learning the bad habits that they learned from poorly choreographed fight scenes. When actually threatened (even by my friend with a hockey stick covered in carpet padding), it becomes obvious where the shield needs to be.
@@JonathanGerkin there's a foot work/body thing that makes people do it. I've been fighting for 20 years and training others for over 10. Not all do it, but most start that way. It's really noticeable when they reach for longer shots, body rotates and they turn their body, but don't leave the arm with the shield in front of them.
That's true. However I am sure even today actor's school are doing sword fight training. At least the actors that have done this should be teached to not expose themselves. And if not the fight choreography guy shoudl have it's foot down. Theoretically. It's like when 8 guys have surrounded the hero and patiently wait with their strike until the hero has killed two of their comrades and turned around to them.
I would add that kite shields vary a lot in size and there is plenty of illuminations were the user is cleary gripping the straps in a way similar to an indo-persian shield, almost like a boss grip. Great video btw!
Consistently my favorite historical martial arts creator! I love how you provide examples of weaponry as well as provide the context for their use to create a more accurate and nuanced representation of the history! :)
"Conan! What is best in shields?" "To extend your shield, to see their blows driven away from you, then pull back and ease the lamentation of your shoulder."
great video as always Matt. I'm gong to be the devil's advocate here and say as a person who works in the game industry that it's supposed to be entertainment first and foremost, and tailored to the average, casual player. The player needs to get the instant feedback of visually attacking vs defending and that usually requires a DRAMATIC animation and pose change. Moves in real fights are supposed to be much more subtle and efficient but they don't translate well to games or movies well. Also keep in mind how small you actually see the character in the game, even in first person games, so the animations, colors and shapes need to be super clear to the player. I personally also cringe whenever a spear is slapped on the characters back (you have no idea how much I fought against this in the games I worked on), or a shield or a bow is used wrongly but that what works for gameplay in most cases. Bottom line is that anything that is supposed to be a feedback for the player and has gameplay consequences need to be LOUD and DRAMATIC so the player instantly gets that feedback during combat where there's also a ton of other things happening on the screen. Maybe there's a way to make it as dramatic and clear while still looking realistic, which would be the ideal solution.
Yup, during development we very often have to choose between realism or fun gameplay. The priority, in my opinion should always be fun gameplay, unless if you're making somekind of simulator. I believe in this example the reasoning, besides what you mentioned was to provide the player with an opening to attack. As in this game it's almost impossible to attack around shields when facing each other.
One thing regarding the distance at which you hold a shield from your body. I have seen enough tests with arrows vs shields where the arrow penetrates a few inches into the shield that I personally would always be holding it a decent distance from my body when blocking arrow fire.
The Celtic/Germanic coffin-lid style shield, you alluded to at 5:00, was adopted for use by Roman cavalry. I wonder if the Romans changed the boss grip from vertical to horizonal. Classical era Greek hoplon shields that incorporated a metal boss with a central grip seem to have been horizonal as well. I could only find a couple of examples on-line of hoplons with a metal boss that showed the grip.
One factor not considered in the video are the adjustments you need to make depending on the R/L angle of attack. If your opponent is left handed or using a left side guard and you're right handed and therefore holding your shield on your left, it makes a big difference whether the shield is strapped or boss-gripped.
I completely agree with you. It's something that irks me a lot. However, from a gaming perspective, I'm almost completely certain this is more often than not a balancing factor. Having openings at all in the upper torso/arms area is felt necessary for fair gameplay. In truth, a smart swordsman with a shield is a VERY hard target to hit with the same equipment, if they cover themselves up well. Not just a sword, but most weapons. I can be fully protected and still jab you with a spear offering very little targets, but you can imagine how much a problem that would be in any game to try to fight that person. The concessions made for gameplay are that you cannot defend and attack at the same time, instead doing one or the other. This allows the attacker, with good timing and movement, to get in a strike AS or AFTER you strike to make any progress at all. I don't know what the alternative can be, perhaps requiring extreme levels of precision to hit the other opponent's hand/face as they attack or something, but that would make combat rather grueling and long, and probably a rather boring battle of attrition. I'm totally on board with making shield animations NOT stupid! But we would also need to reach some sort of fair balance where the player cannot have their shield protecting them at all times, even if it protects them somewhat mid-attack by closing angles off. Maybe a stamina system that you have to manage, because when depleted the shield will retreat over the body, leaving more of the sword-side exposed. That's what I'd do.
HEMA really needs to look into shield fighting more. The sources are there, from I.33 to Talhoffer, Bolognese and broadsword & targe, its all there. We can't let the SCA have all the fun (especially since what they do is mostly not historically based)
The issue is that those are mostly Bucklers in those treatises, not Shields for War, so we can only extrapolate. Strangely, I think the source for use on the largest type of shield, bar the Talhoffer dueling shields, which are their own case of crazy, is Cappo Ferro, with the Rotella, and it's pretty static in those plays. And yeah, I really wish the SCA heavy fighting would move forward, in that what they did made sense at the time, but now we have so many better tools and understanding of how to use medieval weapons, but it's really become it's own thing, like Modern Fencing, a "combat sport"
@@Scuzzlebutt142 there is a cool play in Marozzo with the rotella where you use it to move your opponent's rotella, opening their defense, and then thrusting underneath. But yeah, usually it is fairly static. That makes it nice, because the only thing you need to worry about is keeping it out there. The hard part (other than, well, keeping it out there - they feel colossally heavy after a training session!) is working around your opponent's shield.
When examining the Bayeux tapestry where the rear of the shields are shown, I thought the straps looked more like those of a dhal designed to be griped in a fist. We must bear in mind that some of the stitches may be added by later restorers, but a lot of them seem to show a multi grip that could be gripped or strapped to you arm both vertically or horizontally or slung over your shoulder.
Specific context is often lost when people think of how specific tools are used, and they are just commentating from afar without being in the shoes of the people using them in context. Videos like this are a rare and logical treatment of an often overlooked thing. But it applies to a whole range of observations people make on a whole range of topics. Top notch stuff!
Have you heard about "KAŁKAN" it's a small to medium sized shield made by sewing together willow or ratan twigs and it has really marvelous holding/wearing system.
Typical Viking shields were 80-90cm (32-36 inches) in diameter. Some were larger, such as the Gokstad shields, which were 94cm (37in) across. Based on surviving remnants, some shields appear to have been as small as 70cm (28in) in diameter.
Hey Matt, I think that in the case of movies and series, your criticism is very valid, there is no excuse for the actors not to hold the shield in the right way. Now in the case of video games, I think things are different, as many of these animations and ways of holding the shield are due to gameplay, build and balancing mechanics. I cite Dark souls/Elden Ring as an example. In these games, the entire combat system was designed and balanced in a specific way. In the game, the shields protect you when the player raises them, but to attack, the player needs to lower it, thus creating funerability, and adding to the rhythmic strategy of knowing how to attack at the right time. The same goes for enemies, in many of them the player needs to wait for the exact moment to attack the enemy when he opens his shield guard, thus creating strategies. If the shield were held in the historical way, it would simply break the gameplay and the game's balance, as the combat system was designed and programmed differently. I think that to have this type of accurate grip, we would have to have a game with its own mechanics and balance designed for more realistic combat and with this use of a shield. But if the game's proposal is different, I don't think they should change this type of grip, for gameplay and balancing purposes.
