Two fighters from 15th to 16th century. Both using full plate armour of the best quality. Both with the same physical characteristics and the same training experience. But while the first have a two hander sword (not necessarily a zweihander), the second have a one hander sword and a shield. What you guys think about the result of this combat?
Personally (and I have to say that I'm not a ancient combat expert) I think the winner will be the first, because the heavier blows of the two hander sword will finally beat the greater power defense of the second.
Last edited by Guilherme Dias Ferreira S on Sat 03 Feb, 2007 4:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
I have moved this topic to the Off-topic Talk forum.
Please note the description for this forum:
"Discussions of general history and other miscellaneous topics relating to arms and armour that do not specifically fit our other forums"
Since you're asking about combatants in a duel (much moreso than their arms & armour), this is best placed in the Off-Topic Forum.
Thank you.
Please note the description for this forum:
"Discussions of general history and other miscellaneous topics relating to arms and armour that do not specifically fit our other forums"
Since you're asking about combatants in a duel (much moreso than their arms & armour), this is best placed in the Off-Topic Forum.
Thank you.
Well, with a full harness a shield wouldn't be that much use, dodging and parrying would be more effective. If the one with the one handed sword could step within the other combatants reach he could get a few short strokes in with his sword, grapple with his free hand, and/or half-sword and stab into the eyes or armpit.
A two hander is good for fighting off multiple people and can be used as a polearm (at least as far as I gather), it is more of a longer range weapon. If the wielder knows what he is doing, he should be able to keep the other person at bay while launching effective thrusts. If the shield is used to block a thrust/turn it aside and the one hander steps in the combatant could drop his two hander and grapple, backstep to recover into his original stance(or a more effective stance), or try to swing the sword around and cut at his opponents exposed side.
I'm not sure who would win...
Where are they fighting (city street, open field, etc.)? That would also change who has the advantage, terrain can make a big difference.
-James
A two hander is good for fighting off multiple people and can be used as a polearm (at least as far as I gather), it is more of a longer range weapon. If the wielder knows what he is doing, he should be able to keep the other person at bay while launching effective thrusts. If the shield is used to block a thrust/turn it aside and the one hander steps in the combatant could drop his two hander and grapple, backstep to recover into his original stance(or a more effective stance), or try to swing the sword around and cut at his opponents exposed side.
I'm not sure who would win...
Where are they fighting (city street, open field, etc.)? That would also change who has the advantage, terrain can make a big difference.
-James
Heavy blows matter not at all (when delivered by a sword) to a man in harness.
But a two-handed thrust is better at penetrating the padded or mail defenses in the gaps between the plates.
The combat would probably end up with grapling with daggers, as most armoured fights.
Most likely, the shield and sword fighter would rush in, the twohander man would drop his sword, and go for his dagger, the shieldman would drop HIS sword, and go for the dagger, and so on...
Most likely, the shield and sword fighter would rush in, the twohander man would drop his sword, and go for his dagger, the shieldman would drop HIS sword, and go for the dagger, and so on...
| Elling Polden wrote: |
| The combat would probably end up with grapling with daggers, as most armoured fights. |
I totally agree!
I was trying to make this point too, but I think Elling summed it up much better! :D
-James
If one of them had a mace or a war hammer, that would be advantageous. And, as mentioned, a rondel dagger.
yep they'd go to daggers...
but before that the knight with the sword and shielld would beat the others butt. (only because they have the same training) having a shield is a great advantage. its like having a protective wall on one side of your body.
but before that the knight with the sword and shielld would beat the others butt. (only because they have the same training) having a shield is a great advantage. its like having a protective wall on one side of your body.
Surely the guy with the shield has an adavantage, he can block incoming blows, and attack at the same time easily.
| Trent Stevens wrote: |
|
having a shield is a great advantage. its like having a protective wall on one side of your body. |
Except that in my understanding full plate armour is a bit like having an unobtrusive protective wall all around your body :)
In fact I was thinking that the apparition of plate armour was the main cause of the (relative) disappearance of the shield, which in turn allowed the development of longswords and the like. I can see the advantage of freeing one hand, and getting rid of some weight as well. I even wonder if the guy with a shield would not drop it altogether and fight with his left hand on the pommel or on the blade...
All in all I don't think the shield would make much difference, and indeed there is a bit more power and possibly reach on the side of the first fighter. But if things get to half-swording, I believe you could do that with the one-hander as well...
All other things being equal (which they never are) I'd bet on the first fighter because his weapon seems more designed for the task, but it's real close... The luck factor could be decisive :)
Regards
Why drop sword and/or shield?
If I was the sword and shield guy, I would use the shield to get close and then thrust with the sword. Depending on how it turned out once I got close, I could drop the shield and grapple with my free hand or drop the shield and half sword (yes, even with a one-hander).
If I was the longsword guy, I would try to take the other guy's legs out from under him either with a strong blow or with the half sword. If that doesn't work, the half sword is great for other grabs and throws or even to just knock the other guy around until I have an opportunity to thrust home.
If I was the sword and shield guy, I would use the shield to get close and then thrust with the sword. Depending on how it turned out once I got close, I could drop the shield and grapple with my free hand or drop the shield and half sword (yes, even with a one-hander).
If I was the longsword guy, I would try to take the other guy's legs out from under him either with a strong blow or with the half sword. If that doesn't work, the half sword is great for other grabs and throws or even to just knock the other guy around until I have an opportunity to thrust home.
| Quote: |
| Heavy blows matter not at all (when delivered by a sword) to a man in harness. |
I don't know. Even longsword blows have a chance of ringing someone's bell, especially when striking with the guard. A full blow from true two-handed sword would at least be hard on the neck (and the sword's blade, of course).
I think the man with the two-handed sword would have the advantage. Especially if he had a sword made for armored combat, such as the one in Vadi's manual.
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
|
I think the man with the two-handed sword would have the advantage. Especially if he had a sword made for armored combat, such as the one in Vadi's manual. |
I agree. I will have to look up Vadi's manual, however, so that I may have a better understanding of that sword you speak of.
M.
The shield can defend against the hard blow and deliver some strong hits too. The shield guy can protect himself right up until grappling range but can't really deliver anything until that range either. It seems like the longsword guy controls the range but both will have to close.
Anybody interested in testing the match out? I don't think theoretical speculations would yield really meaningful results...
| Quote: |
| I don't think theoretical speculations would yield really meaningful results... |
Well, we have a few manuals to go by. Silver clearly thought the longsword had the advantage against the sword and target. And Vadi highly praised the two-handed sword, so I can't really see him giving the advantage to the sword and shield. He also stressed the danger of fighting against a longer sword.
| Guilherme Dias Ferreira S wrote: |
| Personally (and I have to say that I'm not a ancient combat expert) I think the winner will be the first, because the heavier blows of the two hander sword will finally beat the greater power defense of the second. |
Keep in mind that one of the most deceptive tactics with sword and shield is also one of the most brilliant: using the shield as a weapon. A full-plate harness is designed to offer the wearer some protection against certain weapons, like sharp swords. If we're talking fifteenth or sixteenth century, I assume the combatants are using round shields (though by this period, they might be small bucklers). The shield can be used as a blunt object to strike at certain areas of the opponent...
My tactic would be to use my single-hand sword to parry his longsword, and use the rim of my shield to strike at his head or face ... but that's just me. :)
Im ready for an armoured duel.........SCA style.........
but if we get in close please dont stab me with a dagger!!! :eek:
but if we get in close please dont stab me with a dagger!!! :eek:
Page 1 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou 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
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum