|
|
| Author |
Message |
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:17 pm Shield use |
 |
|
Split off from this thread for a WMA angle.
| Boque wrote: | 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. |
Just to repeat ad infinitum I am not interested in changing R-E combat. I learnt my lesson in 2001 and have no desire to repeat that period in history. IOW I disagree with your assessment that "...it never hurts to put it across..."
However the earlier comments on this thread were encouraging. Comments like 'I try and use my shield to redirect rather than absorb a blow' indicate that at least some have discovered the pitfalls of using a shield like some magic invincible device. Interestingly enough others have gone the other logical way and have created over-built shields to overcome shortfalls in technique. I note Stephen Hand said similarly of Australian re-enactors overbuilding shields. The historical model, especially of dark age shields, indicate that there is a huge disparity between what re-enactors use today and what dark age warriors used. Dark age warriors used comparatively thin shields (I would cite references, but the applicable books are still up in Auckland). Did this mean dark age warriors were somehow idiots or did they know a thing or two that modern day re-enactors are missing? I would postulate the latter. Ostensibly a couple of re-enactors on the aforementioned thread have clued onto something that is replete with iconic pictures of shield use from time immemorial. That is blows are deflected off shields. Shields aren't used to absorb-to-stop blows. They are used to turn aside blows. Later sources like Giacomo di Grassi talk about using the face of the shield (ie., don't use the rim). Paul Wagner and Stephen Hand have for flat shields used terms like inside and outside guard to describe what is so commonly depicted from historical sources. The exceptions to these two positions are with a different style of shield altogether. This different style of shield is in turn deeply curved, and by the nature of its curve already replicates the two aforementioned guards. Like anything there are trade offs (this topic on curved shields will drift off to hypothetical and theoritical practice, so I'll end it there.)
Articles in SPADA I and II already cover these points and cite extensively. The books on shield thicknesses as I said are in Auckland, but were fairly exhaustive on Anglo-Saxon and Viking types (at least to their printings).
There are other details needed to make the shield work like the above (like timing, measure and footwork), but that should be a sufficient insight. I am prepared to discuss this further, since inside and outside guards are probably meaningless without some context. Like always, however, I'll not discuss how to perform techniques for real in a public forum.
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
 |
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:28 pm |
|
|
| 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? |
It depends on the shield type. Depictions of (Roman) gladiators from say Gladiators and Caesars show both. The deep curved shield is typically held close to the body which covers both lines of attack. The flat style is held out to the relevant side of the body (be it covering inside or outside line).
These styles predates and succeeds the Roman era.
Neither style 'presents a nice large shield front as a target' as far as I can source.
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
adrianf
Location: palmerston north
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:57 pm |
|
|
i was reading a something recently, and while it was brief on the subject, it mentioned that sheilds were more a disposable item, particularly the wooden ones.
it referred to them getting chewed up VERY quickly, but it made an interesting reference to actually allowing a opponents blade to become stuck in your shield.
it seems metal sheilds became popular as they lasted longer
most of the article refered to presenting a broad traget but to redirect the force
_________________
surrender to temptation, you never know when it will come your way again |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:18 pm |
|
|
Do you have a source for that?
I remain dubious about those types of claims (placing them in the urban legend status). The usual one is that viking duelists turned up with three shields. I've never been able to verify that from primary sources.
In warfare having an 'one-hit' wonder shield is near worthless. Apart from the obvious point of needing equipment to survive one encounter let alone one battle or an entire campaign.
I've also read a lot of relevant military history. I won't say I couldn't be convinced otherwise, but you're going to need some damn fine proof.
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
adrianf
Location: palmerston north
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 8:18 pm |
|
|
medieval swordsmanship, by j clements
_________________
surrender to temptation, you never know when it will come your way again |
|
|
|
pmel018
Principal Sponsor
Location: Wokingham, near Reading, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:49 pm |
|
|
Ah.... possibly the worst book ever written on medieval combat  . I think you need to dig a bit deeper for a really creditable source
 Phil |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:50 pm |
|
|
| adrianf wrote: | | medieval swordsmanship, by j clements |
It's kind of hard of not saying a 'me too' type response with regard to Mr Melhop's reply. I will say the bibliography in it isn't too bad. It is my opinion he didn't read the books in it, but nonetheless it does serve as an useful platform (the books listed in the bibliography) for further study. If nothing else, his two books (Renaissance Swordsmanship being the other one) demonstrated a void in the market.
I won't denigrate John either. He has moved on and I look forward to seeing the movie documentary Reclaiming the Blade with which he has some input into.
