Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search


myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Anonymous, Daniel Sullivan, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors)

Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Sword and shield vs single-sword. Reply to topic
This is a Spotlight Topic Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next 
Author Message
Taylor Ellis




PostPosted: Mon 07 Nov, 2005 12:32 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Tyler Weaver wrote:
Moreover, a good swordsman, especially in the modern day, should be ready and able to use his weapon and the techniques of his style against literally any conceivable opposing weapon. That's part and parcel of being competent. I know exactly what I would do to defeat a rapier or sword'n'shield fighter.

Just to get off topic a bit, what *would* you do against a sword & shield fighter? IMO sword & shield vs single sword is one of the most lopsided matchups you can get. It doesn't matter if you are a Spartan, or a Viking, a 13th century knight or a 16thC highlander with a baskethilt and targe, the ability to cover lines of attack without commiting any offence (just one of the many advantages of the shield) is very formidable.
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Mon 07 Nov, 2005 4:24 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Taylor;

Sounds like an interesting issue and I don't have the experience to give an opinion supported by anything more than speculation, so I won't for ONCE wade in. Eek!

But a note to the moderators: this would seem to me a good topic to split into a new topic before a lot of people start answering.

Or Taylor could just start a new Topic ? ( Taylor I would wait a day or so to see if the split happens before starting a new one: Just a suggestion. )

But I would be VERY interested to read what Stephen Hand or any of the other experts could tell us. Big Grin

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Kelly




Location: Wichita, Kansas
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Reading list: 42 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 5,739

PostPosted: Mon 07 Nov, 2005 10:15 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Good idea Jean. Done.
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Mon 07 Nov, 2005 2:19 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Shield, shield, shield.
or
Armour armour armour

In an fight between a two unarmoured men, the fighter with the shield has a huge advantage.
In a armoured fight, this advantage is negated by the lacking ability of the one handed sword to penetrate armour.

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Stephen Hand




Location: Hobart, Australia
Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 226

PostPosted: Mon 07 Nov, 2005 2:54 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Silver writes “That all maner of double weapons, or weapons to be used with both hands, haue aduantage against the single Rapier or single Sword, there is no question to be made."

I have a chapter in Volume II of my new book, English Swordsmanship on Sword vs sword and buckler. Now Silver doesn't cover this combination, so the chapter is based on my discoveries using his fights and principles. If the guy with the sword attacks, he exposes his arm to a counterattack. If he parries from Gardant Fight, he is vulnerable to a Tread Through (an offensive shield knock - i.e. to having his sword pinned by his opponent's buckler) or just to an offensive buckler strike. Basically if the buckler guy can use both arms against the swordsman's one, the swordsman is stuffed.

Against a large shield it's worse, except that there are opportunities to use the swordsman's shield to protect yourself if you're clever and he isn't. I occasionally have bouts with these combinations to really challenge myself against less experienced opponents, but you are at an incredible disadvantage.

Cheers
Stephen

Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield

Stoccata School of Defence
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Mon 07 Nov, 2005 3:21 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I think Elling has a good point: If the longswordsman is well armoured the one handed sword has limited available targets.

The sword and shield guy might be better off not using his sword and using a rondel dagger and close in as close as possible using the shield aggressively to tie up the long sword. ( Guess / speculation not stating a truth ! )

Maybe shield and war hammer or mace would re-give the shield guy an effective offensive option.

If the sword and shield guy is also heavily armoured the shield becomes almost redundant: Could go a long way to explain why shields became smaller and smaller or not used at all when armour coverage becomes extensive.

To get back to the original question lets assume no armour or little more than a helm and short sleeved maille shirt at most because in this case the question of advantage to the sword and shield man seems answered in the positive.

For us less knowledgeable getting into details of what the options are for each fighter would be interesting: How such a fight might look like and what the long swordsman limited options would be ? Controlling the range would be my guess.

With a long single hander like the Gaddhjalt 36" blade reach is as good as most long swords and two handed longsword use gives you less reach with equal blade length, so the user of the longsword might have to use it one handed to get more range.

Longsword being here a hand and a half: Using a true twohander like the A & A English twohander with a 46" blade might be another story, more reach and power to damage shields or beat them down ?

Note: Written and submited before reading Stephen's post

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Tyler Weaver




Location: Central New York
Joined: 05 Mar 2005

Posts: 44

PostPosted: Mon 07 Nov, 2005 10:58 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Just to get off topic a bit, what *would* you do against a sword & shield fighter? IMO sword & shield vs single sword is one of the most lopsided matchups you can get. It doesn't matter if you are a Spartan, or a Viking, a 13th century knight or a 16thC highlander with a baskethilt and targe, the ability to cover lines of attack without commiting any offence (just one of the many advantages of the shield) is very formidable.


Sword-n-shield is a nasty combination, but it's hardly invincible. The most dangerous thing any sword-and-shield fighter has on a single-sword (whether European longsword, Japanese katana, or any kind of single-handed sword) fighter is the ability to be where he is and where he isn't, simultaneously. This is intimidating when you think about it, but this ability depends on the targeteer creating a very specific kind of geometrical situation in the fight and using his weapons to maximum advantage. By simply keeping him from doing that by how you set up your techniques, you're already halfway to victory. If you're actively keeping him from parrying you with his shield and killing you at the same time, then a double-handed swordsman will win by simple superior speed, power and maneuverability and a single-handed swordsman has a shot at winning by virtue of superior technique.

The usual advice to winning any fight - dominate completely and refuse to allow yourself to be dominated.

Easier said than done, but that applies to everything and hence means nothing.

As far as specifics go, the guy's shield is on his left arm, opposing all the instinctive and powerful right-to-left cuts. Left-to-right and inventively-thrown vertical cuts will fall outside of his protected zone, and either force him to maneuver, move his shield so that it interferes with his sword (not to mention making for a damn awkward shield parry and blinding him for a moment), or try a losing proposition in parrying with his single-handed sword against your more powerful two-hander.

Aku. Soku. Zan.
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Chuck Russell




Location: WV
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Reading list: 46 books

Posts: 936

PostPosted: Tue 08 Nov, 2005 4:52 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

something far worse to a sword n board guy to face is a swordnaxe guy. its hard to beat a sword n axe combo
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Aaron Schnatterly




Location: New Glarus, WI
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Reading list: 67 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,244

PostPosted: Tue 08 Nov, 2005 6:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Stephen Hand wrote:
Silver writes “That all maner of double weapons, or weapons to be used with both hands, haue aduantage against the single Rapier or single Sword, there is no question to be made."

... so you can attack twice, or with greater leverage and force, or bind with one and attack openly with the other... that part I get. What probably gets overlooked (and the point you go on to make, and I'll reinforce) is how the buckler/shield can be used offensively. I most certainly know I've dished out some punishment with the face, edge, and even the back of a shield - even one so large as a kite. One example - I had a heater and sword, my opponent had a longsword. I lowered my shield, and took a low guard, inviting an Oberhau/Zornhau strike. As it came, I stepped in, raised the shield, put the point in his solar plexus, and took both legs out. His momentum and my strike took him over the shield and flat to the ground. One example hardly illustrates superiority, but in this case, having two distinct weapons was a marked advantage.

Elling and Taylor make great points, too. Level of armour and effectiveness of arms is a huge factor in this. Put the longswordsman in a full Gothic harness, and the sword & shield guy in maille/transitional. It'll suck, but the single-handed sword is going to have a heck of a time actually inflicting much damage, regardless of making contact. One of the modern misconceptions is that getting hit with a sword is lethal, regardless of armour. Hollywood swords cut through everything. Many of the anachronistic groups (not just picking on the SCA, guys) say that you take any reasonable hit. Some of the LARP rules I have seen allow some form of hit points for limbs (or even proof against attack) based upon weapon type. This is all fine, but from the study of form and from cutting, it is very clear to me that just making contact does not guarantee a significant wound. Please note that I am not bashing any of these activities, the groups, or their members - just pointing out the differences. In my example above, had we been armoured and armed as above, he probably would have just laughed at me. The point of the shield would not have knocked the wind out of him - it would have slid off the breastplate. My sword would have struck him firmly - right across the cuisses. I probably would have wound up in a grappling situation with him, and I'm tied up in a shield by the guige and strapping - totally unwieldy on the ground. I think I'd have been in a serious bind.

Skill, determination, fatigue, and innumerable other factors come into play, too...

My point to all this is: there are so many variables to consider in this equation that there won't be a definitive answer.

-Aaron Schnatterly
_______________

Fortior Qui Se Vincit
(He is stronger who conquers himself.)
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
John G. III




Location: Philippines
Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Reading list: 4 books

Posts: 10

PostPosted: Tue 08 Nov, 2005 6:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sword & Shield I agree would probably be quite nasty. But you probably have to establish here certain things, such as the specific types of armor, swords/weapon and shield being used. Perhaps if we can lay those down and try run simulations on them?

I do have a question on this: how would a shield & sword fare against, say, a longsword & short sword/sidearm blade user?
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Aaron Schnatterly




Location: New Glarus, WI
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Reading list: 67 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,244

PostPosted: Tue 08 Nov, 2005 6:38 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

John G. III wrote:
I do have a question on this: how would a shield & sword fare against, say, a longsword & short sword/sidearm blade user?

Though I can still generally wield a longsword single-handed (take for example my Regent), I am clumsy, and have little effect compared to using it with both. I tire very quickly. Generally, the only time I take one hand off is to switch grips (for halbschwert or mortschlag for example), or to grapple - in which case, I'll either regrip the sword rapidly, or abandon it, in hopes of riding/throwing you to the ground, then introducing you to a well-placed dagger. I don't intentionally ever fight with a longsword and another sword/dagger at the same time... much less effective than the longsword alone.

One thing that would help you quite a bit, John, would be to look at some of the various books offering interpretations of fighting manuals. Lots of them exist, and quite a broad range of geographical areas and timeframes are covered... Seeing (or, better yet, experiencing) how these various arms and armour worked would help you tremendously. Check out the Books link for a number of suggestions.

-Aaron Schnatterly
_______________

Fortior Qui Se Vincit
(He is stronger who conquers himself.)
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Northern VA,USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,194

PostPosted: Tue 08 Nov, 2005 6:45 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Just to bring up the flip side of this, one of the problems of shield use is it's ability to blind the user and bind up one's own weapon if you don't know how to use it properly. From Donald McBane's Expert Sword-Man's Companion:

Quote:
This Target is of great use to those who rightly undertand it. But to unexperiened people is often very fatal, by blinding themselves with it, for want of rightly understanding it.


I've played around a little with longsword vs. sword and shield. The shield has an obvious initial advantage due to the fact that it's created a huge blind spot. Inexperienced shield users often attack with the sword arm exposed though, which is a perfect target for the longsword. Inexperienced shield users generally move the shield around too much when defending, which often blinds themselves. Feints and "changing strikes" work well against these opponents to draw the shield away from the body, leaving them open to the real attack.

Another option that presents itself is what can be equated to a I.33 styled shield knock. When the shield opponent attacks, I bind with the longsword and use the off hand to press his own shield into his sword or sword arm, coming immediately around to strike.

Just some thoughts of what I've played around with. The manuals, unfortunately, are largely silent on both shield use as well as defeating the shield. Though Stephen Hand's done some really nice research on evidence that isn't readily apparent on first glance.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
John G. III




Location: Philippines
Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Reading list: 4 books

Posts: 10

PostPosted: Tue 08 Nov, 2005 7:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

They're kinda hard to get, and I have a horrible exchange rate. But I managed to snag a couple. I don't have any European weapons unfortunately, besides a Matador sword which is probably unuseable... Razz
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Wolfgang Armbruster





Joined: 03 Apr 2005

Posts: 322

PostPosted: Tue 08 Nov, 2005 8:11 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Interesting thread!
In an unarmoured situation I would still vote for the sword & shield combination, especially if I had something like this at my disposal Eek!

View user's profile Send private message
Felix Wang




Location: Fresno, CA
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Reading list: 17 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Tue 08 Nov, 2005 8:33 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There have been a number of good responses to this issue. It seems to me that if the sword and shield man is significantly less experienced, the swordsman has a couple of ways to even up the odds, and maybe even use the shield to advantage (as Bill Grandy noted - blinding oneself). If the experience is equal, then it seems the odds are with the sword+shield.
View user's profile Send private message
Micha Hofmann




Location: Bonn, Germany
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 109

PostPosted: Tue 08 Nov, 2005 9:13 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A very nice thread with very good and interesting responses.

I agree that single handed sword + shield means an significant advantage vs. a sword alone, especially agains a longer sword and if the shield fighter is fighting aggressively.

I once had a couple of "let's try this"-fights using a longsword against a fellow fencer with single handed sword and buckler.

It was a little frustrating at first, because he was alway trying to close distance very fast, while covering/ shuffling my weapon aside with his buckler.
After some glorious defeats ( trying to attack frantically while stepping/ stumbling backwards/ sideways, trying not to make him get close), in got used to the situation and tried getting his buckler away from his center and attacking a different opening, without moving too much.
I started with a classic right Oberhau and quickly struck a Zwerchau under his buckler, as soon as his buckler blocked my first cut. Because he was rushing in, the Zwerchhau went right across his stomach - would have been a fatal blow. The only problem was that he hit me directly on my left elbow, that was way up high, because I was doing the Zwerch... ouch. Confused That day made me wear elbow protectors to sparring ever since...

My suggestions for the "no shield-fighter" would be:

Against a buckler: Try to strike around the buckler with feints/ windings,

Against a larger shield: Try to make you opponent impede himself with his own shield

Both are easier said then done, though... maybe moving to one of you opponents sides might offer an advantage...


(Edit, typo)


Last edited by Micha Hofmann on Tue 08 Nov, 2005 8:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin


myArmoury Admin

PostPosted: Tue 08 Nov, 2005 12:05 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This topic has been promoted into a Spotlight Topic.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Stephen Hand




Location: Hobart, Australia
Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 226

PostPosted: Tue 08 Nov, 2005 3:45 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

John G. III wrote:
Sword & Shield I agree would probably be quite nasty. But you probably have to establish here certain things, such as the specific types of armor, swords/weapon and shield being used. Perhaps if we can lay those down and try run simulations on them?


Given that I can probably count the number of people in the world doing accurate sword and shield on my fingers, what would you be testing?

The people who brought up armour certainly made a good point. If you can afford to be hit then all bets are off.

Cheers

Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield

Stoccata School of Defence
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Stephen Hand




Location: Hobart, Australia
Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 226

PostPosted: Tue 08 Nov, 2005 3:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Micha Hofmann wrote:
he was alway trying to close distance very fast, while covering/ shuffling my weapon aside with his buckler.


And you quickly worked out how to get around his buckler. Bucklers really aren't that good a defence, which is why Silver and the I.33 system rarely use it for defence, relying instead on the sword. The longsword also has a significant advantage over the shortsword as the extra blade length allows you to cover the line to your arm as you attack. Therefore you can actually attack without fear of being struck on the arm. As Silver said, weapons to be used in both hands have an advantage over single handed weapons. Silver actually gives the advantage in fight to the two handed sword over the sword and buckler. I would consider sword and buckler vs longsword a very even fight, coming down much more to individual skill rather than any inherent weapon advantage.

Cheers
Stephen

Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield

Stoccata School of Defence
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
John G. III




Location: Philippines
Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Reading list: 4 books

Posts: 10

PostPosted: Tue 08 Nov, 2005 7:21 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Err, let me rephrase that. I meant think of situations so others can help simulate our ideas, these people being those who have the proper equipment and ability to simulate. I don't have any of the items mentioned above, much less a sparring partner with which we can experiment out any fights, unfortunately.
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Sword and shield vs single-sword.
Page 1 of 6 Reply to topic
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum