[Guilherme Dias Ferreira S]

Is the shield (a regular medieval one) effective against axes, maces and other weapons that concentrate the blow energy in a small area?

[Hugh Knight]

I think the question is "how is a shield effective against these weapons?". If you slap your shield into a block with a sweeping motion (like opening and closing a door) that strikes the weapon from the side with the edge or face of the shield rather than directly opposing the angle of attack the shield can stand up to almost any blow--even from a powerful, heavy pole weapon. If you interpose it directly into the path of the attack then the shield will fail much sooner.

[Steven H]

I second Hugh.

Plenty of artwork shows shields being used melee held in a way that facilitates this approach. Typically the shield is held with the edge (and fist of the wielder) pointed at the opponents opposite shoulder. This makes the shield cross the body at a shallow angle to the line of attack. The only way for an attacker to directly attack the shield is to not attack the wielder, but that would be pointless.

On the other hand, Medieval shields clearly didn't stand up well to multiple hits. In the Viking era at least shields were disposable. A man showing up for a duel was to bring three shields and expect to go home with none, even if he won. Some of these shields were only 6mm thick.

The above is true primarily for flat or nearly flat shield styles. Deeply curved shields have some distinct differences.

[Stephen Hand]

But if you slap your shield into a block, or indeed move it to meet the incoming blow in any other fashion you are creating a massive tempo which your opponent can exploit. This is the basis of just about all the re-enactment combat that I have ever seen and unfortunately for those who've invested time and effort into such styles flies in the face of all available evidence for how large shields were actually used. If someone attacks the shield you simply place your shield edge into their bicep or armpit (moving your body to achieve this, not your shield - and incidentally intercepting the attacker's tempo as you do so). This effectively ends the fight.

For more information on the available evidence for how shields were used, please consult my two papers on the subject, the first in Spada: An Anthology of Swordsmanship and the second in (you guesed it) Spada II, both publications from Chivalry Bookshelf.

Cheers
Stephen

[Hugh Knight]

[Stephen Hand]

Sigh, did you read the paper? It would appear not. Looking at the artwork it could be interpreted as the shield being moved to slap away attacks. However, as I point out ALL of the fencing manuals that deal with shields tell you not to do this. They tell you to move your body around the shield, not the shield around the body. Moving the shield creates a tempo, a window of time that can be exploited by an opponent. This is why when using heavier swords, and shields, even the lightest of which are twice the weight of any single handed sword, many historical combat systems emphasise moving the body around the sword or shield, not the sword or shield around the body as might seem logical to modern people who have never had to fight with a sword.

Then I looked at historical images and lo and behold they appear to show identical stances and in some cases techniques to those we see in the manuals. But of course these are still images without any commentary and so debate is possible about exactly how the people arrived at the positions we see them in. Yes, we could assume that these images are showing techniques contrary to every sword and shield text ever written OR we could assume that they are showing the techniques from the manuals that they so closely resemble. What do you honestly believe is more likely?

I am not taking a slap at all re-enactors. I've been a re-enactor for 28 years and for most of those used a shield in a made up style which sounds very much like the one you're suggesting. I AM taking a slap at people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and who won't entertain new research when it appears. For some inexplicable reason, many of the same people who are keenest to embrace the latest research on clothing, arms and armour look on the latest research into combat techniques with disdain. I have had many people tell me that the styles they made up in the 80s or 90s have a better chance of being accurate than the documented style that I discuss in my papers. When we had no evidence as to how shields were used we made it up and that's fine. We got it wrong - all of us. Everyone I've ever met or seen who has described a modern made up style of sword and shield use, myself included got it wrong. We have evidence for how large shields were used in the 15th and 16th centuries. Iconic evidence from earlier periods suggests that the material in the 16th and 17th century manuals wasn't new, that shields had been used that way for centuries, even millenia.

Shields were used by moving the body around them so that lines of attack are closed. We have plenty of evidence that this was the case, direct evidence from the 15th and 16th centuries and circumstantial evidence from earlier periods. The historical method of shield use is massively superior to any made up style that I have ever seen. Are you honestly suggesting that the historical images you refer to are more likely to be showing a style made up by modern people who have never been in a fight or even seen a real fight with swords than a style described in historical fencing manuals?

[George Hill]

Stephen,

I have no arguements at all against the style you describe, however I would very much like more pictures, in particular ones takens from above, (If possible) showing the movement around the shield, so I may better understand it.

Video (espeically from above) would also be most welcome. (I've seen the Hurstwic videos, do you agree with them, or take any exception to their technique?)

Thank you,

George

[Elling Polden]

[Chad Arnow]

Stephen,
Please watch your tone. Sighs and somewhat snide questions don't strengthen any arguments. Thank you.