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
Nathan
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:21 am |
|
|
I'll try to find a reference to the use of lindon (lime wood) and poplar for shields I use to have. It mentioned that these were favored as they did not release blades easily once stuck and were of light weight. I may look at bringing a light thin shield to NAAMA to have a play with in the interest of reaserch.
_________________
Paper, Scissors, Poleaxe |
|
|
|
Joel of Old
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:19 am Small Shields |
|
|
Hey Colin,
I'm interested in the (aggressive) use of small round shields. Whats a good source?
Specifically closing techniques would be good.
Joel of Old
_________________
When they hit you, just smile back with broken teeth and spit them in their face. |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:19 am |
|
|
| Nathan wrote: | | I'll try to find a reference to the use of lindon (lime wood)... |
Lindon was favoured because it was light and strong. It is still favoured by churches in Europe for their various wooden decorations (can't remember the proper term) for this reason. If you were to try and source lindon, they are your best bet (IMO) of getting any of it.
I'd be interested in seeing any primary source documents that support the notion that it was used to have blades stick into it.
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:25 am Re: Small Shields |
|
|
| Joel of Old wrote: | Hey Colin,
I'm interested in the (aggressive) use of small round shields. Whats a good source?
Specifically closing techniques would be good.
Joel of Old |
What do you mean by 'aggressive'?
Good sources on sword and buckler are Tower Manuscript I.33 (circa 1300) and the 16th century Bolognese school (particularly the first half of the 16th century). There are other sources of course, but these ones concentrate on it more.
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
Victorius
Location: IMPERIVM ROMANA: The Roman club with a Living History focus.New Roman Club
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:20 am |
|
|
Hi Colin,
I can't speak for Dark Age or Viking shield thickness (although I know one of the shields found on the Gokstad ship - or one of them, cannot remember which off the top of my head - was quite thin), but I can with regard to Roman shields. The Dura Europas shield was about 5mm thick, and other extand fragments are not much thicker. Rounded bronze edging survives for sheilds that cannot have been any more than 8-10mm thick (although this was only for edging: no account can be given for whether they were thicker towards the centre). Furthermore, the way sheilds are shown beign held high, or end out at head/shoulder level suggests they were lighter (and therefore thinner) than modern re-enactment shields.
Considering my shield had a spear go right through it just above the boss (and a blunt NAAMA one at that) certainly suggests deflection, rather than absorbtion, was the technique used by the ancients.
_________________
VICTORIVS, BA.MA.HONS.I, IMPERIVM. ROMANA |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 3:09 pm |
|
|
| Victorius wrote: | | The Dura Europas shield was about 5mm thick, and other extand fragments are not much thicker. Rounded bronze edging survives for sheilds that cannot have been any more than 8-10mm thick (although this was only for edging: no account can be given for whether they were thicker towards the centre). |
Cheers for that! Roman details aren't my specialty. I assumed they were light, but it is nice to get confirmation. Thanks.
| Victorius wrote: | | Considering my shield had a spear go right through it just above the boss (and a blunt NAAMA one at that) certainly suggests deflection, rather than absorbtion, was the technique used by the ancients. |
Which was my point  Deflection allows the shield to be lighter. Lighter allows longer use (less tiresome). Lighter also follows the historical model, but the historical model requires historical use for it to work
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
Joel of Old
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 3:54 pm Deflection over absorbtion |
|
|
So how would deflection be used during a line battle? Would you deflect, trap and allow your fellow soldiers to kill your opponent? I thought that the strength of shield walls lay in the flattened shields facing the enemy, with no way through.
I agree that deflection is the way to go - the advantages are numerous, but I'm curious as to the dynamics of it during a mass combat.
Joel of Old
_________________
When they hit you, just smile back with broken teeth and spit them in their face. |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:56 pm |
|
|
Shield wall combat is a stalled project of mine, sorry Joel (lack of participants/interests). The ones we were working with back in the day formed a double layer, but whether this would have proved sufficient against weapons is another matter unresolved.
However I suspect that shield wall tactics were more akin to rugby scums. This reads well for ancient Greek hoplite unit combat, but I haven't done enough research for the later Roman Empire onwards. Verbruggen for the Middle Ages indicates that the ideal units were so tightly compact that an apple or a glove thrown would not touch the ground. This would suggest the rugby scum idea mentioned before. I need to find more records on how combat in the early to High Middle Ages field combat performed to form a decent theory.
These days my research focuses around what was recorded in the fencing treatises. One day I might return to more hypothetical field combat, but that would require a decent number of willing participants. Until that day I cannot really answer your question.
Would people be willing to undertake such an experiment? I suspect it needs specialised safety equipment on top of period of months of training and re-thinks. Ideally it would require a couple of hundred people...
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
|
Please read the terms of use