Sure, but "waiting until the enemy is stupid enough (read: programmed) to open their guard" doesn't feel great depending on the context. If you're fighting hordes of idiots, sure. Not so much if you're facing a master warrior. It works fine for Dark Souls, but I think a more realistic system would make use of feints; you provoke a reaction that creates an opening for your attack. The more experienced your opponent, the more rapid and convincing your feints need to be. That's harder to translate into a combat system, though, unless you fill up a "Feint Meter" or something silly. For the kind of combat we're used to, better to go with a Posture mechanic and let the player smash their enemy until that enemy can't defend for a while. At least then, the player is proactively breaking their enemy's defense instead of waiting for a scripted opening.
Could be in video games like bannerlord its sort of needed your character opens up so opponent gets chanse to hit even as game balance mechanic. Correct shield use would be also difficult to implement in video game, and when receiving hit the shield is out of way instead sword just passing through in the game when its sort of telegraphed
@@scholagladiatoria yeah i also feel same. Could be so cool if some even just fighting game would use complex mechanics, and such for realism even though the gameplay might not be then fun to the larger audience. Maybe in future though we see even VR style game that feels extremely realistic, and the fighting would be your actual movements that is my dream game honestly even if its just some kinda linear gladiator arena style game i just think VR technology isnt far enough
There have been some attempts at it; the primary difficulty is lack of force feedback. In current VR, when your strike is blocked for example, you can just keep moving through it, and your VR arm loses tracking with your real one. @@lalli8152
@@lalli8152swords work in vr game right up until they make contact with anything :P it’s fun still, but definitely needs some sort of mechanical abstraction to make it make sense.
You might be giving some developers/directors too much credit and others too little here with what you say, though it is reasonable point. Knowing for ourselves what is technically correct or not, we can make reasoned judgements when analysing various media to determine whether some "error" has been made due to limitations or in favour of something other than realism, or whether it really was a sloppy error. It's fun because you sort of get an indication of budget, purpose, and so forth by looking at these little things.
matt calling people noobs made my day ahahahaha edit: i think they do this in video games for gameplay reasons. for example in elden ring you cannot block and attack at the same time, UNLESS youre using weapons in the category of thrusting swords and spears (in this case its actually a mechanic of the game). you can however do what elden ring calls "guard counter" where if you R2 attack immediately after blocking your character reacts and strikes back at the opponent. its hard making combat realistic in video games without making the game unplayable/unenjoyable
What annoyes me greatly, especially in the Dark Souls Videogames, is when Heater Shields are being hold as if the straps are mounted perfectly vertical onto the Shield. It looks so wrong, holding a Shield like this. Or was it ever done this way?
@@_Matthias_0815 There are a variety of strapping setups for Heater shields, some vertical, some angled, some left handed, and some setup so you could choose. So it could be done that way.
Extending longer shields with the bottom pointing out toward the foe, either to cut off angles or even to strike, was even done with the Hellenic/Gallic Thureos type of oval shield, as well as even the Greek aspis. Seems like really any long enough shield was used that way. Same thing with later, (16th c.?) Italian infantry shields that were ovular and strapped.
19:44 I think the biggest reason why you want to hold the shield close to you in a formation, is because there (probably) are multiple opponents with attacks coming from various directions. The cone of protection is kinda reversed against opponents from multiple directions i.e. the further you hold the shield, the easier it is for anyone _not_ directly in front of it to get around it.
With larger shields in unit tactics, the curve innovation helped protect from hits coming in from the sides. When two shield walls hit each other, its not the shield-man directly opposite that kills you. Its the one to the left, or the pikeman "down the street". Even a small curve to the shield helps close the sides off and force them to go around it again (like the buckler cone of protection). The Roman shield, you could almost get INSIDE of and set up camp lol. Regarding the angle you hold it, knowing when to hold that angle tight and when to let an impact "open the door" is also tricky. That and not letting shield kicks open you up or smash you in the face / shins. Large shields really cut off a lot of your left handed attacks, making a lot of the attacks and combos predictable. The Norman shield is probably the best compromise of versatility and protection in that regard. Still some things you can pull off from the left. All shields are punching implements. Face on if you want to be nice. Edge on if you don't. To some extent, they are also "space makers" like when you raised the tip of the Norman. Yes they could probably push in for a cut or thrust, but they'll have a mouthful of loose teeth for trying.
One note I'd like to add about boss gripped. The heavier ones you still need a second point of contact to properly balance them. With the longer scutum shields, oval shields, and old style Germanic shields it's long enough where you could balance it on your knee, but the big round shields I have found is that it's easier to brace both hands and find the bind, then from the bind, open up to attack.
How do you keep the boss gripped shields from twisting/rotating in your hand whe they are hit near the edge? Or does that second point of contact keep that rotation from happening?
@@MarkS-qp6pz That second point is supposed to keep from doing that. I ran into the same thing with my viking shield trying one hand it up against a spear.
@matthewrussell4343 Thanks! I always wondered about that. I never understood that sword and shield are complimentary weapon systems. I always thought of shields as modern body armor... It's just there until something hits it. But a shield doesn't just hang there until it's hit.... It has to be manouvered with the sword to make a complete weapon system. Well, that's why I watch these videos.
Excellent summary. It leaves me wondering about a couple of related issues (hint for another video subject). A couple of features I've seen on wargame figures and also "historic" art. * Horse archers portrayed with a small shield strapped to their left forearm), also seen in some byzantine light archers. * How practical is a boss grip for a horseman?
a really good way to train any dual-wielding (shield and sword, sword and sword, hand on hand...) is the kung-fu ring : wide as a forearm, you slide both inside the ring, and that forces you to keep your arms close, but not too close, from one another. Suddenly, the issue discussed at 21:00 is no longer, and you learn how to move properly without any opponents. Because i've seen a lot of people contraining themselves, their sword stuck behind their shield while i'm bashing to win some time to figure a better approach.
The way they're portrayed in films and games may be a reflection of how people view combat as people taking turns doing a single action rather than what it really is, two people doing multiple things at once hoping the other messes up. In games it's also for balance of course, so the player can't be both attacking and defending at once and has to commit to an action, though usually there's a few moves or abilities that let you attack while guarding but they might cost some resource or have a downside. On the topic of the distance you hold 'em, I always appreciated how in FromSoftware's recent games (Dark Souls, Elden Ring) shields are held differently based on their size; smaller shields are held with the arm extended foward, medium shields are held close to the body with the forearm and fist pointed up, and greatshields are also held close but with the arm and fist pointed down. They're not accurate per se but there was some effort put into the animations.
Thanks you are right. I never thought about it but this Movie and Gaming like way to open a shield guard for a posing thrust comes propably from the same minds which believed that medieval armies like in braveheart would always run screaming into each other without any order or discipline so that the hero figure can win the day alone with his courage and a bloody sword
Can't help but think the wild swinging of shields in videogames is more related to the game balancing aspects of being unable to defend oneself while attacking, making an attack the only moment when an opponent can strike. Fortunately real combat doesn't need to be "fair" or "balanced."
In Zelda 2 he holds it in front pretty consistently, but in the first one he definitely throws it out 90 degrees to the side on the initial thrust with both the swords and the magical rod Edit: I reviewed the sprites, and it does look like he's better with the big shield, but worse about it with the small shield
One more little thing about holding the shield out from your body (and face) is that it prevents a hard incoming strike driving your own shield into your face/head, gives you room to absorb the impact!
This might be unpopular with my fellow hema competitors, but I want to try something with that Indo-Persian buckler. I encountered a guy using a true hand and a half sword at Queens gambit. It actually felt really good in one hand. It wasn't great in longsword because of its length, but the guy did alright. At another tournament, I saw a guy using that strap buckler with a shamshir. If I used the hand and a half and the strap buckler in a sword and buckler tourney, I hope to win by anachronism.
