Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

If an arrow struck a shirt of mail or a suit of lamellae, which one is more likely to be penetrated? Alan williams said that mail requires around 120J for an arrow to penetrate. He didn't give the numbers for scale or lamellae. So I would guess that lamellae would be harder to penetrate.

I think that you don't understand my stance here. I do agree that mail is superior to lamellae and scale, but that's because of it's lightness, flexibility and coverage. Not it's sheer resistance to weapons.
Sam T. wrote:
But archers don't shoot at point blank range. So it's hard to see how a horsebow could have penetrated the Europeans' armor in a realistic scenario


They did! Go check some translated Chinese, Arabic, or Turkish archery manuals on the Web, and you'll see that when they talk about fighting on the battlefield in the light cavalry "swarming" style then the preferred method was to get very close--sometimes down to thirty paces or even less--before loosing the arrow or series of arrows. Saladin's cavalry could not do this when they tried to harass the Crusaders' march because the crossbows kept them out of their effective range. When they were faced with opponents who closed in without missile support such as at Marj'ayyun, they were generally able to indulge in their favorite (and most effective) method of shooting from point-blank range.
on infastructure
a flat rock, hammer, tongs and an under draft camp fire is not much of an infastructure but its all you need to make a peice of steel or iron into a flat scale along with a nail to put a hole or 2 into it to tie it onto a leather backing.
being a knifemaker i have seen 10yr olds take on much more complicated smithing projects with about the same equipment.
being that the mongolians didnt use scale i have a hard time figuring out why archeologists are pulling out partial peices of scale armor and barding on the open dig in north east mongolia over the last year. it wont win a beuty contest but it just might have been serviceable.
Mail vs Lamellar
Sam T. wrote:
If an arrow struck a shirt of mail or a suit of lamellae, which one is more likely to be penetrated? Alan williams said that mail requires around 120J for an arrow to penetrate. He didn't give the numbers for scale or lamellae. So I would guess that lamellae would be harder to penetrate.

I think that you don't understand my stance here. I do agree that mail is superior to lamellae and scale, but that's because of it's lightness, flexibility and coverage. Not it's sheer resistance to weapons.


I believe he understands your assertion, it's just that it's incorrect. Mail is extremely good protection against cutting and piercing weapons. It's not all that light really, it's not super heavy either, but the way the weight is distributed (primarily on your shoulders and, with a belt, your waist) you feel the weight.

And another thing people haven't mentioned yet, I would argue that mail is far more resiliant to being damaged itself than lamellar or scale. The cords which bind lamellar can be cut. Scales pop off from their backing. This may not happen all in one fight but in the course of a battle, if one is struck several times, incremental damage will occur ultimately leading to degraded or completely ineffective armor. A few cut cords in lamellar and entire rows of lames can come off, for example. I have always felt that this was a major vulnerability of Japanese armor in particular.

Mail, particularly riveted mail of good quality iron or steel (some European mail was even tempered) is far less likely to suffer such incremental damage.


I have another question for the group. Why is it that wheras in Asia and the Middle East, mail tended to be reinforced either with plates directly incorporated as is often seen in Russian ('Bakhterats') or Turkish armor, or with extra coverage like a lamellar vest as with the Byzantine "klibanion", wheras in the west for a long time mail was apparrently considered suitible armor all by itself, (with an iron helmet and usually with a padded undergarment )

In fact the emphasis in the west seemed to be to gradually extend mail coverage over more and more of the body, short byrnies giving way to longer hauberks, chauses, coif, longer sleeves, even foot and hand protection. Only when that cap a pied mail coverage led to more and more armor piercing (picks, hammers, arbalests) and two-handed (halberds, morgenstens, gutendag, greatsword) weapons, did a lot of plate reinforcement (and other alternatives like Wisby coats) begin to become popular again in the west.


Jean
Re: Mail vs Lamellar
Jean Henri Chandler wrote:
I have another question for the group. Why is it that wheras in Asia and the Middle East, mail tended to be reinforced either with plates directly incorporated as is often seen in Russian ('Bakhterats') or Turkish armor, or with extra coverage like a lamellar vest as with the Byzantine "klibanion", wheras in the west for a long time mail was apparrently considered suitible armor all by itself, (with an iron helmet and usually with a padded undergarment )

In fact the emphasis in the west seemed to be to gradually extend mail coverage over more and more of the body, short byrnies giving way to longer hauberks, chauses, coif, longer sleeves, even foot and hand protection. Only when that cap a pied mail coverage led to more and more armor piercing (picks, hammers, arbalests) and two-handed (halberds, morgenstens, gutendag, greatsword) weapons, did a lot of plate reinforcement (and other alternatives like Wisby coats) begin to become popular again in the west.


