myArmoury.com - Sword and shield vs single-sword.

• Info • Register • Log in
• Forum Index • Memberlist • Usergroups • Search • Spotlight Topics • Watched Topics

Forum Index » Off-topic Talk » Sword and shield vs single-sword.

Posts: 4,194 Location: Northern VA,USA

Sun 13 Nov, 2005 5:41 pm

Felix Wang wrote:

Do JSA have any named technique or move that specifically calls for using the blunt end of a katana?

Yes, it does, though I can't remember any names to techniques. It's been years since I studied the katana with any sort of regularity. But I can remember one technique where your opponent cuts a shomen uchi (straight down at the head), and you caught the opponent's lead arm with your off hand, while simultaneously drawing your sword and striking him in the throat with the pommel. You immediately finished drawing and made the killing blow.

There were several other closing techniques that involved wrapping the tsuka around your opponent's forearm, very much like in many European longsword styles.

Profile PM Website

Wolfgang Armbruster

Posts: 322

Mon 14 Nov, 2005 5:33 am

Quote:

IIRC, draw cuts were rarely used in European swordsmanship, and many European longswords were fairly blunt until you got out near the tip to facilitate parries and halfsword techniques.

I don't know where people get this info from. The longswords in the armoury in Ingolstadt and Graz are quite sharp (exept for the ricasso / fehlschärfe of course).

I'm not advertising the superiority of any martial art over another. Poeple all over this planet developed their own martial arts and despite the large geographical distances and cultural differences a lot of techniques look (or are) the same.
Why? Simple answer: body mechanics. There is only a limited amount of ways how to use a sword. The basics are the same everywhere.
You know, if your enemy stops breathing he's dead, isn't he? ;)

@ Hisham: I like this one a lot!
Looks almost like a Messer but with a forward curved blade and an Indo-Persian hilt :)

[ Linked Image ]

Profile PM

Posts: 64 Location: DeKalb, IL

Mon 14 Nov, 2005 7:49 am

Tyler Weaver wrote:

Quote:

The europeans used every part of their sword in offensive uses, the quillons, pommel, and blade. I have yet to see an east-asian art use them with any focus.

Any JSA practitioner should be familiar and able to use pommel strikes and other techniques with his sword's hilt in close-combat, such as jointlocks. Moreover, the very design of Japanese swords allows them to do something very well that most European designs can't, at least not well - draw cuts. Thanks to the sword's curve and the layout of the hilt and guard, instead of merely clubbing someone with your pommel or quillons (which may or may not faze a determined opponent), you can lay your blade on his body, give it a jerk, and cut him damn near in two. That will kill him. In fact, most of the halfsword-esque techniques in JSA that people commonly refer to are actually suppored draw-cuts where you choke up on the blade to more effectively force it through your enemy's body.

IIRC, draw cuts were rarely used in European swordsmanship, and many European longswords were fairly blunt until you got out near the tip to facilitate parries and halfsword techniques.

Quote:

If you ask me, although the crossguard might not give HUGE degrees of protection, the amount of defense it provides is indeed noticeable. A guard such as the kron guard of the Liechtenauer tradition uses the guard to an effective quality that would be imposible with a disc guard. Also, it in no way hinders a skilled user of european swords.

A cruciform guard still provides no knuckle or finger protection unless it has additional elements added, not to mention that it provides convenient handles for grappling and gives your opponent the option of deliberately striking your guard to stop his blow after he is parried.

Quote:

Also as far as modern practitioners being prepared against all weapons, I must refer to personal experience and Lance's post. WMA practitioners generally use cross training on a MUCH more regular basis than asian arts practitioners do. Most JSA schools don't use any combinations besides Katana vs. Katana. While in your ideal world everyone would be prepared against anyone, in real life, WMA practitioners are much more practiced in this regard.

This is an often-repeated sentiment, but it's not factual. I think you need to be exposed to more good Asian martial arts - any JSA practitioner with any breadth of study will have experience fighting all kinds of weapons, both formally and unofficially, "for fun", and with unarmed techniques. Hell, even kendoka have matches against naginata-do fighters on occasion, something which no European fencer would do. There are some people with a rather narrow range of combative experience, but that's bad and they need to go expand their horizons.

Moreover, how much do WMA guys actually cross-train? From what I've gathered reading this board and elsewhere, cross-training in European arts is actually fairly rare and noteworthy enough that often it's a completely new experience for people. For that matter, most historical fechtbuch material deals with equal matchups, not cross-training matches.

You're using "Any JSA practitioner" with too much frivolity here.

Also, I'd recommend using a Longsword sometime. The crossguard DOES give finger and knuckle protection. Saved my fingers on more than one occasion.

Plus, a draw-cut is referred to in the German tradition as one of the "three wounders", specifically "schnitt". It's an integral part of the system, and the central premise behind "Abschneiden" or rather "cutting off".

Profile PM Website AIM

David Black Mastro

Posts: 279 Location: Central NJ

Mon 14 Nov, 2005 1:46 pm

Tyler Weaver wrote:

This is an often-repeated sentiment, but it's not factual. I think you need to be exposed to more good Asian martial arts - any JSA practitioner with any breadth of study will have experience fighting all kinds of weapons, both formally and unofficially, "for fun", and with unarmed techniques. Hell, even kendoka have matches against naginata-do fighters on occasion, something which no European fencer would do. There are some people with a rather narrow range of combative experience, but that's bad and they need to go expand their horizons.

Moreover, how much do WMA guys actually cross-train? From what I've gathered reading this board and elsewhere, cross-training in European arts is actually fairly rare and noteworthy enough that often it's a completely new experience for people. For that matter, most historical fechtbuch material deals with equal matchups, not cross-training matches.

Tyler,

Working with dissimilar weapon combos actually has a long pedigree in the West. Take, for example, the Roman gladiatorial games, where gladiators armed in legionary fashion (secutor, myrmillo, or provocator) were pitted against other types (retiarius with trident and net; hoplomachus with spear and round shield; or the Thracian with small shield and curved sica).

In the early 15th century, Fiore dei Liberi offered various techniques by which a man armed only with a dagger might face off against someone with a sword.

Later, we have the various "vantages" between different weapons, as noted by George Silver in his Paradoxes of Defence in 1599. Given Silver's concern for a method that would work both for civilian self-defense and war, this is hardly surprising.

Giacomo di Grassi's manual of 1570, which was also geared towards soldiers, noted the utility of the two-handed sword against multiple opponents armed with single-handed swords (for which reason it was apparently favored by both banner guards in armies, as well as city patrolmen). There is also a passage in di Grassi's manual which declares a notion which has been embraced by Filipino eskrimadors in modern times:

"The soldier differeth from other men, not because he is more skilful in handling the sword or javelin, but for that he is expert in everie occasion to know the best advantage & with judgement both to defend himself with anie thing whatsoever, and therewithal safely to offend the enemy: In which & no other thing consisteth true skirmishing." (emphasis added)

And so to di Grassi, "true skirmishing" was the ability of the fighting man to "defend himself with anything whatsoever"--an admittedly useful skill which has been repeated time and again in FMA texts.

In the following century, the military writer Wallhausen addressed the various problems faced by soldiers--pikemen fighting lancers, musketeers fighting lancers, and infantry fighting each other, with every object at their disposal, including pikes, swords, musket-butts, musket-rests, bandoliers, helmets, etc.

In the civilian context, the great master Thibault seemed particularly obsessed with the use of the rapier (in the Spanish fashion) against the two-handed sword.

In the 18th century, various fencing masters commented on the use of dissimilar swords and fencing styles--smallsword vs. spadroon, smallsword vs. backsword, spadroon vs. smallsword, backsword vs. smallsword, saber vs. smallsword, broadsword vs. bayonet, broadsword vs. pike, French smallsword vs. Italian smallsword, French smallsword vs. German smallsword, French smallsword vs. Spanish rapier, and so forth.

Best,

David

Profile PM

Posts: 226 Location: Hobart, Australia

Mon 14 Nov, 2005 2:53 pm

To put a dfferent emphasis on what David just said, while training against different weapons has a long history in the west, we are also in a period where the emphasis in western swordsmanship is the resurrection of lost combat arts from surviving manuals. Given where we are, most of the better practitioners focus mainly, if not exclusively on recreating the systems and the weapon match ups explicitly described in manuals. The important thing at this stage is to understand the systems. Rushing into doing stuff which isn't described, and which requires a deep understanding of the combat system is regarded by many as premature and likely to ingrain bad habits.

Cheers
Stephen

Profile PM Website

Posts: 8,310 Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada

Mon 14 Nov, 2005 3:01 pm

I know it's a movie but there is a duel at the end of Rob Roy with Liam Neesan ( Spelling ??? ) were a small sword is used in a fight against a basket hilt.