Just made me to think about that, when I last time painted some miniatures, I had some historical minies ("Russian militia" or something like that), which I use for fantasy setting... those men had shields and spears, and I posed them in way, that they were often striking or possibly waiting opening to strike, but in same time they covered themselves with shields. And for me, it felt more natural pose for them, than maybe Fireforge (=producer) was intended(?). But now, during this video, I just started to think, how many minies or modern day art about medieval/fantasy setting, when person strikes, they exposes themselves from attack. While when I was putting my self to shoes of those militiamen, I was thinking: "if I am crafter, or maybe trader, and I am called to defend the town, or region, and I am armed with helmet, shield and spear (and some leather/fur clothing), last thing what I want to do in battlefield is to not keep that large shield between me, and my enemy. Defence first, and strike only if there is opportunity. (I am using these miniatures for Frostgrave, Five Leagues From Borderlands, Rangers of Shadowdeep,... Small scale fantasy games, where player(s) side(s) may have something like half dozen characters or bit more. Well, and I also use them as nice decorative pieces of art too..).
do you think that holding out a sheild might be a bit of a detriment if you where in a more compact formation fighting other more compact formations? Because if the opponent to the front left or right of you attacks you, and your sheild is out towards the one in front of you of you, that might cause it to cover less of your peripherals.
For video games and TV shows, it is all about see well the movement of an attacker/defender. That's why we have crappy movement while fighting. But I agree that's annoying for weapons nerd like us.
I haven't had access to full sized shields (ie Scutum or kite shields) but, with the ones I've tried, resting the elbow on the hip with the shield held out seems comfortable for extended periods. How well that would work with armor reaching below the waist (which might force the arm and elbow further from the body) I couldn't speak to. There may also be conditioning bias involved as my main martial art training is a traditional defensive style of Western boxing where this is the stance you use. As for the question of moving the shield in time with your attack this might explain why the "javelin" style hold with spears (ie held high with the little finger closest to the spearhead) was popular in old Greek art as moving a heavy shield like the hoplon might not have been practical and using the javelin grip lets you generate a lot of energy while keeping you from extending your arm past the shield (as your wrist can't bend enough to fully extend the arm and keep the spear on point).
For some medieval shields, they also had a Guige, a strap for holding it when not in use, but it could also be lengthened, which may have made it useful for taking some of the weight in use. Don't know if they did or not.
id love to see a vid about left handed fighters. did shield wielding fighters keep the shield in their left hand if they are left handed? are there instances of them using it in their right hand? how did that combat look vs a right handed warrior?
Not sure it's the right niche but there's a beautiful video by Schwerpunkt on Medieval shields that I strongly recommend. I'd love to see these channels meeting
Whats with these _"not sure this is the right place but i recommend Schwerpunkt"_ comments? I have seen dozens of comments like these in the past months. Is this a new copypasta? meme? bots?
@@agrippa2012same. hes a very boring presenter as well, it takes him 45 minutes of a 60 minute video to get to the point hes making and sometimes he doesnt.
@@cal2127 at first i was thinking these are either bots or burner accounts trying to promote the channel. OP only has two comments on this channel, both about schwerpunkt, but his account is 4 years old. Something really strange is going on here...
Just one think i discovered when we started to use fencing mask with shield is you just have to hold your shield much higher than reneactors usually do. Otherwise you will not be able to raise it fasn enough and fight may fight with one fast thrust to the face much sooner than you imagine.
how far did arrows or spears penetrate wooden shields typically? I imagine that a lot of peoples forearms were getting poked with those strapped shields.
The cone of defence thing only really applies against a single point of origin meaning it only works when expecting attacks are mostly from a single foe and no one else likely to try to exploit how exposed your outside just became. (This may well all be true of most battlefield contexts just thought it was an important caveat to mention.) Also the cone aspect shouldn't be a significant factor against arrows I wouldn't have thought as their point of origin will be quite far away.
Arms proficiency and real history is hard to think about, at least for my tiny brain. Thankfully we have Matt to think for us. Initiating new combatants to basic sword and shield use the most common wrinkles to iron out have, for my fourteen years, been to not displace your own shield on striking and to not cover your own line of sight on defending (where applicable). A lesser philosopher might argue the common man did much the same technical faults way back and nobody thought much of it, but what do I know.
It's hard to NOT pull it back if you're trying to use your hips to generate power. Or conversely (as one of my instructors said a lot of people do) you forget what to do with your sword as soon as you pick a shield up.
Some teardropshield may have a horizontal grip and strap. Or it is just because it's been a long time shields had boss so even when the strapped teardrop shield appear, maker keep add a boss cause "it's always been"
I have a question Matt, why didn't warriors in the olden days make some type of "sliding door" mechanism for a slit that they could see trough? Seems simple enough to make, maybe it would compromise the structural integrity of a shield too much? Anyway, it would seem like an extremely helpful addition, full cover while seeing in front of you.
I was hoping maybe you'd address the biomechanics of using the shield...I've never trained sword&buckler, but isn't awkward to essentially strike with both hands at the same time? It feels very unnatural to me when I try it. It would be awfully hard to turn your shoulders into a sword swing that way, wouldn't it? I imagine it "feels" much more natural to counterbalance a strike by pulling the other arm back and pivoting the upper body as you strike. Along those same lines, MMA fighters drop their lead hand down when they throw a kick, for balance and to help generate power. Logically, that would seem to be a bad idea as it leaves the head "open" for a counterstrike.
I always wondered, could you get more effective shield thickness by angling it, such as for use against projectiles, also increasing chance of deflection like tank armour?
Some things that werent mentioned, with a viking shield, if its in the hand forward from the body, its easier to poke the right edge to caused a temprary flip and expose your right side to anotehr attacker, especially a spearman. also a huge disadvantage of pushing shield out to create the cone of defence, if the shield wieelder is inexperienced, its easy for an attacker to feint a high cut, especially with shoulder movement, and then as the shield goes up, come in underneath, when shield held closer, these gaps arent there, and holding shiieldd closer increases the defensive cone, if your defending from all incoming attacks....and a good thing about flat shield, if in shield wall, with shield flat, then you can lock with fist the right hand edge by pressing the left edge of shield of buddy to your right, creating a nice rigid wall, but i understand shield walls are now a bit suspect with some historians...
I think if you want to absorb a blow with your body weight you might hold a large shield flat and close to the body, but as the shield gets smaller you'd want to amgle more, (and its easier as the shield gets lighter)
So I don't know for sure, I'd have to look into it. However, based on what I know about the variables of both shield types, I suspect that they are in the same ballpark, with some pavises being much heavier than most hoplite shields.
Good well made reproductions of aspides using historical methods of construction, they weigh about 7 kg (or 15.4 lbs). I imagine the people who were making them as part of their profession could get them lighter, maybe in the realm of 5 kg (11 lbs). Any lighter than that, and they might not function as well as they would have been intended to.
The uncovering while striking doesn't bother me in games. The game needs to visually communicate that the opponent is not covering up or in a "blocking" state. It's signalling to your brain that they're open to strikes. And because there is a delay between the screen, your brain and your fingers, it needs to be done in a fairly significant way - so that it registers in time for you to do something. Same with telegraphing strikes, it gives you a window of opportunity to make your move. Sure you could try to do it completely historically accurately and realistically, but the fighting system would have to work fundamentally in a very different way. If anything, I think it might work for duels, but less so for fights with multiple combatants around you - Kingdom Come demonstrated this. Taleworlds are not stupid, they had a reason for doing this the way they did it.
