How Do You Hold Shields Correctly? Game/Movie Debunking
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- How do you hold and position shields correctly? According to shield type, size, distance and context.
▼3 extra EXCLUSIVE videos each month on PATREON, which make this channel possible:
/ scholagladiatoria
▼Facebook & Twitter updates, info, memes and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
▼Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfight...
▼Matt Easton's website & Pinterest:
www.matt-easto...
www.pinterest....
▼Easton Antique Arms - antique swords for sale:
www.antique-sw...
#medieval #shield #martialarts
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
"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."
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...
Thank God for this video! I was hugely embarrassing myself going outside holding my shield wrong! (" o.o)
Glad I could help!
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.
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.
Ahh, yes. The classic manuever of leaving yourself completely undefended while attacking. Everyone knows real life combat is turn-based, with one person only attacking and the other only defending at any given time.
Nooo no no no; real life isn't turn based!
You do that for game balance reasons-you need a few vulnerability frames during the wind up of your attack to make room for counterplay.
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.
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!
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
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! :)
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.
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.
They've got curved shields. Curved. Shields.
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.
How thick are rotellae and those metalic indo-perian shields usually?
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.
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
I dont think he knows what he's talking about .... he didn't even mentioned throwind the shield ... Matt you should think it through next time :-D ...
No honestly without kidding .. thank you for this video, while all of the informations seem obvious, common practice shows usually otherwise even with reenactors, so thank you :-)
It happens in videogames because all animations are over-exaggerated. Not just medieval fighting but all animations. Just look at mocap actors, they don't do what a normal person does, they over-exaggerate all their movements.
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.
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.
At this point, I have to wonder: Does Matt actually enjoy Bannerlord, or does he just play it because its annoyances give him tons of content?
I do love it actually :-)
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 !!
You hold it however you need to to NOT GET HIT, duh :😜
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?
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.
Not one mention of shield belts? The Atreides tribe relied on them (and their wits)
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
Goes well with spaghetti! Cheeky aren't we! Love it!
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.
OK but how do you throw a round shield so that it comes back to you?
I guess I gotta check out bannerlord
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?
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.
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..).
Cone of defence argument is wrong... further away covers more angles from a single source. It provides REDUCED protection from multiple sources however. Moving the shield away from you towards your opponent reduces the arc of coverage (ie "how big it looks") it provides for you, but increases the arc of coverage for them as it gets closer to them blocking their lines of attack. With multiple opponents, as the arc of coverage from your perspective decreases it stops being between you and the other opponents and you no longer get protection where previously you had it.
So... against missiles, holding it away from you as far as possible is a terrible idea for coverage AS WELL as all the other reasons you listed. Love the video otherwise!
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.
What about attacking with the front of the shield? Specifically a large blue and white shield....
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.
Bio-mechanically it's very difficult to not just treat the shield as a kind of counter-weight on any power-stroke, and swinging the sword HARD at something is the most natural (noob) move of all.
But also, quite a lot of historical shows feature extremely trash combat anyway, in fact it's moderately rare to just see two guys fighting fairly defensively, making little progress against each other, while fully respecting the difficulty and complexity of edged weapon combat. It's just a named character, rapidly hacking down two or three anonymous enemies, frequently opponents who appear to be urgently on their way to a completely different part of the battle for no obvious reason, and moderately indifferent to the sword wielding lunatic in their midst. Like, that's COMPLETELY unreal to me, like the 'broken A.I' of the bandits in Kurosawa's Seven Samurai (Kurosawa does a great job at other times of making armed combat look *really* awkward and difficult, instead of the highly stylised, super-crisp coreography of a lot of stuff we get nowdays, and Rashomon has arguably the funniest sword-fight of all time).
So scenes where someone is just fighting like it's their first rodeo and they have no idea what they're actually doing are comparatively harmless, at least to scenes where high speed murder of people who are late for another battle on the other side of the field are concerned. Terrible combat is at least an attempt at actual combat, instead of just carefully staged executions designed to pad out a main character's body count.
(I say this because so very many actual classical and medieval battles seem to involve battle-lines that were more or less an aggressive stalemate - to be sure, a highly skilled, high intensity moment-to-moment stalemate, like a nil-all football match - but a stalemate none-the-less, until suddenly someone breaks through the line, or there's a wrap-around on an edge, or some other flanking attack appears, at which point things can collapse extremely quickly and catastrophically for one side. I.e stuff that is heavily related to a battle plan, deployment of forces, etc etc, rather than a named hero executing several hapless enemy combatants in rapid succession. Which is possibly pertinent to the actual point of this post, because fights that feature guys who like having their shields correctly positioned vis enemy attacks, especially when fighting at a tight group, aren't going to be as high in the rapid-body-count stakes as a spectacle either.)