[M. Eversberg II]

Stephen, I will definatly have to take a look at that book now. I've been wondering if my hypothesis about moving the body around the shield and not the other way around was correct, as it had always made more sense to me.

M.

[Hugh Knight]

[Chad Arnow]

[M. Eversberg II]

Hugh, I was under the impression that there where manuals that show some techniques in harness, but none that show heatershield techniques?

Additionally, what is Blossfechten?

M.

[Hugh Knight]

[Hugh Knight]

[Nathan Robinson]

[Stephen Hand]

I apologise for getting frustrated earlier, but it's hard to see my published work being misunderstood and misrepresented.

If I could rewrite my original Spada paper I would do two things. I would get rid of my speculation that Inside Ward can be used as an initial ward at the start of a fight and more importantly I would put greater emphasis on the 16th century rotella sources. These sources show and describe roughly two to two and a half foot enarmed (strapped) round shields being used almost identically to the way Talhoffer and others show the roughly six foot by two foot centre grip duelling shields being used. The body is moved around the shield which is rotated and used to close lines of attack. So, in other words shields not much larger than 14th century heaters and held the same way were described and shown being used the same way as much larger shields. By the way, Viking shields were very thin and surprisingly light. Another problem with re-enactment combat that I've seen is that people are hesitant to make shields as light as they were because the shields don't last long. Historically it seems people looked at shields much as we might look at an airbag in a car, as something that they didn't mind seeing destroyed if it meant they were still alive.

The whole point of rotating the shield in place is that it can be done exceptionally quickly, negating the sort of redirections that Hugh describes and that I and thousands of others used with great effect against people who moved the shield to meet the attack when we knew no better.

Yes, Harnisfechten and Blossfechten (literally shirt fighting - the English word Blouse is a cognate of the German word Bloss) are quite different. I would expect to see as time goes on, interesting differences in shield use discovered. However, I am certain that these differences will not be at the fundamental level suggested by Hugh. The difference between stepping off line and rotating the shield to close the line, and moving the shield to meet an attack is immense. Now that we have published material on how shields were actually used, the idea of moving any shield larger than a buckler to meet an incoming attack should offend anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of tempo. Examples of swords being used in the same way, remaining essentially stationary while the body moves around the sword, abound in early fencing works. Look at the Zwerchau. It is essentially a transition from Vom Tag to Ochs and as such requires the hands to rotate about two to three inches (5-7.5cm) while the body moves around the sword. Yet it is an exceptionally powerful cut. It is fast because the sword hands move hardly at all. Is the Zwerchau easy to redirect around? No. And neither are the similar actions with shields where the hand barely moves in the course of the defence.

The system of sword and shield use that I outline in my two papers fits perfectly with late medieval and renaissance fencing theory. Moving the shield to intercept blows does not. Images of shield use from periods before the historical manuals are perfectly in keeping with the principles outlined in those manuals. While it is certain that each unique shield type will conceal its own secrets and subtleties, any hypothesis that shields were used radically differently to the documented way must provide some degree of evidence to support it. At very least the alternative system must utilise the principles of fencing laid down in early works (as indeed the historical system does).

Hugh, to date you have attacked my interpretation but provided no alternative except broad suggestions to slap away attacks with the shield face and edge. This is in effect the equivalent of the simple parries that Lichtenauer and his followers expended so much ink warning against. The presence of harness may change many things but it does not alter the fundamental laws of tempo and measure. If you have any positive evidence to support your interpretation then please present it for scrutiny as I have.

Sincerely
Stephen

[Elling Polden]

Stephen's approach is quite interesting, and I'll certainly try it out.
However, it is clearly a mode of fighting suited for dueling, but not for the field. Practically, you are focusing your defence on a single opponent, which, in a larger fight, means that you are going to be turned into swis cheese by the opponent's spears and polearms.

As such, while certainly relevant, it's hardly the end-all of shield combat, nor can one conclude with certainty that ALL shield combat was conducted like this.
Shields are primarly a field weapon, and as such its usage would vary greatly, depending on the level of training of the troops, the nature of the engagement, and so on.

[M. Eversberg II]

Hugh,
Thanks for clearing up the meaning of Blossfechten and Rossfechten for me. I had extrapolated from the talk of "harness" that Harnischfechten was armoured fighting, but as I do not speak German the other two where a trouble.

General question: With all the one-upping going on between Stephen and Hugh, I'd like to ask if bucklers are shields moved to |intercept| an incoming blow? We've established that larger shileds are held to the body and are used to "remove" that area as a target. I am guessing these larger shields are brought to defence by keeping it to you and moving the body to bring the shiled protected side into the direction of the blow?

M.

[Michael S. Rivet]