Regarding video games, I think it's mostly a topic of "balancing" the combat (though force of habit may be playing a big part by now as well). The thing with shields it that they are amazing defensive tools. They have been used 5000 years ago and they are still used in different roles today. The ability to strike while protecting yourself even while attacking is very powerful. And that is why, I think, shields will probably never be "properly" used in video games. After all, if you can attack an enemy and defend yourself without drawbacks, why should you ever not? It's very unsatisfying to fight an opponent who can attack you without opening himself up. And it may very well also be unsatisfying to play this way in the long run, as it wouldn't be all that challenging. If you don't risk opening yourself up to a counter-attack, there is little reward in finding the proper timing. This rests, in large part, on my assumption that games will run into one specific major problem for quite a while longer: translating user input into character action. In real life, if you attack a shield bearer, you have to attack "around" the shield. Stabbing around the side or over the top. If you have a hand free, maybe grabbing the shield and trying to wrestle it to the side. I'd challenge anyone to come with a way to properly model this kind of fine control with a keyboard and mouse or a controller. Without making the whole system to clunky and cumbersome to use. (Sincerely, I'd be curious would people may come up with.) In the end, moving the shield to the side (or back) while attacking, in a video game, is an abstraction of the attack-and-defend counter play from real life and it serves it's purpose (giving the gameplay some risks and rewords to make it interesting) well enough, even at the cost of realism. Pretty much the same argument for armor, by the way, and why it's usually only a "flat damage reduction" instead of properly simulating how armor would protect you. Also, I think movies and TV shows should have a lot less leeway in this regard. Proper choreography would look just as impressive (honestly more so) than the wild swings we see in most "historical" fighting scenes.
Roman rectangular shields cannot be used on horseback. Rectangular shields existed in medieval Europe, but only used by people on foot like crossbowmen.
Wounder how that sort of applies to fighting with knives if you have a knife in one hand and another knife or shield in the other hand do you draw it in closer to you when you launch attack because you have a shorter weapon
And depending on circumstances the proper shield for the situation as in a field of battle whereas you might have an arrow storm a buckler won't do you much good but a scutum or kite shield and even the viking you can hide behind it from arrows or interlock them as in a turtle or shield wall
I honestly can't remember ever seeing a buckler in a movie. I'd love it if they were used more, they're so cool! (and were used for-freaking-ever!) Bucklers do seem to be catching on in games (both videogames and ttrpgs), which is great.
Granted, the Dark Souls bucklers really aren't very good for blocking much of anything, they're a "parry" tool, which is an interesting niche to put them in, if inaccurate. Although if they were accurate, they'd probably be too OP for gameplay balance purposes.
The problem mechanically with having the historical usage of the shield in Bannerlord is that it would necessitate a change in game mechanics. Melee combat systems are complicated , and almost universally they don't have shields providing passive defense (as in it's not a physical object when you're not pressing right click). Drawing the shield back while not being historical informs the player of how the game mechanics function. Having shields provide passive defense would drastically change the nature of the game, probably for the negative.
This vid has activated a part of my brain I haven't used 😅 Well done matt , thinking about the sheild practically for travelling and being heard clanking aboit over the horizon could be a five away I guess flash strikes may be yhe wooden Sheilds and stealth or scare the hell out of enemy with plenty of noise 😂
Matt if you like Bannerlord, you should try out Chivalry 2. It's combat is a bit more in depth than what Bannerlord offers, though it's not as large of a scale and is mainly a player versus player game.
One question from a newbie here, but it's driving me crazy. The way the scutum is held looks super uncomfortable, especially with some mad brit throwing themselves at it and jarring the shoulder back. Holding it back and awkwardly positioning the shoulder like that feels restrictive, and near impossible to throw the shield forward. Am I missing something, or do I just have dodgy joints?
I wouldn't think they were held out much, as they were very heavy, in the range of 10 to 15 pounds. So they were pobably carried with the arm hanging down carrying the handle like a suitcase. Turning your body sideways might make this a little easier, I think.
According to the manuscripts I’ve read, shields are best used while worn on the back, with the user spinning in a circle as needed to block enemy strikes.
AKKSHUALLY, that's true, yes, but _only_ if you have fully charged your special action bar beforehand.
I know you intended this as a joke but backshields and spinning was pretty big in indigenous fighting systems in the Eastern Woodlands area of what is now the US and Canada.
On the back would also be my preference, so that it gives me some protection as I'm running away as fast as I can.
Nah, the best way to use a shield is all by itself with no other weapon. Close in you bash people with it and at a distance you throw it at them like a giant frisbee.
Just point me to the smithy, and I might make for one of the best cave lionentech armorers in the world within the next twenty years hopefully.
When it comes to video game animations, I find it helpful to think of "sword&shield" as a single weapon, and need to have all their movements coordinated together. Too often shields are thought of as accessories unrelated to the sword, which convey defensive bonuses merely by existing. A shield is a defensive weapon, not armor.
Shields are probably the most overlooked part of fight choreography in film and TV. The actors keep swinging the shield out to the side or behind them when they strike, and only holding it in front to defend when they're being shot at with arrows, or at a dramatic moment where the shield is about to be swatted away or split by an axe or something. That has annoyed me since I was about 10 years old.
I can't even watch anything with hand weapons now that I understand the dynamics of actual fighting more, maybe one in a hundred movies is passable......and the thing that really gets me, is that making it more realistic would be fantastic visually.
I chalk a lot of that down to why Hollywood fighters never wear closed helmets. If you're properly protecting yourself with your shield, you're a lot harder to see/film.
That use of the camera was a great demonstration for the buckler and its defensive capabilites. Well done....also one of your more rigoruous videos, with all the removing and wearing shields one to the other!
With the kite shield something that we did with the Norman re-enactors was to stand side on behind the shield. This meant that the shield covered everything from the enemy position from knee to shoulder. This also let you have more flexibility in how you attack and where without it being as obvious . It also lets you brace against people charging at you and have a more uniform line with your formation.
i remember that, especially if you had spear....i think i remember doing that with viking shield too...
Without completely blocking your field of vision. A thing I noticed in quite a few movie battle scenes especially with a large number of extras.
one of the things i've learned from training people to use sword and shield is that Not pulling the shield back is a learned process. People will naturally pull the shield back as the sword comes forward to act as a balance.
This was not my experience as a child playing with my hand-made plywood shield. I think they may be un-learning the bad habits that they learned from poorly choreographed fight scenes. When actually threatened (even by my friend with a hockey stick covered in carpet padding), it becomes obvious where the shield needs to be.
@@JonathanGerkin there's a foot work/body thing that makes people do it. I've been fighting for 20 years and training others for over 10. Not all do it, but most start that way. It's really noticeable when they reach for longer shots, body rotates and they turn their body, but don't leave the arm with the shield in front of them.
That's true. However I am sure even today actor's school are doing sword fight training. At least the actors that have done this should be teached to not expose themselves. And if not the fight choreography guy shoudl have it's foot down.
Theoretically. It's like when 8 guys have surrounded the hero and patiently wait with their strike until the hero has killed two of their comrades and turned around to them.
I would add that kite shields vary a lot in size and there is plenty of illuminations were the user is cleary gripping the straps in a way similar to an indo-persian shield, almost like a boss grip. Great video btw!