Jean


No real answer to the question except some speculation: Maybe gambisons or aketons ( Whichever word you prefer for the garment worn under the maille. ) used in Europe were more protective i.e. thick and in the " HOT " eastern countries these were lighter and thinner making an extra layer of protecting by lamellar armour seem like a good idea ?

Also, fashion, custom, traditional use of both maille and lamillar in the same region making it tempting to use both at the same time for extra protection or one or the other when being more lightly armed when it was preferable for more manoeuvrability or comfort ?

Although the small plates connected by mail seems like a good type of armour retaining most of the flexibility of maille and maybe being a bit more effective protecting from blunt trauma: Strange that this style seems to never have been use in Western Europe ? More questions than answers from me I'm afraid but I hope still useful to the discussion. :D
Shields, arrows, and horses
Another couple of general comments on this interesting thread...

Re: Shields as primary 'armor' protection
I think there may be some validity to this when it comes to missile weapons, particularly for larger shields. But for hand combat, I think this is a questionable way of thinking about it. I've been doing various forms of stick-fighting for 25 years and WMA for about 8. I've seen some of the best WMA fencers in the country doing full-contact, full-speed sparring with every type of hand weapon you can imagine. I've also seen plenty of Arnis / Escrima, Kendo, Kung Fu, Karate, and various other types of practitioners have at it as well.

My experience of fencing is that a shield is just another type of weapon, it has certain advantages and certain disadvantages in combat. It doesn't really change your chance of getting hit very much. The bottom line is that it's very easy to be hit in hand to hand combat, shield or no shield. I know of one very, very skilled and experienced WMA fencer who stated that even against an amatuer he often got hit as frequently as one out of ten bouts. This jibes well with my own experience. Even assuming you are a master and your opponent is a neophyte (with good speed and reflexes), if you could get through, say 12 bouts without sustaining one hit, you are extremely lucky .. if the odds were more even, let say you were only twice as skilled, I would put the ratio closer to something like 1 in 3.

When I say a bout I'm talking about a WMA sparring contest as they are normally done; to the first hit. A real fight would probably require an average of 2 or 3 cuts or thrusts to actually kill or sufficiently injure your opponent that they were no longer a threat. That would half or third the number of bouts you were likely to survive without being hit. Say 4-6 bouts in an absolutely ideal situation, 1-3 in a more realistic scenario. If you add armor and a helmet (on your opponent) into the equation, this becomes even more difficult.

Now how many individual fights would a guy get into in a typical battle? Maybe none if he were way in the back, probably more than a half-dozen if he were on the front line. Plus in a battle you are going to have to worry about other people joining the fight, blindsiding you or ganging up. If you are going to see combat I would say your chances of getting through say a half- hour of intense fighting without being hit once are close to nil.

Thus one thing which fencing taught me, is to grasp the incredible importance of body armor in 'the day'. Your shield isn't going to save you the way a hauberk or even a corslet or vest of some kind and a helmet. I think Shields are just in another category, more of a defensive weapon than armor protection. Body armor made the difference between being cannon fodder and being a professional warrior who could survive to fight again and learn from experience.

Bows, Mail and the first crusade

I know this is a very emotional issue for some people (I don't really understand why) but after reading a lot of the primary Byzantine, European, and moslem sources, I think it's clear that it was quite rare for arrows to penetrate the armor of the 'Frankish' soldiers, particularly the Knights. It seemed to be an accepted fact that even the foot soldiers were essentially invulnerable to bows, whereas the arabs were decidedly not invulnerable to the heavy crossbows of the European marksmen.