How " Hollywood " or authentic in technique this fight scene is I will leave to others more competent to comment on.

In real history Basket hilt Sword and Targe against Small Sword or Bayonnete / Musket in the 18th century.

Profile PM

Posts: 5,739 Location: Wichita, Kansas

Mon 14 Nov, 2005 4:25 pm

Since the posts dealing with Brazilian and mixed martial arts were very divergent from the original topic I removed them and placed them in their own thread entitled Mixed Martial Arts

Profile PM AIM

Posts: 5 Location: Bay Area, CA

Mon 26 Feb, 2007 7:33 pm

I have fought with and against both styles. I personally prefer single sword of sword and shield. A shield is good and all, but there are several things that must be taken into account. The weight and size of the shield make a big difference. Fighting someone with a buckler is different than someone with a scutum or a kite shield.

When fighting an opponent with a shield the name of the game is speed. Your oppononent may not give up his offensive option when blocking due to his shield, but his swing will be slower because he must divert some of his strength and concentration on his shield hand and keeping your sword at bay.

As i said speed is important. If he blocks with his shield, you can use speed to: A) effectivly dodge his attack. B) Recover quickly from his black and strike again. C) move in close and roll off his shield so that you have a straight shot at his back.

That is my support for the situation. I have fought many many different styles and with many dfferent weapons and i prefer single blade to sword and shield. Also as a side note, a parry-riposte with one blade is much quicker and more effective than with sword and shield because with sword and shield, after the parry, the attacker must either come around his shield or if he parries by pushing out wide, he will be off balance

Profile PM AIM YIM MSN

A. Jake Storey II

Posts: 41 Location: USA

Sat 24 Nov, 2007 9:03 pm

I just heard a funny story today about a single handed (and rather short) sword verses a sword-and-shield. It was at an eskrima school. Some local Western Martial Arts (WMA) guy heard about them and thought he would go and “prove the superiority” of WMA. He goes with a helmet, wooden waister, and shield. One of the students take him on...and cant get through... The WMA cant seem to get through the students defensives yet the student just keeps meeting that shield. Finally the head instructor gets tired of this and says to stop. He steps up and tells the guy to start. WMA guy does an over hand strike.... and finds his wrist in his opponents hand. The instructor twists that hand out of the way places his elbow and forearm on the shield absorbing the shield-strike that WMA attempted, hooks his pommel around the shield and shoves it aside, strikes the bicep muscle, and then performs a draw cut along the side of WMA guy’s neck. I thought this was a funny story. NOTE: (This is not saying that Eskrima is better then Western Martial Arts, this is just a story on how one person dealt with the sword v.s. sword and shield scenario.)

Profile PM

Vincent Le Chevalier

Posts: 871 Location: Paris, France

Sun 25 Nov, 2007 3:21 am

A. Jake Storey II wrote:

WMA guy does an over hand strike.... and finds his wrist in his opponents hand. The instructor twists that hand out of the way places his elbow and forearm on the shield absorbing the shield-strike that WMA attempted, hooks his pommel around the shield and shoves it aside, strikes the bicep muscle, and then performs a draw cut along the side of WMA guy’s neck.

Well imagine how much simpler the instructor's task would have been if he had a sword and shield :p

I don't think the problem when people try the weapon X vs. weapon Y comparison is finding techniques that work... It's finding how different the level of the fighters must be in order for the technique to work reliably, and not out of chance.

I mean, there is a variety of techniques in aikido that defeat katana with bare hands, but I still don't think bare hands work better than a katana...

If anything, the result of student vs. student in this story is more telling on what difference the weapons make. But since there is no indication about the level of each... As always, the outcome of one specific example is not enough to conclude.

Profile PM Website

Posts: 599 Location: Brooklyn, NY

Fri 15 Feb, 2008 12:50 am

I am a sword & shield fighter in the SCA and have fought against polearms and two-handed swords often. I have also participated in experiments where we put on steel leg greaves and allow for low leg shots. I also study WMA in the tradition of Liechtenauer, so I have a prospective on both systems. I fight rapier too but that has little bearing here.

In the case of sword & shield vs longsword (or polearm) we have to match weapons and armor, as has been mentioned before. We can assume that the shieldman will have mail or leather armor, a light norman style helmet and either a long kite or a heater with greaves. Greaves seem to appear after 1250 in combination with mail. A polearm or longsword seems to require plate armor in order to have a chance. Since we can't move plate back in time let us move the mail covered shieldman forward into the 15 th century.