Consistently my favorite historical martial arts creator! I love how you provide examples of weaponry as well as provide the context for their use to create a more accurate and nuanced representation of the history! :)
"Conan! What is best in shields?"
"To extend your shield, to see their blows driven away from you, then pull back and ease the lamentation of your shoulder."
great video as always Matt. I'm gong to be the devil's advocate here and say as a person who works in the game industry that it's supposed to be entertainment first and foremost, and tailored to the average, casual player. The player needs to get the instant feedback of visually attacking vs defending and that usually requires a DRAMATIC animation and pose change. Moves in real fights are supposed to be much more subtle and efficient but they don't translate well to games or movies well. Also keep in mind how small you actually see the character in the game, even in first person games, so the animations, colors and shapes need to be super clear to the player. I personally also cringe whenever a spear is slapped on the characters back (you have no idea how much I fought against this in the games I worked on), or a shield or a bow is used wrongly but that what works for gameplay in most cases. Bottom line is that anything that is supposed to be a feedback for the player and has gameplay consequences need to be LOUD and DRAMATIC so the player instantly gets that feedback during combat where there's also a ton of other things happening on the screen. Maybe there's a way to make it as dramatic and clear while still looking realistic, which would be the ideal solution.
Thanks, was looking for this comment. If your characters fought realistically, it would look pretty dull from a distant camera.
Yup, during development we very often have to choose between realism or fun gameplay. The priority, in my opinion should always be fun gameplay, unless if you're making somekind of simulator.
I believe in this example the reasoning, besides what you mentioned was to provide the player with an opening to attack. As in this game it's almost impossible to attack around shields when facing each other.
One thing regarding the distance at which you hold a shield from your body. I have seen enough tests with arrows vs shields where the arrow penetrates a few inches into the shield that I personally would always be holding it a decent distance from my body when blocking arrow fire.
The Celtic/Germanic coffin-lid style shield, you alluded to at 5:00, was adopted for use by Roman cavalry. I wonder if the Romans changed the boss grip from vertical to horizonal. Classical era Greek hoplon shields that incorporated a metal boss with a central grip seem to have been horizonal as well. I could only find a couple of examples on-line of hoplons with a metal boss that showed the grip.
The aspis is the name of the Greek large round shield of antiquity, and they do not have bosses or central grips at all.
The aspis is the name of the Greek large round shield of antiquity, and they do not have bosses or central grips at all.
One factor not considered in the video are the adjustments you need to make depending on the R/L angle of attack. If your opponent is left handed or using a left side guard and you're right handed and therefore holding your shield on your left, it makes a big difference whether the shield is strapped or boss-gripped.
I completely agree with you. It's something that irks me a lot. However, from a gaming perspective, I'm almost completely certain this is more often than not a balancing factor. Having openings at all in the upper torso/arms area is felt necessary for fair gameplay. In truth, a smart swordsman with a shield is a VERY hard target to hit with the same equipment, if they cover themselves up well. Not just a sword, but most weapons. I can be fully protected and still jab you with a spear offering very little targets, but you can imagine how much a problem that would be in any game to try to fight that person.
The concessions made for gameplay are that you cannot defend and attack at the same time, instead doing one or the other. This allows the attacker, with good timing and movement, to get in a strike AS or AFTER you strike to make any progress at all.
I don't know what the alternative can be, perhaps requiring extreme levels of precision to hit the other opponent's hand/face as they attack or something, but that would make combat rather grueling and long, and probably a rather boring battle of attrition.
I'm totally on board with making shield animations NOT stupid! But we would also need to reach some sort of fair balance where the player cannot have their shield protecting them at all times, even if it protects them somewhat mid-attack by closing angles off. Maybe a stamina system that you have to manage, because when depleted the shield will retreat over the body, leaving more of the sword-side exposed. That's what I'd do.
HEMA really needs to look into shield fighting more. The sources are there, from I.33 to Talhoffer, Bolognese and broadsword & targe, its all there. We can't let the SCA have all the fun (especially since what they do is mostly not historically based)
The issue is that those are mostly Bucklers in those treatises, not Shields for War, so we can only extrapolate. Strangely, I think the source for use on the largest type of shield, bar the Talhoffer dueling shields, which are their own case of crazy, is Cappo Ferro, with the Rotella, and it's pretty static in those plays.
And yeah, I really wish the SCA heavy fighting would move forward, in that what they did made sense at the time, but now we have so many better tools and understanding of how to use medieval weapons, but it's really become it's own thing, like Modern Fencing, a "combat sport"
@@Scuzzlebutt142 there is a cool play in Marozzo with the rotella where you use it to move your opponent's rotella, opening their defense, and then thrusting underneath. But yeah, usually it is fairly static. That makes it nice, because the only thing you need to worry about is keeping it out there. The hard part (other than, well, keeping it out there - they feel colossally heavy after a training session!) is working around your opponent's shield.
When examining the Bayeux tapestry where the rear of the shields are shown, I thought the straps looked more like those of a dhal designed to be griped in a fist. We must bear in mind that some of the stitches may be added by later restorers, but a lot of them seem to show a multi grip that could be gripped or strapped to you arm both vertically or horizontally or slung over your shoulder.
Specific context is often lost when people think of how specific tools are used, and they are just commentating from afar without being in the shoes of the people using them in context. Videos like this are a rare and logical treatment of an often overlooked thing. But it applies to a whole range of observations people make on a whole range of topics. Top notch stuff!
Have you heard about "KAŁKAN" it's a small to medium sized shield made by sewing together willow or ratan twigs and it has really marvelous holding/wearing system.
Typical Viking shields were 80-90cm (32-36 inches) in diameter. Some were larger, such as the Gokstad shields, which were 94cm (37in) across. Based on surviving remnants, some shields appear to have been as small as 70cm (28in) in diameter.
Hey Matt, I think that in the case of movies and series, your criticism is very valid, there is no excuse for the actors not to hold the shield in the right way. Now in the case of video games, I think things are different, as many of these animations and ways of holding the shield are due to gameplay, build and balancing mechanics.
I cite Dark souls/Elden Ring as an example. In these games, the entire combat system was designed and balanced in a specific way. In the game, the shields protect you when the player raises them, but to attack, the player needs to lower it, thus creating funerability, and adding to the rhythmic strategy of knowing how to attack at the right time.
The same goes for enemies, in many of them the player needs to wait for the exact moment to attack the enemy when he opens his shield guard, thus creating strategies. If the shield were held in the historical way, it would simply break the gameplay and the game's balance, as the combat system was designed and programmed differently. I think that to have this type of accurate grip, we would have to have a game with its own mechanics and balance designed for more realistic combat and with this use of a shield. But if the game's proposal is different, I don't think they should change this type of grip, for gameplay and balancing purposes.
Sure, but "waiting until the enemy is stupid enough (read: programmed) to open their guard" doesn't feel great depending on the context. If you're fighting hordes of idiots, sure. Not so much if you're facing a master warrior. It works fine for Dark Souls, but I think a more realistic system would make use of feints; you provoke a reaction that creates an opening for your attack. The more experienced your opponent, the more rapid and convincing your feints need to be. That's harder to translate into a combat system, though, unless you fill up a "Feint Meter" or something silly. For the kind of combat we're used to, better to go with a Posture mechanic and let the player smash their enemy until that enemy can't defend for a while. At least then, the player is proactively breaking their enemy's defense instead of waiting for a scripted opening.
Could be in video games like bannerlord its sort of needed your character opens up so opponent gets chanse to hit even as game balance mechanic. Correct shield use would be also difficult to implement in video game, and when receiving hit the shield is out of way instead sword just passing through in the game when its sort of telegraphed
Yeah, I get why they do it. It still annoys me though!