And yet we know the Turks and the Arabs were often effective in battle. I personally think that it's a combination of their skill and rate of fire with the bows (even if 80% of the arrows are being stopped, you shoot enough of them you are going to start killing enemies) but more importantly, the vulnerability of the horses. I don't think full barding was all that common in those days. Mail barding is pretty rare anyway and would be very heavy. Padded gambeson like coverings were probably more common but I don't think anyone other than the wealthier knights could afford barding and then there would be the additional issue of heat and thirst for the horses. And I'm not sure if padded armor by itself is really going to save them from multiple arrow hits

Certainly we know they lost a lot of horses in the first Crusade especially.

Finally, even when an arrow didn't penetrate Mail sufficiently to kill or maim, I bet the points were causing little wounds, which were uncomfortable and potentially life-threatening in terms of infection.

Jean


Last edited by Jean Henri Chandler on Mon 15 Jan, 2007 12:33 pm; edited 5 times in total
Re: Mail vs Lamellar
Jean Thibodeau wrote:

No real answer to the question except some speculation: Maybe gambisons or aketons ( Whichever word you prefer for the garment worn under the maille. ) used in Europe were more protective i.e. thick and in the " HOT " eastern countries these were lighter and thinner making an extra layer of protecting by lamellar armour seem like a good idea ?

Also, fashion, custom, traditional use of both maille and lamillar in the same region making it tempting to use both at the same time for extra protection or one or the other when being more lightly armed when it was preferable for more manoeuvrability or comfort ?

Although the small plates connected by mail seems like a good type of armour retaining most of the flexibility of maille and maybe being a bit more effective protecting from blunt trauma: Strange that this style seems to never have been use in Western Europe ? More questions than answers from me I'm afraid but I hope still useful to the discussion. :D



Interesting points

I would suggest that it might have had something to do with the mini-industrial revolution going on in the West at that time. The Cistercian monks were spreading the windmill and the overwash water wheel to the four corners of Europe, and the latter in particular revolutionized the large scale production of iron, with the mill powered bellows and the barcelona (automated) hammer. This may have led to a much wider production of high quality iron for use in armor, which in turn may have led to a better or at least more consistent quality in the mail in particular than what was available say East of the Urals or on the South side of the Med.

Jean
Re: Shields, arrows, and horses
Jean Henri Chandler wrote:

Re: Shields as primary 'armor' protection
I think there may be some validity to this when it comes to missile weapons, particularly for larger shields. But for hand combat, I think this is a questionable way of thinking about it. I've been doing various forms of stick-fighting for 25 years and WMA for about 8. I've seen some of the best WMA fencers in the country doing full-contact, full-speed sparring with every type of hand weapon you can imagine. I've also seen plenty of Arnis / Escrima, Kendo, Kung Fu, Karate, and various other types of practitioners have at it as well.


Jean,

The shield wall was a standard fighting formation for a good part of the early Middle Ages. I think the shield was seen as a good "first defense" against weapons. Some warriors fought without any armour, and only relied on the shield for protection.

Modern Western Martial Arts is a good way to understand how our ancestors fought, but depending upon what individual style is used, it might not tell us a whole lot about how all our ancestors fought. You also have to make a study of the history, and historical accounts seem to imply that the shield was seen as a protective device.

Historically, shields were used as protection. There are several period descriptions of shields being splintered, holed by lances, or otherwise damaged when struck by weapons. Shields were certainly important to mail-armoured horsemen. They would certainly wish to catch a blow on their shields instead of relying on their hauberks.

I agree that the shield can be used as another type of weapon, but I disagree that this was its primary purpose was as a weapon. It was a valid form of protection.

Stay safe!
Re: Mail vs Lamellar
Jean Henri Chandler wrote:

I have another question for the group. Why is it that wheras in Asia and the Middle East, mail tended to be reinforced either with plates directly incorporated as is often seen in Russian ('Bakhterats') or Turkish armor, or with extra coverage like a lamellar vest as with the Byzantine "klibanion", wheras in the west for a long time mail was apparrently considered suitible armor all by itself, (with an iron helmet and usually with a padded undergarment )


Jean,

Actually, some arms and armour scholars suggest that the Middle Eastern lamellar armour may have influenced the early development of the European coat-of-plates. Some of the early coats-of-plates covered mostly the midsection like some of the Muslim lamellar armour. The coat-of plates seen on the statue of St. Maurice is a good example of this early type of coat-of-plates. It's only speculation, but it seems logical.

