The Superior Weapon Setup -- myArmoury.com

Johan du Buisson · Posted: Wed 19 Nov, 2008 4:18 am Post subject: The Superior Weapon Setup

Which of the following weapon setups would you prefer, or wich of the follwing setups do you consider to be the best of the three, and why?

The setups are...

1.) Sword and Buckler
2.) Two handed sword
3.) Longsword and dagger ( or any other suitable secondary or off-hand weapon)

Jordan A. · Posted: Wed 19 Nov, 2008 7:34 am Post subject:

If I didn't know what the scenario was or who I was fighting and had to choose a weapon based purely on unkown expectations, then I would choose two handed swords, more because I like them more than anything else. I admit, unfortunately, I am no swordsman, merely a collector! But I would love to be skilled with two handed swords.

Dan P · Posted: Wed 19 Nov, 2008 7:52 am Post subject:

I'd take shortsword and buckler as being the most flexible for dealing with different things, but I bet other people are going to disagree with me, which is OK. I don't like 2-handed weapons (or even long 1-hand swords) very much, but that's an artifact of what I've had the most training with and what I can carry around every day.

Christopher Gregg · Posted: Wed 19 Nov, 2008 8:11 am Post subject:

Without knowing my adversary, what type of weaponry I'd be facing, the numbers of opponents and how tightly grouped their defences are, what type of armor defense I was allowed and my enemy possesed, I could not choose between the three limited choices. If I must choose, I'd take a staff weapon with a hand-axe or large dirk as a back up.

Luka Tic · Posted: Wed 19 Nov, 2008 8:35 am Post subject:

A sword,buckler and a mace as a sidearm in case of heavy armour

Jeff Kaisla · Posted: Wed 19 Nov, 2008 3:56 pm Post subject:

I really enjoy two handed longswords, but unless you are very skilled, I find using one Longsword against Sword and Shield can be a challenge. If I didn't know what I was up against, I too would choose sword and shield.

Lucas LaVoy · Posted: Wed 19 Nov, 2008 4:30 pm Post subject:

A buckler really isn't the same as a "shield" though; its not nearly as passive a defense as a kite or viking round (or a scutum), and I think takes a bit of training to get much use out of. So it'd really depend on your experience level.

Jordan A. · Posted: Wed 19 Nov, 2008 4:44 pm Post subject:

If the option for sword and SHIELD was given I would have chosen that, a Gladius and a large Roman shield, but the option was sword and buckler. To say sword and shield (to me) is not what is asked. Does anyone feel the same way? I may be wrong!

Gavin Kisebach · Posted: Wed 19 Nov, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject:

I can only comment from my experiences in the SCA, but you might find them relevant.

Almost every new fighter ends up behind a sword and shield (round, heater, and scutum being most common) simply because that's the only way they can live long enough to learn anything. The shield provides some passive defense, and the single sword provides decent offensive capability.

Accomplished fighters almost invariably move to spear, owing to its offensive superiority. A few will move to greatsword; again for the offensive capability. So long as you have the training and the natural speed to play the range game and create openings, you can accomplish great things with a focused offense.

Bucklers are to me like pistols; appropriate for civilian carry, and often present on the battlefield, but in every other way a compromise. No doubt with a lot of training and focus you can be battle viable, but I think the buckler is at a decided disadvantage nex to a true battlefield weapon such as the longsword or greatsword.

Jordan A. · Posted: Wed 19 Nov, 2008 5:07 pm Post subject:

Dang Lucas, I took a phone call while I was typing my post and you beat me to it! Big Grin

Jeff Kaisla · Posted: Wed 19 Nov, 2008 5:58 pm Post subject:

Ok, sword and buckler it is then. I understand the difference between a buckler and a shield. I have been training in both German Longsword and Sword and Buckler. I have also been reading Chivalry Bookshelf's "Medieval Sword and "SHIELD" which is completely based on buckler work. I didn't know using the term shield would generate any feedback. I consider a buckler a small shield...the diff being able to use as an offensive weapon and the ability to use in grapples. Sorry for the confusion Wink

Sam Gordon Campbell · Posted: Thu 20 Nov, 2008 12:38 am Post subject:

I concur, sword and buckler for moi.

Vincent Le Chevalier · Posted: Thu 20 Nov, 2008 2:50 am Post subject:

The kind of armour you will wear should influence the choice. I wouldn't risk unarmoured longsword outside a duel against a similar setup...

Not to mention the armour worn by the opponent.

In short: context, context, context Happy

Sam N. · Posted: Thu 20 Nov, 2008 3:45 am Post subject:

To carry around as a sidearm, a light longsword (well, more of a bastard-sword) and a buckler. That way, I have a sword & buckler and a longsword should I need either.

Or, if I could find an easy way to carry it, a two handed sword. After all, Di Grassi states it is useful against multiple opponents and acts as a good intimidation tool to prevent someone from attempting to attack you.

But seriously, we need more info, armoured or unarmoured? Street or battlefield? The question is not which setup is best, but which setup is best for what situation.

Anders Backlund · Posted: Thu 20 Nov, 2008 7:46 am Post subject:

Possibly sword and buckler. It would depend on the type of sword, though.

Bill Grandy · myArmoury Team

I just want to emphasize what Vincent said:

Context!

If there were a superior style, people wouldn't have bothered to use anything else. If sword and buckler were the most effective style, then why would a Doppelsöldner bother with using a two handed sword for disrupting pike formations? If the two handed sword was superior, then why would the rodeleros of Cortez's army have taken their sword and bucklers into the New World? There are many reasons for using a particular weapon style and combintation, and it goes far beyond personal preference.

If I were an archer on the field of Agincourt, I might have carried a sword and buckler as my back up, as a two handed sword's grip might have interfered with my ability to shoot. If I were a mounted knight, I might have chosen a longsword because it could be used from horseback as well as being used on foot. And so on.

James R.Fox · Posted: Fri 21 Nov, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject:

Mr LaVoy-If you think the scutum is a passive defence, check any good book on Roman weapons. The legonary was taught to punch with the boss,use the metal-bound lower edge to smash the enemies lower legs and feet, rabbit-punch him with same in the back of his neck if smashing his feet dropped him to his knees, and smash him under the jaw with the upper edge to break his jaws and neck. Adrian Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army is a good place to start., as is Roman Military Equipment, by M.C. Bishop andJ.C.N. Coulston. Both of these are available from Amazon books, which is where I got them. Any good shield is a weapon, and bucklers were often metal edge bound and had a boss, and were 24 to 36 inches in diameter. If I didn't know what I was facing I'd take a 2 ft buckler and a Oakshott type XV or XVIII sword.