@@scholagladiatoria yeah i also feel same. Could be so cool if some even just fighting game would use complex mechanics, and such for realism even though the gameplay might not be then fun to the larger audience. Maybe in future though we see even VR style game that feels extremely realistic, and the fighting would be your actual movements that is my dream game honestly even if its just some kinda linear gladiator arena style game i just think VR technology isnt far enough
There have been some attempts at it; the primary difficulty is lack of force feedback. In current VR, when your strike is blocked for example, you can just keep moving through it, and your VR arm loses tracking with your real one. @@lalli8152
@@lalli8152swords work in vr game right up until they make contact with anything :P
it’s fun still, but definitely needs some sort of mechanical abstraction to make it make sense.
You might be giving some developers/directors too much credit and others too little here with what you say, though it is reasonable point. Knowing for ourselves what is technically correct or not, we can make reasoned judgements when analysing various media to determine whether some "error" has been made due to limitations or in favour of something other than realism, or whether it really was a sloppy error. It's fun because you sort of get an indication of budget, purpose, and so forth by looking at these little things.
How thick are rotellae and those metalic indo-perian shields usually?
matt calling people noobs made my day ahahahaha
edit: i think they do this in video games for gameplay reasons. for example in elden ring you cannot block and attack at the same time, UNLESS youre using weapons in the category of thrusting swords and spears (in this case its actually a mechanic of the game). you can however do what elden ring calls "guard counter" where if you R2 attack immediately after blocking your character reacts and strikes back at the opponent.
its hard making combat realistic in video games without making the game unplayable/unenjoyable
I'm pretty sure celtic shields and adaptations like the thyreos were MOSTLY held with a horizontal grip rather than vertical.
Yeah, we find vertical and horizontal grips on various shields in the Roman era. That might make an interesting video in itself.
What annoyes me greatly, especially in the Dark Souls Videogames, is when Heater Shields are being hold as if the straps are mounted perfectly vertical onto the Shield. It looks so wrong, holding a Shield like this. Or was it ever done this way?
@@_Matthias_0815 There are a variety of strapping setups for Heater shields, some vertical, some angled, some left handed, and some setup so you could choose. So it could be done that way.
Extending longer shields with the bottom pointing out toward the foe, either to cut off angles or even to strike, was even done with the Hellenic/Gallic Thureos type of oval shield, as well as even the Greek aspis. Seems like really any long enough shield was used that way. Same thing with later, (16th c.?) Italian infantry shields that were ovular and strapped.
19:44 I think the biggest reason why you want to hold the shield close to you in a formation, is because there (probably) are multiple opponents with attacks coming from various directions. The cone of protection is kinda reversed against opponents from multiple directions i.e. the further you hold the shield, the easier it is for anyone _not_ directly in front of it to get around it.
With larger shields in unit tactics, the curve innovation helped protect from hits coming in from the sides. When two shield walls hit each other, its not the shield-man directly opposite that kills you. Its the one to the left, or the pikeman "down the street". Even a small curve to the shield helps close the sides off and force them to go around it again (like the buckler cone of protection). The Roman shield, you could almost get INSIDE of and set up camp lol.
Regarding the angle you hold it, knowing when to hold that angle tight and when to let an impact "open the door" is also tricky. That and not letting shield kicks open you up or smash you in the face / shins. Large shields really cut off a lot of your left handed attacks, making a lot of the attacks and combos predictable. The Norman shield is probably the best compromise of versatility and protection in that regard. Still some things you can pull off from the left.
All shields are punching implements. Face on if you want to be nice. Edge on if you don't. To some extent, they are also "space makers" like when you raised the tip of the Norman. Yes they could probably push in for a cut or thrust, but they'll have a mouthful of loose teeth for trying.
One note I'd like to add about boss gripped. The heavier ones you still need a second point of contact to properly balance them. With the longer scutum shields, oval shields, and old style Germanic shields it's long enough where you could balance it on your knee, but the big round shields I have found is that it's easier to brace both hands and find the bind, then from the bind, open up to attack.
How do you keep the boss gripped shields from twisting/rotating in your hand whe they are hit near the edge? Or does that second point of contact keep that rotation from happening?
@@MarkS-qp6pz That second point is supposed to keep from doing that. I ran into the same thing with my viking shield trying one hand it up against a spear.
@matthewrussell4343 Thanks! I always wondered about that. I never understood that sword and shield are complimentary weapon systems. I always thought of shields as modern body armor... It's just there until something hits it. But a shield doesn't just hang there until it's hit.... It has to be manouvered with the sword to make a complete weapon system. Well, that's why I watch these videos.
@@MarkS-qp6pz No problem
Excellent summary.
It leaves me wondering about a couple of related issues (hint for another video subject).
A couple of features I've seen on wargame figures and also "historic" art.
* Horse archers portrayed with a small shield strapped to their left forearm), also seen in some byzantine light archers.
* How practical is a boss grip for a horseman?
a really good way to train any dual-wielding (shield and sword, sword and sword, hand on hand...) is the kung-fu ring :
wide as a forearm, you slide both inside the ring, and that forces you to keep your arms close, but not too close, from one another.
Suddenly, the issue discussed at 21:00 is no longer, and you learn how to move properly without any opponents. Because i've seen a lot of people contraining themselves, their sword stuck behind their shield while i'm bashing to win some time to figure a better approach.
The way they're portrayed in films and games may be a reflection of how people view combat as people taking turns doing a single action rather than what it really is, two people doing multiple things at once hoping the other messes up. In games it's also for balance of course, so the player can't be both attacking and defending at once and has to commit to an action, though usually there's a few moves or abilities that let you attack while guarding but they might cost some resource or have a downside.
On the topic of the distance you hold 'em, I always appreciated how in FromSoftware's recent games (Dark Souls, Elden Ring) shields are held differently based on their size; smaller shields are held with the arm extended foward, medium shields are held close to the body with the forearm and fist pointed up, and greatshields are also held close but with the arm and fist pointed down. They're not accurate per se but there was some effort put into the animations.
Thanks you are right. I never thought about it but this Movie and Gaming like way to open a shield guard for a posing thrust comes propably from the same minds which believed that medieval armies like in braveheart would always run screaming into each other without any order or discipline so that the hero figure can win the day alone with his courage and a bloody sword
Can't help but think the wild swinging of shields in videogames is more related to the game balancing aspects of being unable to defend oneself while attacking, making an attack the only moment when an opponent can strike. Fortunately real combat doesn't need to be "fair" or "balanced."
It is interesting that Link in the early Legend of Zelda games kept his shield in front of him while fighting.
In Zelda 2 he holds it in front pretty consistently, but in the first one he definitely throws it out 90 degrees to the side on the initial thrust with both the swords and the magical rod
Edit: I reviewed the sprites, and it does look like he's better with the big shield, but worse about it with the small shield
Maybe this is a stupid question, but why did the shields with straps still have the metal boss, like the kite shield you were showing? Tradition?
One more little thing about holding the shield out from your body (and face) is that it prevents a hard incoming strike driving your own shield into your face/head, gives you room to absorb the impact!
This might be unpopular with my fellow hema competitors, but I want to try something with that Indo-Persian buckler. I encountered a guy using a true hand and a half sword at Queens gambit. It actually felt really good in one hand. It wasn't great in longsword because of its length, but the guy did alright. At another tournament, I saw a guy using that strap buckler with a shamshir. If I used the hand and a half and the strap buckler in a sword and buckler tourney, I hope to win by anachronism.
Just made me to think about that, when I last time painted some miniatures, I had some historical minies ("Russian militia" or something like that), which I use for fantasy setting... those men had shields and spears, and I posed them in way, that they were often striking or possibly waiting opening to strike, but in same time they covered themselves with shields. And for me, it felt more natural pose for them, than maybe Fireforge (=producer) was intended(?). But now, during this video, I just started to think, how many minies or modern day art about medieval/fantasy setting, when person strikes, they exposes themselves from attack. While when I was putting my self to shoes of those militiamen, I was thinking: "if I am crafter, or maybe trader, and I am called to defend the town, or region, and I am armed with helmet, shield and spear (and some leather/fur clothing), last thing what I want to do in battlefield is to not keep that large shield between me, and my enemy. Defence first, and strike only if there is opportunity.
(I am using these miniatures for Frostgrave, Five Leagues From Borderlands, Rangers of Shadowdeep,... Small scale fantasy games, where player(s) side(s) may have something like half dozen characters or bit more. Well, and I also use them as nice decorative pieces of art too..).
Do you know if the roman samnite shield had a horizontal (like the rectangulanr scutum) or a vertical grip (like celtic shields) ?
do you think that holding out a sheild might be a bit of a detriment if you where in a more compact formation fighting other more compact formations?
Because if the opponent to the front left or right of you attacks you, and your sheild is out towards the one in front of you of you, that might cause it to cover less of your peripherals.
As someone who's trained mostly unshielded blade arts, this is just fascinating.
Another fantastic video thanks for sharing.
Goes well with spaghetti! Cheeky aren't we! Love it!
OK but how do you throw a round shield so that it comes back to you?
For video games and TV shows, it is all about see well the movement of an attacker/defender. That's why we have crappy movement while fighting. But I agree that's annoying for weapons nerd like us.
I haven't had access to full sized shields (ie Scutum or kite shields) but, with the ones I've tried, resting the elbow on the hip with the shield held out seems comfortable for extended periods. How well that would work with armor reaching below the waist (which might force the arm and elbow further from the body) I couldn't speak to. There may also be conditioning bias involved as my main martial art training is a traditional defensive style of Western boxing where this is the stance you use.
As for the question of moving the shield in time with your attack this might explain why the "javelin" style hold with spears (ie held high with the little finger closest to the spearhead) was popular in old Greek art as moving a heavy shield like the hoplon might not have been practical and using the javelin grip lets you generate a lot of energy while keeping you from extending your arm past the shield (as your wrist can't bend enough to fully extend the arm and keep the spear on point).
For some medieval shields, they also had a Guige, a strap for holding it when not in use, but it could also be lengthened, which may have made it useful for taking some of the weight in use. Don't know if they did or not.
What kind of saber is that, you are weilding ind the beginning? It looks super awsom.
id love to see a vid about left handed fighters. did shield wielding fighters keep the shield in their left hand if they are left handed? are there instances of them using it in their right hand? how did that combat look vs a right handed warrior?
was the modern riot police round shield designed based on the Italian Rotella?
I don't think directly. I think they just went for a really generic 'shield'.
...or was the Italian Rotella inspired by modern riot police round shields brought back by careless time travelers to the Renaissance?? /music plays
How big are the saxon/viking shields are? As most look like they are not big enough
Did large round shield with strap exist? Something like a 3-footer or more?
Thank you so much for mentioning those exceptions
One other... You might cover high with the shield and attack low.
I recently re-watched 300 Rise of a Empire and notice on a Greek shield that the shield had a sleeve and grip.Would this work?
Byzantine Kite Shields also use the strap center grip arrangement you showed for the Indian shield
Viking type is a best. Is there fencing sport with shields?
BTW. Hoplite shield can be used in both way. Hoplite shield have fastening in the center.
Thanks for the good video ⚔️
Not sure it's the right niche but there's a beautiful video by Schwerpunkt on Medieval shields that I strongly recommend. I'd love to see these channels meeting
Whats with these _"not sure this is the right place but i recommend Schwerpunkt"_ comments? I have seen dozens of comments like these in the past months. Is this a new copypasta? meme? bots?
@@agrippa2012same. hes a very boring presenter as well, it takes him 45 minutes of a 60 minute video to get to the point hes making and sometimes he doesnt.
@@agrippa2012ive seen 5 or 6 variations of that comment on different history channels
@@cal2127 at first i was thinking these are either bots or burner accounts trying to promote the channel. OP only has two comments on this channel, both about schwerpunkt, but his account is 4 years old. Something really strange is going on here...
Thank God for this video! I was hugely embarrassing myself going outside holding my shield wrong! (" o.o)
Glad I could help!
Just one think i discovered when we started to use fencing mask with shield is you just have to hold your shield much higher than reneactors usually do. Otherwise you will not be able to raise it fasn enough and fight may fight with one fast thrust to the face much sooner than you imagine.
how far did arrows or spears penetrate wooden shields typically? I imagine that a lot of peoples forearms were getting poked with those strapped shields.
The cone of defence thing only really applies against a single point of origin meaning it only works when expecting attacks are mostly from a single foe and no one else likely to try to exploit how exposed your outside just became. (This may well all be true of most battlefield contexts just thought it was an important caveat to mention.)
Also the cone aspect shouldn't be a significant factor against arrows I wouldn't have thought as their point of origin will be quite far away.
Arms proficiency and real history is hard to think about, at least for my tiny brain. Thankfully we have Matt to think for us. Initiating new combatants to basic sword and shield use the most common wrinkles to iron out have, for my fourteen years, been to not displace your own shield on striking and to not cover your own line of sight on defending (where applicable). A lesser philosopher might argue the common man did much the same technical faults way back and nobody thought much of it, but what do I know.
It's hard to NOT pull it back if you're trying to use your hips to generate power. Or conversely (as one of my instructors said a lot of people do) you forget what to do with your sword as soon as you pick a shield up.
Matt, I notice the kite shield and tear drop viking shield both have a boss even though they are strapped and not boss gripped. Why is that?
Some teardropshield may have a horizontal grip and strap.
Or it is just because it's been a long time shields had boss so even when the strapped teardrop shield appear, maker keep add a boss cause "it's always been"
I have a question Matt, why didn't warriors in the olden days make some type of "sliding door" mechanism for a slit that they could see trough?
Seems simple enough to make, maybe it would compromise the structural integrity of a shield too much? Anyway, it would seem like an extremely helpful addition, full cover while seeing in front of you.
I was hoping maybe you'd address the biomechanics of using the shield...I've never trained sword&buckler, but isn't awkward to essentially strike with both hands at the same time? It feels very unnatural to me when I try it. It would be awfully hard to turn your shoulders into a sword swing that way, wouldn't it? I imagine it "feels" much more natural to counterbalance a strike by pulling the other arm back and pivoting the upper body as you strike. Along those same lines, MMA fighters drop their lead hand down when they throw a kick, for balance and to help generate power. Logically, that would seem to be a bad idea as it leaves the head "open" for a counterstrike.
I always wondered, could you get more effective shield thickness by angling it, such as for use against projectiles, also increasing chance of deflection like tank armour?
If the projectile is so powerful that it will go through your shield, it will propably go through angle it or not. Or it will simply break your arm.
@@taistelusammakko5088i was thinking like highlander targes vs period muskets, also, arrows are more cutting than pure KE no?
Some things that werent mentioned, with a viking shield, if its in the hand forward from the body, its easier to poke the right edge to caused a temprary flip and expose your right side to anotehr attacker, especially a spearman. also a huge disadvantage of pushing shield out to create the cone of defence, if the shield wieelder is inexperienced, its easy for an attacker to feint a high cut, especially with shoulder movement, and then as the shield goes up, come in underneath, when shield held closer, these gaps arent there, and holding shiieldd closer increases the defensive cone, if your defending from all incoming attacks....and a good thing about flat shield, if in shield wall, with shield flat, then you can lock with fist the right hand edge by pressing the left edge of shield of buddy to your right, creating a nice rigid wall, but i understand shield walls are now a bit suspect with some historians...
how were the hoplon shields used
Thank you ❤
I think if you want to absorb a blow with your body weight you might hold a large shield flat and close to the body, but as the shield gets smaller you'd want to amgle more, (and its easier as the shield gets lighter)
Can you recommend a good Norman teardrop shield maker?
What about attacking with the front of the shield? Specifically a large blue and white shield....
you forgot to mention the grip of the shield in the Hellenic flange hoplite, guarding the next on his side mate...
is a hoplon still heavier than a large pavisse?
So I don't know for sure, I'd have to look into it. However, based on what I know about the variables of both shield types, I suspect that they are in the same ballpark, with some pavises being much heavier than most hoplite shields.
@@scholagladiatoria thanks!
Good well made reproductions of aspides using historical methods of construction, they weigh about 7 kg (or 15.4 lbs). I imagine the people who were making them as part of their profession could get them lighter, maybe in the realm of 5 kg (11 lbs). Any lighter than that, and they might not function as well as they would have been intended to.
I think I could handle Matt talking about the history and use of various pasta/noodle designs
The uncovering while striking doesn't bother me in games. The game needs to visually communicate that the opponent is not covering up or in a "blocking" state. It's signalling to your brain that they're open to strikes. And because there is a delay between the screen, your brain and your fingers, it needs to be done in a fairly significant way - so that it registers in time for you to do something. Same with telegraphing strikes, it gives you a window of opportunity to make your move.
Sure you could try to do it completely historically accurately and realistically, but the fighting system would have to work fundamentally in a very different way. If anything, I think it might work for duels, but less so for fights with multiple combatants around you - Kingdom Come demonstrated this.
Taleworlds are not stupid, they had a reason for doing this the way they did it.
Regarding video games, I think it's mostly a topic of "balancing" the combat (though force of habit may be playing a big part by now as well). The thing with shields it that they are amazing defensive tools. They have been used 5000 years ago and they are still used in different roles today. The ability to strike while protecting yourself even while attacking is very powerful. And that is why, I think, shields will probably never be "properly" used in video games.
After all, if you can attack an enemy and defend yourself without drawbacks, why should you ever not? It's very unsatisfying to fight an opponent who can attack you without opening himself up. And it may very well also be unsatisfying to play this way in the long run, as it wouldn't be all that challenging. If you don't risk opening yourself up to a counter-attack, there is little reward in finding the proper timing.
This rests, in large part, on my assumption that games will run into one specific major problem for quite a while longer: translating user input into character action. In real life, if you attack a shield bearer, you have to attack "around" the shield. Stabbing around the side or over the top. If you have a hand free, maybe grabbing the shield and trying to wrestle it to the side. I'd challenge anyone to come with a way to properly model this kind of fine control with a keyboard and mouse or a controller. Without making the whole system to clunky and cumbersome to use. (Sincerely, I'd be curious would people may come up with.)
In the end, moving the shield to the side (or back) while attacking, in a video game, is an abstraction of the attack-and-defend counter play from real life and it serves it's purpose (giving the gameplay some risks and rewords to make it interesting) well enough, even at the cost of realism. Pretty much the same argument for armor, by the way, and why it's usually only a "flat damage reduction" instead of properly simulating how armor would protect you.
Also, I think movies and TV shows should have a lot less leeway in this regard. Proper choreography would look just as impressive (honestly more so) than the wild swings we see in most "historical" fighting scenes.
Why is the norman shield tear drop instead of more square like the roman shield that came before it?
Roman rectangular shields cannot be used on horseback. Rectangular shields existed in medieval Europe, but only used by people on foot like crossbowmen.
They've got curved shields. Curved. Shields.
Not one mention of shield belts? The Atreides tribe relied on them (and their wits)
Wounder how that sort of applies to fighting with knives if you have a knife in one hand and another knife or shield in the other hand do you draw it in closer to you when you launch attack because you have a shorter weapon
And depending on circumstances the proper shield for the situation as in a field of battle whereas you might have an arrow storm a buckler won't do you much good but a scutum or kite shield and even the viking you can hide behind it from arrows or interlock them as in a turtle or shield wall
The byzantine "buckler" uses a pair of cordage at either side that can be used like a boss or as strapped.
There is only one right way to hold a shield: With your hand.
say arm and i am with you XD I do like arm straped shields like you see at 2:14 min
My face is my shield !!
I honestly can't remember ever seeing a buckler in a movie. I'd love it if they were used more, they're so cool! (and were used for-freaking-ever!) Bucklers do seem to be catching on in games (both videogames and ttrpgs), which is great.
Granted, the Dark Souls bucklers really aren't very good for blocking much of anything, they're a "parry" tool, which is an interesting niche to put them in, if inaccurate. Although if they were accurate, they'd probably be too OP for gameplay balance purposes.
10:37 I look away at other screen. Matt: "If you'd just look at me here" freaking sentient video lol, gave me a mental double take
It would be cool if you would show fighting tactics with a hoplite shield 🙂
The problem mechanically with having the historical usage of the shield in Bannerlord is that it would necessitate a change in game mechanics. Melee combat systems are complicated , and almost universally they don't have shields providing passive defense (as in it's not a physical object when you're not pressing right click). Drawing the shield back while not being historical informs the player of how the game mechanics function.
Having shields provide passive defense would drastically change the nature of the game, probably for the negative.
This vid has activated a part of my brain I haven't used 😅
Well done matt , thinking about the sheild practically for travelling and being heard clanking aboit over the horizon could be a five away I guess flash strikes may be yhe wooden Sheilds and stealth or scare the hell out of enemy with plenty of noise 😂
Matt if you like Bannerlord, you should try out Chivalry 2. It's combat is a bit more in depth than what Bannerlord offers, though it's not as large of a scale and is mainly a player versus player game.
Was looking forward to some targe and dirk work also.
Hi love your programs they are great! Will you be able to say something about this 1796 Young Ensigns Light Cavalry Officer Sabre by Osborns, please
As A Shieldman, I Approve Of A Video About Shields! 🗡️😎🛡️
Shields are cool.
Cheers!
I think doing that in games can make the attack showing more momentum and look cooler.
That is assuming the creators know how shields should actually be used, which i doubt
One question from a newbie here, but it's driving me crazy.
The way the scutum is held looks super uncomfortable, especially with some mad brit throwing themselves at it and jarring the shoulder back. Holding it back and awkwardly positioning the shoulder like that feels restrictive, and near impossible to throw the shield forward. Am I missing something, or do I just have dodgy joints?
I wouldn't think they were held out much, as they were very heavy, in the range of 10 to 15 pounds. So they were pobably carried with the arm hanging down carrying the handle like a suitcase. Turning your body sideways might make this a little easier, I think.
@@brianhowe201 thanks, I appreciate it.
why the shields that are not boss gripped still have bosses?
My SCA heater has an elbow strap and a solid handle for my hand. That gives me quicker and more precise control than a strap for my hand.