One of the issues that was raised is what can the shieldman do to a man in plate with his sword. From my experience in the SCA I know that if I can close the distance and get my shield on the hilt of the two-handed weapon, the two-handed weapon can not easily generate a good swing. Its a game of "sticky fingers" for the shieldman. Keep your shield on his weapon and follow it where it goes. So the shieldman is safe but how can he beat the two-handed weapon. I often get hit with rattan-wood on my 12 gage, 9 lb helmet that is similar to a greathelm. I can take one hard blow no problem. That is all I am ever suppose to get. I say good, the other guy stops swinging. Occasionally, the other person does not hear me and I have gotten two hard, back to back blows. Consecutive blows make a big difference vs single blows. I have had to sit down after consecutive blows. I think 7 or 8 consecutive hard blows would knock me out. People have gotten concussion in the SCA through their helmets. Mind you that this is with rattan swords that absorb some of the impact and helmets at the high end of historical helms with a half inch of cell foam. Most 15th century bassinets are lighter then SCA helms and steel swords strike harder then rattan-wood.

From the prospective of the longsword (or polearm) it is ideal to fight the shieldman from the edge of their range. If he can backpeddle, the two-handed weapon can make horizontal strikes across the top of the shield or thrust into what ever corner the shieldman is looking out from. Low shots are good at that range too. Even if the shieldman has a long kite, a longsword (especially a polearm) can generate enough force at the bottom to rotate the shield and open up other opportunities. If he sheildman has greaves, a longsword (especially a polearm) can still do damage. Even if the leg is not broken you feel a wave of pain up your leg from the impact. The heater will likely attempt to sword -block any low leg blows. Most polearms can also effectively hook a shield at longrange and follow up with a thrust. If the sheildman closes, the two-handed weapon has three main options. (1) A hard check, followed by more back peddling and range fighting. (2) Rolling to the shield-side with a high horizontal strike to the head. (3) Throwing his shoulder into the shield and striking back with the false edge of his sword over the top of his shield on the sword-side. The shieldmans helmet will likely be under 3 lbs and any high horizontal strikes or stikes with the false edge over the shield will have him seeing stars.

What I said above applies mostly to singles combat or small skirmishes. Mass battles are won by organization, planning, logistics, discipline, troop maneuvers, technology and troop numbers. Its far more complicated then this type of soldier vs that type of soldier.

Profile PM Website AIM

Nicholas Harrison

Posts: 2 Location: Texas

Sun 17 Feb, 2008 9:27 pm

I wonder if the longsword fighter might have an advantage over the sword and shield fighter if he were able to initiate grappling after they had closed on eachother, especially if the sword/shield fighter were trying to crowd him. For example, warding off the sword/shield fighter's sword with his own longsword gripped in one hand, grabbing the opponent's shield, arm, or loose clothing with the other, or using some other technique to come into very close grappling distance, and then drawing a knife or dagger with his free hand to finish the fight. It seems the sword/shield fighter would not have that free hand available to him in said grappling situation, and would thus be at a disadvantage if the longsword fighter managed to close with him and commence grappling.

I readily admit that I have no experience in any WMA fighting, and thus hope to hear from those with greater experience and knowledge. But my experience in BJJ, Judo, and other grappling martial arts makes me interested to know if and how grappling techniques could be used in the imaginary matchup between the longsword and the sword/shield combo.

Profile PM

Posts: 599 Location: Brooklyn, NY

Sun 17 Feb, 2008 11:17 pm

Nicholas Harrison wrote:

I wonder if the longsword fighter might have an advantage over the sword and shield fighter if he were able to initiate grappling after they had closed on eachother, especially if the sword/shield fighter were trying to crowd him. For example, warding off the sword/shield fighter's sword with his own longsword gripped in one hand, grabbing the opponent's shield, arm, or loose clothing with the other, or using some other technique to come into very close grappling distance, and then drawing a knife or dagger with his free hand to finish the fight. It seems the sword/shield fighter would not have that free hand available to him in said grappling situation, and would thus be at a disadvantage if the longsword fighter managed to close with him and commence grappling.

In the SCA under current rules a longsword or polearm is allowed to grab the shield or an opponents weapon on the non-blade part. At that point they have about 3 seconds to do something. Your not allowed to play tug-a-war with the guy because then it becomes a contest of strength. If you can't push or pull the guys shield and get a good strike within 3 seconds then you never really created an advantage for yourself. So it has to be a quick tug or push followed by a strike.

The way it works out is the shieldman is always leading with the shield, so that is the only thing that can be grabbed. The Longsword has to pull a shield and be in a good position to twist the hips and get a good one handed shot. The swordman can still sword-block. A longsword used single-handed will require more body mechanics to move it. That is easier to see and block. Once a longsword is blocked it really needs to be pulled back and you have to twist the hips and use your whole body to get another good shot. The shieldman has a single handed sword that is optimized for one-handed strikes. He will be able to fire off successive combinations and block one handed better.

If you get into a hypothetical situation (non-SCA) where the longswordman drops his weapon all together... well then he will most likely get both his hands on the shield and pull. In the same moment he will have the shieldman's sword on its way to his head.

Not that it has to work out this way every time. The longsword man way occasionally succeed in grappling attempts, but he is at a disadvantage to try and grapple and must be that much stronger and faster to make up for it.

Quote:

I readily admit that I have no experience in any WMA fighting, and thus hope to hear from those with greater experience and knowledge. But my experience in BJJ, Judo, and other grappling martial arts makes me interested to know if and how grappling techniques could be used in the imaginary matchup between the longsword and the sword/shield combo.

These match-ups are pretty common in the SCA. The shield usually runs over the longsword. To win the longsword must really be good and Shieldman not so good. Polearms give a better fight but are still disadvantaged. Again the polearm must be way better then the shieldman to win... and there are some damn good polearms in the SCA too.

It is unfortunate that they usually don't mix weapons forms in WMA because I would like to see it tested there too under their standards. I have proposed the idea to my group. There is nothing in the manuals about mixed forms so they don't do it. They tend to be very strict and by the book. The SCA approuch is different, if it works for you and it can be done in a safe manor... go for it.

Profile PM Website AIM

Posts: 114 Location: Beijing, China

Mon 18 Feb, 2008 9:36 am

Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote:

It is unfortunate that they usually don't mix weapons forms in WMA because I would like to see it tested there too under their standards. I have proposed the idea to my group. There is nothing in the manuals about mixed forms so they don't do it. They tend to be very strict and by the book. The SCA approuch is different, if it works for you and it can be done in a safe manor... go for it.

Uhh, actually, most manuals do cover dissimilar weapon combinations. Fiore Di Liberi has a large section of his book, Flos Duellatorum, dedicated to what an unarmed man should do against a dagger, he also has a section on dagger against longsword. The French master Thibaut wrote about about how a rapier should combat a two-handed sword. George Silver, an English master, spent much time discussing how different weapons would match up, stating that all weapons used with two hands defeat those used with one hand. Even the 17th Century Italian master, Salvator Fabris, includes a small section at the back of his book dedicated to rapier vs. polearm and another about unarmed vs. dagger.

Profile PM

Benjamin H. Abbott

Posts: 1,248 Location: New Mexico

Mon 18 Feb, 2008 10:12 am

Quote:

These match-ups are pretty common in the SCA. The shield usually runs over the longsword. To win the longsword must really be good and Shieldman not so good. Polearms give a better fight but are still disadvantaged. Again the polearm must be way better then the shieldman to win... and there are some damn good polearms in the SCA too.

Based on what George Silver wrote, I'd say this has more to do with the details of SCA sparring than anything else. All manner of two-handed weapons have odds against the sword and target.

Profile PM

Nicholas Harrison

Posts: 2 Location: Texas

Mon 18 Feb, 2008 11:29 am

Quote:

In the SCA under current rules a longsword or polearm is allowed to grab the shield or an opponents weapon on the non-blade part. At that point they have about 3 seconds to do something. Your not allowed to play tug-a-war with the guy because then it becomes a contest of strength. If you can't push or pull the guys shield and get a good strike within 3 seconds then you never really created an advantage for yourself. So it has to be a quick tug or push followed by a strike.

3 seconds? I really feel confident that I could defend myself from the best grapplers in the world if they were only given 3 seconds to grapple with me. It usually takes me at least 20 seconds of grappling in BJJ before I find a vulnerability and manage to perform a trip, throw, or takedown. Even a completely untrained opponent can resist a grappling attack for 3 seconds. Early UFC matches were considered boring because grappling time was unrestricted, and the two fighters would often grapple for several minutes before one managed to perform a technique.