So, European warriors did eventually add plate reinforcements to their body protection, perhaps in imitation of their Muslim foes. Another route of transmission of this idea may be through Eastern Europe; which would suggest a Russian or Turkish influence.

Stay safe!
Re: Shields, arrows, and horses
Richard Fay wrote:


Jean,

I agree that the shield can be used as another type of weapon, but I disagree that this was its primary purpose was as a weapon. It was a valid form of protection.



Please forgive me, I didn't express myself well. Of course I agree a shield is a form of protection. Of course it was an important part of a warriors kit, and of course they were used defensively. I just don't see it as a form of armor. When I say I see it as a type of weapon, I mean as a primarily defensive weapon. It's a subtle distinction between that and armor, but I'll try to explain it this way. I see it as a way of winning a fight, even though it's (primarily) defensive, it's like another weapon in that sense, but much less so as a form of passive protection against being hit, even an incidental hit when you are dominating your opponent and otherwise 'winning' a fight . That is what armor is for.

I think a lot of historians make a mistake in describing a shield like a passive form of armor. It's an active defense.

I agree with you it's a good point about the shield wall, but again, I think most battles would eventually break up into less organized fights, and even with an infantry shield wall, the shield only protects so much. We get a distorted idea of the effectiveness of shields used this way by the SCA for example because of their rules on hitting below the knee or in the back of the head for example.

Also, given the actual thickness and material makeup of most shields, they may not last too long in a battle. The Viking sagas are full of anecdotes of shields falling apart. And then of course, with cavalry, you don't really have shield walls at all ...

Jean
Re: Shields, arrows, and horses
Jean Henri Chandler wrote:
[Please forgive me, I didn't express myself well. Of course I agree a shield is a form of protection.

Also, given the actual thickness and material makeup of most shields, they may not last too long in a battle. The Viking sagas are full of anecdotes of shields falling apart. And then of course, with cavalry, you don't really have shield walls at all ...


Jean,

Okay, I understand your point now, and agree. I think the idea of the shield is evolving, and I think it's starting to be seen as a more dynamic protection. Of course, sometimes you moved the body behind the shield, instead of moving the shield in front of the body. The longer, kite-shaped shields of Norman cavalry may have been a bit less mobile than a smaller, round shield, but it's a bit different than fighting on foot.

I also agree that the sagas and other accounts are full of shields falling apart; they were a disposable defense. They weren't meant to last much past one battle. The way I see it, I think they felt better the shield gets torn up than them!

There are examples of a battle being decided when a shield wall broke up. I think it was better to stay in formation than to go off into individual duels. Of course, the shield wall would have had to be a bit loose for them to wield their weapons.

Legs are a hard target to protect with a shield, so the warriors often just tried to side step or leap over the blow. Of course, sometimes it didn't work, and that would end the fight pretty quickly! There are stories of warriors shearing off both legs with one blow. It might be hyperbole, but it proves that the legs were vulnerable, and valid targets! Any fighting style that rules out leg hits is producing a warped view of historical combat.

I would class a shield as armour because I still think it's main purpose was protection, but it wasn't passive armour. Maybe it's best just to see it as a part of a warrior's arms (which could include the whole kit - an armed man years ago meant an armoured man, not necessarily one with a weapon) and leave it at that!

Thanks for clarifying. We actually didn't disagree nearly as much as I thought.

Stay safe!
Re: Mail vs Lamellar
Richard Fay wrote:


Jean,

Actually, some arms and armour scholars suggest that the Middle Eastern lamellar armour may have influenced the early development of the European coat-of-plates. Some of the early coats-of-plates covered mostly the midsection like some of the Muslim lamellar armour. The coat-of plates seen on the statue of St. Maurice is a good example of this early type of coat-of-plates. It's only speculation, but it seems logical.

So, European warriors did eventually add plate reinforcements to their body protection, perhaps in imitation of their Muslim foes. Another route of transmission of this idea may be through Eastern Europe; which would suggest a Russian or Turkish influence.

Stay safe!


Hi Richard,

Yeah I've heard that argument before, but I'm not sure I buy it. For one thing it implies a level of isolation of Western Europe which I don't think is realistic. For another, Lamellar and Scale ('jazzeraint'?) were around for a LONG time, probably going back to the Summerians. The Huns undoubtedly brought it with them into Europe in the 5th century. We know the Vikings, particularly the Swedish Vikings, had intimate contact with the various Turks, Bulgars, Magyars, Kipchaks etc., as well as the more civilized Byzantines and Khazars, even the Arabs going back probably at least to the 8th century. IIRC there even have been some finds of Lamellar armor in "Viking" context, (or was that Wisby I'm confusing it with?) The Spanish no doubt faced Moors equpped with these type of armor as well from the 8th century.

Yet across Europe men under arms still seemed to primarily rely on mail armor even though they no doubt knew all about these other types of armor.

I do remember one thing which supports your theory though, I think it was Anna Comnena in the Alexiad who was commenting on the effctivness of the 'klibanion' worn over mail, against lance -thrusts. The kinetic impact of a lance point into a body protected by flexible armor must have been traumatic... even if the point didn't go through. If the 'Franj' saw that lamellar over mail was much more effective against lance thrusts they may have been instantly 'sold' on the idea...

Jean
Subtle distinction but I tend to also like the idea that the shield was a defensive weapon that was actively used and not just there to take a hit.

Armour is for when you make a mistake, are taken by surprise by by an attack you don't see coming or are overwhelmed by more than one threat at the same time. Armour also means that what would have been annoying wounds are completely ineffective, serious incapacitating wounds become minor damage and things that would have crippled you for life or killed you may be recoverable from i.e. you can forget about all the small stuff and prioritize defending from full power blows.

Oh, I tend to think of forearm armour and gauntlets as also having some defensive weapon use: Active defence like the shield as a strongly armoured forearm might be able to parry a blow in a way similar to a shield.

Maybe a little less than with a shield but similar in principle. ( Just a thought. :lol: )
Jean Thibodeau wrote:
Subtle distinction but I tend to also like the idea that the shield was a defensive weapon that was actively used and not just there to take a hit.

Armour is for when you make a mistake, are taken by surprise by by an attack you don't see coming or are overwhelmed by more than one threat at the same time. Armour also means that what would have been annoying wounds are completely ineffective, serious incapacitating wounds become minor damage and things that would have crippled you for life or killed you may be recoverable from i.e. you can forget about all the small stuff and prioritize defending from full power blows.


I think that is a really good way to put it.

J
Re: Mail vs Lamellar
Jean Henri Chandler wrote:

Yeah I've heard that argument before, but I'm not sure I buy it. For one thing it implies a level of isolation of Western Europe which I don't think is realistic. For another, Lamellar and Scale ('jazzeraint'?) were around for a LONG time, probably going back to the Summerians. The Huns undoubtedly brought it with them into Europe in the 5th century. We know the Vikings, particularly the Swedish Vikings, had intimate contact with the various Turks, Bulgars, Magyars, Kipchaks etc., as well as the more civilized Byzantines and Khazars, even the Arabs going back probably at least to the 8th century. IIRC there even have been some finds of Lamellar armor in "Viking" context, (or was that Wisby I'm confusing it with?) The Spanish no doubt faced Moors equpped with these type of armor as well from the 8th century.

hi Jean,
I agree with you. I think Richard has been reading too much Nicolle ;) Pretty much everything Nicolle writes is biased in favour of the "Orient". He seems to think that the Europeans couldn't possibly have invented anything themselves.

FWIW "jazerant" refers to mail sandwiched between padding - same as the Middle Eastern kazaghand It doesn't refer to scale armour. Also, there have been no lamellar finds that have been linked to "vikings". The closest is the Birka find but that has been demonstrated to have not been Scandinavian in origin and was not worn by a Scandinavian.

Quote:
I do remember one thing which supports your theory though, I think it was Anna Comnena in the Alexiad who was commenting on the effctivness of the 'klibanion' worn over mail, against lance -thrusts. The kinetic impact of a lance point into a body protected by flexible armor must have been traumatic... even if the point didn't go through. If the 'Franj' saw that lamellar over mail was much more effective against lance thrusts they may have been instantly 'sold' on the idea...

There were different types of mail. There was mail known as hauberts de joute that were specifially designed to resist repeated lance thrusts (sharp lances) during tournaments. The fact that they were distinguished from hauberts de guerre suggests that field mail was perhaps lighter and not as resistant to lances though. My point is that it is perfectly possible to make mail that was proof against all weapons (except firearms) but these variants may have been too heavy for prolonged wear.


Last edited by Dan Howard on Mon 15 Jan, 2007 12:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
Re: Mail vs Lamellar
Dan Howard wrote:

There were different types of mail. There was mail known as hauberts de joute that were specifially designed to resist repeated lance thrusts (sharp lances) during tournaments. The fact that they were distinguished from hauberts de guerre suggests that field mail was perhaps lighter and not as resistant to lances though. My point is that it is perfectly possible to make mail that was proof against all weapons (except firearms) but these variants may have been too heavy for prolonged wear.


Thanks Dan that is fascinating information, I wasn't aware of that. Could you reccomend books or online sources where I could read more about this?

Jean
There is not much I'm afraid. Charles Ffoulkes has a little in his book, though he hasn't translated any of his citations so you need an Old French and a Latin lexicon.
Re: Mail vs Lamellar
Dan Howard wrote:

I agree with you. I think Richard has been reading too much Nicolle ;) Pretty much everything Nicolle writes is biased in favour of the "Orient". He seems to think that the Europeans couldn't possibly have invented anything themselves.

There were different types of mail. There was mail known as hauberts de joute that were specifially designed to resist repeated lance thrusts (sharp lances) during tournaments. The fact that they were distinguished from hauberts de guerre suggests that field mail was perhaps lighter and not as resistant to lances though. My point is that it is perfectly possible to make mail that was proof against all weapons (except firearms) but these variants may have been too heavy for prolonged wear.


Hey Dan!

Yeah, maybe I do read too much Nicolle (and Blair, and Gravett, and ffoulkes, and Norman, and Oakeshott, and...) :) I only presented that as one suggestion. ;) There could have been some Oriental influence on the European coats-of-plates, though. Of course, it's pure speculation! I do think one culture could have had influence, over years, upon another. Aren't their some possible depictions of lamellar used in Norman Sicily that might have a definite Muslim influence? There are some differences in the armour used in the Balkans and southern Italy from that used in the rest of Europe in the age of the Crusades. These differences might be due to influences from the different cultural contacts in these areas.

Could the hauberts de joute be similar to "double hauberks"? I seem to recall some possible period mentions of double hauberks, but the exact form is debated. They might either be doubled mail shirts (which surely would be too heavy to wear regularly), or mail with links somehow of a "doubled" thickness, or perhaps doubled links. Double mail was thought to be more proof against weapons of the day than "regular" mail. Just a thought!

Oh, Dan - you probably know this, but older authors sometimes use the term jazerant for scale armour. I think Stone uses it in that fashion in his glossary. I agree with you that it more properly refers to padded mail, but I can see how others might refer to scale as jazerant. Just one of the many problems encountered when reading older works!

I actually found some apparent period references to double mail cited in ffoulke's The Armourer and His Craft:
Charles ffoulkes wrote:

The term "haubert doublier", "haubert a maille double", and "haubert clavey de double maille" are found in French inventories, and in the inventory of Louis X...we find "33 uns bras de roondes mailles, une couverture de mailles rondes demy cloies".

ffoulkes suggests in the same work that double mail is made by using two rings for every one of ordinary mail (?). He shows a supposed sculptured representation of such mail on the effigy of R. de Mauley, 1242. The problem with interpreting period representations of mail is that a lot of different techniques were tried to show mail. The supposed double links may just be artistic license, as it were.

Here's an interesting insight into double and triple mail and "mail of proof" from chapter 2, "The Elventh Century: Adventurers to Aristocrats" in Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight by David Edge and John Miles Paddock:
David Edge wrote:

Manuscripts describe different types of mail, such as "double" and "triple" mail; differeng stitch patterns in the Tapestry may indicate these, but simple artistic license is just as likely. Hauberks made of two or three layers of mail would have been exceptionally heavy to wear; "double" and "triple" may therefore refer to the closeness of the mesh.

References to "mail of proof" is sometimes found, indicating that such armour could not be penetrated by arrows; on the other hand, the mere fact that it was necessary to make this distinction implies that mail was indeed frequently pierced.

Apparently, mail could vary in it's form, as Dan pointed out, and possibly in its quality as well.

Stay safe!
Ah. Well. Shields as armor--or weapons.

Actually, one of the things that could lead to a dead end in such debates is the perspective that the shield could only be used in one way. In a relatively open formation--especially possible when the men have good armor--the shield would probably have been used like in single combat with much punching, bashing, and maneuvering. But a shieldwall operated on a different premise. I agree completely that a defensive shieldwall was not as effective as some modern people think. Shieldwalls, however, were also used in an offensive manner in a collective rush, thereby becoming a group weapon rather than an individual weapon. The Greek hoplites were one example, and the more aggressive Anglo-Saxon commanders another.

So, the shield was not all that effective as passive armor, but as an active weapon--both offensive and defensive--it worked fairly well. We just have to keep in mind that there were at least two possible methods of using the shield offensively, the first being the collective rush of the shieldwall and the second being individual "fencing" akin to WMA single combat in the front rank of a fighting formation.

It might haeve been one of the primary forms of passive protection against missiles, but in hand-to-hand fighting I believe it protected the user largely by hurting or routing his enemies outright, much like other weapons--regardless of whether it was wielded in individual swordsmanship or a collective shield rush.
Shields as armor
Lafayette C Curtis wrote:

It might haeve been one of the primary forms of passive protection against missiles, but in hand-to-hand fighting I believe it protected the user largely by hurting or routing his enemies outright, much like other weapons--regardless of whether it was wielded in individual swordsmanship or a collective shield rush.


A few more thoughts on shields

In sparring, one uses the shield as an active defense primarily, and to a lesser extent, sometimes as a weapon as well.

I think the use of the shield as an offensive weapon can be somewhat exxagerated though. Of course it's done at every opportunity, but like half-swording, it depends on the fight, how your opponent is fighting as much as how you are (and how fast you are compared to your opponent), if you don't get close you can't bash with it. You can still however always actively use the weapon to defend, to control your opponents weapon etc.

Of course it also depends a lot on the type of shield(s) you are talking about. In actively displacing an enemy attack, one is often seeking to bind their weapon to open up a counter-attack with your own. If you just sat there with your shield in one position your enemy need only strike around it, pull it or knock out of the way etc., or even thrust or hack through it. (Just like if you sit there in one guard with a sword, or telegraph an attack...) Most shields are considerably lighter protection than armor and can't really stand up to a heavy direct blow... (Try taking a spear and punching through 3/8" of laminated birch or limewood with some rawhide over it vs. say, iron Mail or even bronze scales) Thats part of what I mean you can't really think of it as armor, especially in hand-combat.

But the way you really use a shield as a 'defensive weapon', you don't generally take an enemy weapons impact directly on the shield, any more than you want to take a blow on the edge of your blade. You are trying to displace the enemy attack, control it and guide it away from your body, in the process you often take a blow indirectly, or before it reached maximum energy or at the wrong part of the weapon. Against the flat or the haft if possible. Bind their weapon. Beat it aside or knock it out of their hands. You want to take away their momenetum and disrupt their pace. To do so you have to use your shield aggresively, as 'active defense'. Bashing them with the boss or striking their hand with the rim are a happy bonus, "Lagniappe" as we say in Louisiana.



Even against lower energy missiles, when we practiced with them, we found that it was best to beat aside incoming javelins, axes or darts with your shield, safer and more precise. Pretty easy really (it really isn't very hard to catch javelins for that matter if they are thrown one at a time) I think where this would change is when facing a simultaneous volley of missiles (which is why they were usually thrown that way, in volley) or higher energy missiles, then you just have to crouch down and make your body as small as possible to place your shield between yourself and the incoming missiles.

In I.33 however you do see another form of more passive Shield use, where the shield (a targe or large buckler) is often placed to cover and protect the weapon hand.

I think your smaller and medium sized center-grip types are more actively used, wheras the types which strapped onto the arm (rarer during the heydey of shield use) were a bit more 'passively' used. The Greek Aspis shield worked this way, in fact the hand grip was so far over to one side that they were really only effective in a shield wall, overlapping with the neighbors shield to provide group protection. Being covered in bronze, these shields would I would guess be quite hard to maneuver as well.

The Roman scutum kind of gives you both options, being so large and the way it's shaped it is well suited to the shield wall or testuodo, and the concave shape makes it excellent at protecting against missiles. But it is light enough and with the center grip useful in individual combat as well.

Jean
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Page 2 of 3

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