How do you actually kill a guy in armour, with a shield, who knows what they're doing and has a whole lot of dudes around them also trying to make it very difficult for you to do that? It's a Hard Problem, one that every culture had a real struggle with, at least until gunpowder became a real thing. And modern takes on historical combat are meanwhile all in on trying to make swordfights look quick and brutal - which is fair enough in an unarmoured context, but iffy as hell for actual battlefields.
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.
I should play Kingdom Come: Deliverance again. Although it probably did happen due to the janky nature of games, I don't recall any shieldbearer flailing their chief defensive implement around like a fool. Shields were generally kept tight to the body and some (heater shields, mostly) were held at an upward angle to deflect blows rather than absorb them.
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.
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?
I mean, in modern martial systems, they tell you to always keep your guards up and protect the chin/head even while attacking. People (even professionals) almost never remember when they get into a real right and just swing for the fences, jaw exposed to God and everyone. I imagine the nonsense people do with shields in games very much mirrors ancient reality, with medieval instructors having much the same reaction as Matt does today were they to see their students flailing about.
It's worth considering that in traditional martial arts, they don't put as much emphasis in protecting the chin/head as more modern ones. The reason for the change in modern systems is the greater emphasis in 1vs1 sport combat. It might be possible that our current insistence on "keeping the shield up" is also being influenced by HEMA's emphasis on 1v1 sport fighting when actual ancient people might not have been quite as insistent on it.
The "pull the shield away when attacking" thing has annoyed me no end in games and media. There's, I guess, a balance excuse in games. But purely artificial and frankly lazy.
I was just rewatching GOT and saw them doin this, flinging out the shield! True noob status! Lol!
🍻❤️🤺
"Cross of Steel" Matt, are you soft launching the title of your new Black Metal album?
This might be a weird question but did you get that norman shield from a group called historia normannis? Mine has almost identical edging. It's kind of bugging me for some reason but not sure if it's due to the style of the 12th century period or if it was made by the same person.
One day film and games will get shield combat right. I cringe every time I hear someone shout "shield wall".
Do you know if the roman samnite shield had a horizontal (like the rectangulanr scutum) or a vertical grip (like celtic shields) ?
Also shield are too often treated as indestructible. They weren't. It seems not splitting was given more importance over hardness. Holding a shield close to the body often might not be wise especially for the unarmoured fighter as arrows and javelins are quite capable of penetrating a shield deep enough to cause a significant injury.
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.
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.
Was left-hand wielding of weapons ever a deliberate tactic to confuse a traditionally trained opponent's ability to guard?
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
Byzantine Kite Shields also use the strap center grip arrangement you showed for the Indian shield
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
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...
The cone of defense only applies to a single opponent. Projecting your shield forward when in a line fight invites attack from an opponent you are not directly facing.
A guy with a hakenbuchse: there's no difference what kind of shield you have and how you hold it...
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 am sure some noob did this in history and died as a result" :D In Bannerlord anyway there are many cringy moment, like the first line in shield wall always moving the shield to te side to strike, instead of having the pike men behind stirke from above the shield or in between legs with the billhook.
Ere I add an idea, yhat small round Sheild did any one ever make a throwing shield with edge options on like a big throwing star , like watching your vids man history is important also to remember our brave people
So with two roman shields you can make yourself an inpenetratable tube.
If the games are doing motion capture with actors rather than trained martial artists that'd explain a lot. Throwing the offhand out behind when striking is a pervasive newbie thing in unarmed martial arts as well.
Chad Domed Anglo-Saxon shield virgin viking flat shield
What kind of saber is that, you are weilding ind the beginning? It looks super awsom.
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.
I think I could handle Matt talking about the history and use of various pasta/noodle designs
awww great. who else just glued together like 30 shields for Warhammer The Old World?
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?
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.
To be fair, I believe why they do that in the game is telegraph that the person is vulnerable while attacking.
I’m going to go out on a limb here , but I’m gonna say…hold it between you and the bad guy ?
Cheers From California 😊
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.
you forgot to mention the grip of the shield in the Hellenic flange hoplite, guarding the next on his side mate...
What is almost as annoying as incorrectly using a shield is people not using shields at all in recreated historical eras known for shield use.
As A Shieldman, I Approve Of A Video About Shields! 🗡️😎🛡️
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?
Any grip will do as long it isn’t like how the Man at Arms in the Darkest dungeon game series holds his shield.
It would be cool if you would show fighting tactics with a hoplite shield 🙂
Mmmmm Bolognese Sauces... Ahem I mean _Sources._ 😂
I love learning from the Bolognese Sauces.
A not important sidenote, In german language often ,der Schild' is confused with ,das Schild '. Der Schild/ shield. Das Schild/ sign.
You don’t want your shield too close or you get it kicked into your teeth
That's how the Highlander died, the first time
why the shields that are not boss gripped still have bosses?
What faction are you playing as?
Bannerlord!!! Such a fun game.