I can see how, in a group battle, grappling an opponent for any extended period of time would make no sense; you would just be chopped up by one of his friends. But I think a one on one match should be a bit different, especially if the longsword fighter is at a disadvantage against the sword/shield fighter as far as their armaments go. The longsword fighter, I think, would definitely try to find some way to even up the match, and would not be concerned with any 3 second rules.

Perhaps the longsword fighter would be better off using a sword that, while meant mainly for two-handed use, can also function as a one-handed weapon, so as to better facilitate the grappling attempt. The Count and Crecy, from Albion Armorers, both come to mind...

Profile PM

Posts: 545 Location: Boston

Mon 18 Feb, 2008 11:46 am

Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote:

The way it works out is the shieldman is always leading with the shield, so that is the only thing that can be grabbed. The Longsword has to pull a shield and be in a good position to twist the hips and get a good one handed shot. The swordman can still sword-block. A longsword used single-handed will require more body mechanics to move it. That is easier to see and block. Once a longsword is blocked it really needs to be pulled back and you have to twist the hips and use your whole body to get another good shot. The shieldman has a single handed sword that is optimized for one-handed strikes. He will be able to fire off successive combinations and block one handed better.

The use of a longsword (one-handed) versus a sword and shield opponent is shown in Talhoffer. In that text virtually all of the attacks are thrusts, frequently from ochs. So the longsword man protects his head and has a longer reach than the one-handed sword wielder. Cuts from the longsword are typically used after an advantage has been gained not as opening attacks. Talhoffer also seems to depict a "wait for the other guy to attack or make a mistake" strategy.

The primarily thrusting approach to defeating someone with a shield is consistent with I.33 and recent work done on Norse sword and shield combat.

-Steven

Profile PM Website

Benjamin H. Abbott

Posts: 1,248 Location: New Mexico

Mon 18 Feb, 2008 12:05 pm

Quote:

The primarily thrusting approach to defeating someone with a shield is consistent with I.33 and recent work done on Norse sword and shield combat.

Well, Silver's advice against for staff against sword and target includes as many blows as thrusts. Strike and then thrust, or thrust and then strike. Of course, that's more general advice for the staff against various shorter weapons.

Profile PM

Posts: 599 Location: Brooklyn, NY

Mon 18 Feb, 2008 12:11 pm

Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote:

It is unfortunate that they usually don't mix weapons forms in WMA because I would like to see it tested there too under their standards. I have proposed the idea to my group. There is nothing in the manuals about mixed forms so they don't do it. They tend to be very strict and by the book. The SCA approuch is different, if it works for you and it can be done in a safe manor... go for it.

My apologies I should have been more clear. I should have said that they don't include a comprehensive system that includes text and illustration for mixed weapons in the same manor they they do for longsword. Talhoffer does not have any text for longsword. Liechtenauer has no illustrations. Ringneck has both. We are able to cross-reference back and forth and get a good understanding of longsword. Talhoffer and the Gladiatoria both show some plates of odd weapons forms. There is not enough there to form a comprehensive fighting system on them without adding in a significant amount of speculation. We have to fill in too much of the blanks.

An example that was given was to fight a shield with thrusts from ox. This is along the same lines of what I said, "to strike horizontally across the top of the shield". From ox you can cut or thrust over the top of the shield. An experienced shieldman knows this and will anticipate this. Their head is always the primary target regardless of who they are fighting. So what do the manuals say to do next??? Like I said, there is no comprehensive fighting system for fighting a shield with a longsword.

Buckler vs. a longsword is a different fight. The buckler is not strapped at the forearm you can not push as hard with it and stuff the longsword. Unlike a big center grip shield you can not support it at the edge with your shoulder or sword to gain stability when pushing. The buckler does not cover the whole body, so the longsword can fake high and strike low or reverse. The buckler is far more vulnerable to thrusts from a long weapon then a full-shield.

SCA has its limitations, but it can teach us a significant amount too. In fact everything we practice today has limitations. In WMA we don't hit with full power. Ones fighting ability changes when they hit with full power. As more armor is put on to allow for full power or padded weapons are used, the fight changes again.

Profile PM Website AIM

Posts: 4

Tue 18 Mar, 2008 8:51 pm

Im new here and of low sword skill. mostly medevil European/ Beserker. O plus horable spelling.

On the matter of Sword Vs. Sword & Shield. I belive this depends on the swords and the shield. like a buckler would do you little good against a great sword ( example claymore ) it can be done but it would be hard. the out come of the fight seems radom and counts on many depends.

Profile PM

Page 5 of 6

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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum