Nathan Robinson wrote: |
Regarding of the dirk and targe together, I highly recommend reading "The dirk and targe: their use together" by Colin R. Rolland. it was published in The Third Park Lane Arms Fair Catalog.
Attached is one depiction of how they may have been held together. It is asked why a person might hold and use the dirk in this fashion. It is suggested that the commonly held belief that the dirk was used offensively is quite erroneous as it is unlikely that any advantage could be made by using the slow and clumsy offensive back-handed slashes that this position would allow. After all, the hand is weighed down by the heft of the targe and the hand's movement is greatly effected by its being strapped into the shield. |
Thank you for this interesting excerpt and picture.
Quote: |
Instead two suggestions are presented: the first is that it would provide easy access to the dirk should the wielder's sword become unavailable for any reason. If this were to happen, the dirk would be immediately available without delay. The second suggestion is that, by holding it point downward, a defensive opportunity has presented itself. |
I do not find the first reason that convincing. If you lost your sword in battle, you would need to reach for your other arm to take the dirk. This other arm might be busy fending off an attack. You would be exposing yourself to injury while trying to transfer the dirk between hands. Also, this would be no quicker than simply taking the dirk out of a scabbard on your belt. I also think you are less likely to lose your dirk if it is sheathed properly than if you are carrying it and using it in your parrying hand. By carrying the dirk, you also risk injuring yourself with it (for example, if you stumble and fall on it.) I don't think a warrior would hold the dirk in the left hand unless he actually had active use for it in that hand.
Quote: |
Because of the position and size of the targe, the upper body is quite well protected by it, but the lower torso and legs are quite exposed to a cut. The article goes on to suggest that such attacks can be parried by a lateral and downward movement of the targe so as to lock the opponent's weapon between the dirk blade and the targe's edge, "thus unbalancing the adversary and exposing him to a swift courterattack." |
I suppose this might apply to single combat, but I wonder how it applies to battlefield tactics.
Does this apply to the highland charge? Did the attacker have time for careful blade locks? Or might the targe and dirk be used to smash into the enemy line? When you are using your motion and body mass as the attack, you don't need to have a quick hand to make an attack with the targe and dirk.
In addition, could the dirk and spike on the targe be there for intimidation? Much of the point of the charge was to break the opposing formation, and intimidation and shock probably was an important factor in this. If you have a line of scots charging you with pointy sharps in both hands, you're going to be kept pretty busy.
I guess the last thing to remember is that not every targe had a spike, and not everyone carried a targe or targe and dirk. As Henrik pointed out, using either or both and how was probably a very personal choice.