 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Carl
Location: Just beyond the firelight
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:57 pm |
 |
|
| adrianf wrote: | the biggest problem with too much force on a sheild is that there is always the risk that the shieldman might get distracted by something, drop their sheild and the blow nails them instead.
|
What like a feint?
which is where your weapon control comes in |
|
|
 |
Anna Cruse
Location: Auckland City
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:55 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | I find with the metal rim shield you get alot of skid from the blows, not as safe and secure ... |
I agree. Wood is "stickier", so weapons are less likely to skid around in unexpected and unwanted directions. Swords are not designed to cut wood, and can get stuck if they go deep, which is a gift to the shield bearer. And wood is cheap, available, and often more authentic. On what grounds were we discussing material superiority?
Admittedly, wood alone ablates, and edges can become a soft splintery mess. Many shields are edged with leather, to try to stop this, but it's not usually an issue, except for aesthetics. Wood can break along the grain.
Metal alone is not superior. I remember the AS&SS metal shields: they looked like samples from panelbeaters 101 first lesson, they got nasty burrs and jagged rents and woe betide if anyone copped an edge. It might have been better if they were thicker, but then weight becomes a serious issue. I would never recommend steel alone for what we do, but I guess it would be best for jousters.
For those interested in our solution, we find layering works. Metal covered with strong cloth (glued), backed with wood and edged with leather gives the best of all options: strong surface with reduced slip (and leather as backup), "soft" edges that grip without becoming ragged, structural strength without too much weight, without issues of weakness along the grain or metal bending or tearing. Burrs are pressed into soft wood and having wood in the shield also softens impact. In the years we've used them they require occasional upkeep on the cloth cover, I've never seen one break and they work.
But in the end metal is unnecessary: we shouldn't be hitting so hard that we break edged wooden shields. Shins, forearms and faces are more fragile and just behind.
AC |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:37 am |
|
|
| Anna Cruse wrote: | | On what grounds were we discussing material superiority? |
I was, perhaps, being a wee bit too subtle. One of my great musings on shields is the grand belief that receiving any strike on a lump of wood (a shield) will negate it, whereas wearing (steel) armour does not. The topic had made mention of the importance of deflection in using a shield and so I was asking whether this was going to make one iota of difference (make a change in re-enactment combat.)
Ergo wood is superior to steel when it comes to defence (at least in re-enactment combat). Though I suppose people in re-enactment NZ aren't restricted to just wood, so I guess that probably aided confusion. Afterall I've witnessed plastic and even cardboard being used.
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
Patch
Location: Auckland
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:43 pm |
|
|
Yup - the shield I got in return was fantastic, of excellent quality and craftsmanship and formed the basis of a couple of generations of duplicates. In fact if he is still making them I would be keen to put in an order to pick up at NAAMA...
| Quote: | Ive seen an axe go straight through a shield, missed the arm so only the shield got wasted. Well not wasted really. Apparently its still hanging on the perpetrators wall with the inscription "Mine is the power" under it.
But I think the target got a new shield out of it. That right Patch? |
|
|
|
|
Patch
Location: Auckland
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:33 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | One of my great musings on shields is the grand belief that receiving any strike on a lump of wood (a shield) will negate it, whereas wearing (steel) armour does not. |
Plenty of steel weapon forms and games account for the value of armour. Ref: the 3 oaks tourney as just one example. |
|
|
|
griff
Location: Auckland
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:38 pm |
|
|
did someone cut some oaks down
i thought it was the 5 oaks tourney |
|
|
|
Patch
Location: Auckland
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:31 pm |
|
|
D'oh! Heh, excellent point. Apologies Stephan. Last time we were fighting in between three big trees is all. Yes as an amendment it is the Five Oaks tourney not the three oaks tourney.
| Quote: | did someone cut some oaks down
i thought it was the 5 oaks tourney |
|
|
|
|
Carl
Location: Just beyond the firelight
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:17 pm |
|
|
personally I have always found that an inch of laminated marine ply with plenty of padding cant be beat.
and as for the wieght, do what the Viking said to the Arab....Grow Stronger |
|
|
|
Nathan
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:39 pm |
|
|
Carl,
i'd suggest measuring your shield again, but if you do want an inch (25.4mm) thick plank on your arm go ahead it would give you a great upper body workout. Me, I'm man enough to admit to only requiring 13mm (1/2 inch) 
_________________
Paper, Scissors, Poleaxe |
|
|
|
Carl
Location: Just beyond the firelight
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:27 pm |
|
|
| Nathan wrote: | Carl,
i'd suggest measuring your shield again, but if you do want an inch (25.4mm) thick plank on your arm go ahead it would give you a great upper body workout. Me, I'm man enough to admit to only requiring 13mm (1/2 inch) |
OK 3/4 inch split hairs then |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:06 pm |
|
|
| Patch wrote: |
Plenty of steel weapon forms and games account for the value of armour. Ref: the 3 oaks tourney as just one example. |
I presume, however, that shields are still 'invincible' as defence compared to armour?
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
Gerard Kraay
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:24 am |
|
|
Hi Colin.
I was re-reading an article that was put out a while ago by the Romans I think, discussing that in single combat the shield is held out from the body in a type of side ward instead of directly in front of the body in the fashion of group combat, do you have any thought s on this.
I think it would make duelling with sword and shield a very different beast, as for a start your not presenting a nice large shield front as a target.
Any thoughts and references?
Gerard
_________________
"The Dragon made me do it." |
|
|
|
Joel of Old
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:41 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | I presume, however, that shields are still 'invincible' as defence compared to armour? |
I assume, Colin, that you refer to this in re-enactment terms. Yes shields are invincible, and second best only to distance as a defense.
However, I remember when Kimble was sitting his sword grade, he was researching a syllabus for mace (a new toy he picked up at a NAAMA i think) and he found, whilst sparring with Steve, that a blow to the shield behind where the arm is sent VERY bad feelings through to the bone of said arm.
The eventual outcome was the theory that a solid strike to that same area would result in a broken arm. That said of course this was with minimal armour on.
And as we all know Shield + Armour is pretty good defense also.
Joel of Old
_________________
When they hit you, just smile back with broken teeth and spit them in their face. |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:46 am |
|
|
| blackcrow wrote: | Hi Colin.
I was re-reading an article that was put out a while ago by the Romans I think, discussing that in single combat the shield is held out from the body in a type of side ward instead of directly in front of the body in the fashion of group combat, do you have any thought s on this.
I think it would make duelling with sword and shield a very different beast, as for a start your not presenting a nice large shield front as a target.
Any thoughts and references?
Gerard |
Paul Wagner and Stephen Hand put an article together for SPADA I, and Stephen Hand did one for Spada II. While I don't agree with everything in them, it does present a more likely use of how shields were used. I don't believe this is the place, however, to discuss how shields should or shouldn't be used in real terms as this forum is about re-enactment combat (I ruffle enough feathers as it is  ). I was merely curious on whether earlier statements were going to make one iota of difference in re-enactment combat with regards to shields.
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
Bogue
Sponsor
Location: Palmy
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:57 am shields |
|
|
And then Colin said
| Quote: | | I don't believe this is the place, however, to discuss how shields should or shouldn't be used in real terms as this forum is about re-enactment combat (I ruffle enough feathers as it is ) |
Actually Colin it is the disparaging comments rather than the information that ruffles feathers. If you rely on accurate documentation and resources it never hurts to put it across to the rest of us. I have learned something from many of your posts and am saddened by the fact that Re-enactment combat appears unworthy of being enlightened.
Come on man, you got the goods, so spill it. You never know it might improve the style of R-E combat.
Cheers
Bogue |
|
|
|
|
|
Please read the terms of use