SwordnBoard vs Longsword

[HouseCaracal]

From my understanding of the evolution of medieval weaponry, the longsword was developed for use against and by someone in full armour, either plate, or some strong mail.

my first question is why not continue to use a shield, even with full armour, seeing as a shield upped your defensive capability, so you were even less likely to die.

my second question mainly follows on from the first in that what are the bonuses of using a longsword rather than a sword and board other than the greater antiarmour capability?

it would seem to me that a SnS has superior defensive power, allowing blocks and counter attacts, that a single weapon cannot match. and since the shield can be used offensively to distract and bash.

essentially it boils down to:
Iin an unarmoured fight between sword and shield vs longsword, what techniques can one use to counter the other, assuming both have similar high levels of competency which is likely to come out on top.

what do you guys think?

[Allen Johnson]

Thats alot of questions that would take a long time to answer them fully.
I'll try to do a readers digest version of each and let others lend more detail if needed.

1) Longswords were not only used for armored combat. Even just a 3 minute tour of the many longsword manuals posted on the website will show the majority actually being unarmored. Certian techniques, such as halfswording, make the longsword able to deal with someone in armore more effectivley.

2) Why not continue to use the shield? Because armor did the job. Longswords took two hands (some times one) and also left hands free to grapple. There is some depictions of people in armor, even plate, using shields as well. So it wasnt a total departure from the shield.

3) advantages of a longsword... Every weapon has it's advantages and disadvantages- so it depends largley on the combatants themselves and how the use the weapons rather than just the type of weapons they use. Longsword has the advantage of range and power. A two handed cut will generally be stronger than a one handed cut. There are too many variables to just say one is better than the other. The types of swords used, the shield type, any armor present, and a myriad of other things cloud up the equation even more.

4) It's a common misconception that the longsword is limited to dui tempo (double time) counters. There are a series of strikes called Masterstrikes (by the Germans) that are a sort of intergal attack and defence in a single movement. The use of sword and hilt placement along with deliberate stepping techniques allow you to attack and defend in single time. Any weapon is really like this. Most of the techniques shown in rapier texts like Capo Ferro show thrusts in opposition- a single time defence and attack. So the single sword is not necesarily at a disadvantage because of this. That being said, sword and shield combinations can be very, very effective against a single sword if they know what they are doing. But of course that goes for every scenario if you are talking about someone with a rocket launcher or a pointed stick.

There is so many ways all this could go. It's almost impossible to really resolve "who would win" scenarios. There are just too many variables. Only thing to do is get your gear and try it in a practice bout. And even then all you'd find is one result for that particular bout.

I'm assuming that by your using the term "sword and board" you have some SCA connections? That might explain where some of your core assumptions come from as combat presented there is pretty well distanced from real historical techniques and tactics.

[jeremy pace]

The questions you pose here are good ones but have already been answered several times throughout the forum.

My thought is that its not so much "what is better" as it is evolution. The longsword was designed for specific uses during specific timeperiods. Was the sword and shield combination worthy of use while in full armour? Sure. But the point is its kind of redundant. If we are talking full plate, you are virtually untouchable by a cutting sword anyways. The types of longswords that were designed to fight full plate were thrusting weapons. The halfsword can both act like as a shield and deliver maximum accuracy and power for finding those weak spots in full harness. The SCA takes into acct what it wants about a fight and leaves the rest out, often overlooking historical accuracy. Have you ever beat on a breastplate with an arming sword? A real sword, not a bludgeoning club? It takes a lot of force for metal to cut through metal. Especially when armour is designed to not give you a good solid hit. Good luck hurting anyone that way. It doesnt take long for people to see these flaws and evolve their fighting style and weaponry accordingly. So:

1. Sure your less likely to die that way, but a lot less likely to kill someone armoured like you too. If in full plate it is already very difficult to hurt you why not use that other hand for a more deadly weapon?

2. Power. Reach. Manuverability. More adaptability. Can grapple. Can attack from your off side. (depending on which hand you are and where the shield is.)

3. Anymore its just a matter of taste. I use Sword and shield very often and love it, but you have to really take into account its flaws as well which is something most groups dont do. Namely that it hinders your line of sight for low shots. Is difficult to carry long distances. Prevents you from using the other arm. Can be grappled by your opponent. Was made of wood so can break. You cant really just drop it if its strapped to your arm. (ask the romans about pilum..)

4. It is hard to say what ever comes out on top. I am playing the devils advocate here even though i love both weapon styles. A longsword user with his longer reach, power, and manuverability is going to win about 70% of the time in this fight if the combatants are at equal skill level. (is there really such a thing?) Faking shots to your head so you raise the shield high to cover and then reversing to strike the exposed leg is inevitable. In the SCA (which you may or may not be affiliated.) you dont have to worry about those lower leg shots because its not "safe". By eliminating a target area you automatically give that person the advantage. Thats like me saying... "okay i know im covered in armour except my face but you guys cant hit me in the face because thats not safe." In real life if your leg gets hacked you are going to drop or bleed out. Either way my fight is done... i will just back off and let you go.

And i think you should follow forum rules using your full name.... real name.

[Shane Smith]

From my understanding of the evolution of medieval weaponry, the longsword was developed for use against and by someone in full armour, either plate, or some strong mail.

my first question is why not continue to use a shield, even with full armour, seeing as a shield upped your defensive capability, so you were even less likely to die.

my second question mainly follows on from the first in that what are the bonuses of using a longsword rather than a sword and board other than the greater antiarmour capability?

it would seem to me that a SnS has superior defensive power, allowing blocks and counter attacts, that a single weapon cannot match. and since the shield can be used offensively to distract and bash.

essentially it boils down to:
Iin an unarmoured fight between sword and shield vs longsword, what techniques can one use to counter the other, assuming both have similar high levels of competency which is likely to come out on top.

what do you guys think?

Unless your real name is "House Caracal", please sign off and sign back in with your real full name per forum rules. Thanks.

[Mars Healey]

From my understanding of the evolution of medieval weaponry, the longsword was developed for use against and by someone in full armour, either plate, or some strong mail.

The long sword was used by mounted combatants (knights, since they were the one who could afford horses) to reach those on the ground and other mounted knights. You needed the length to reach that other guy on his war pony.

The long sword can be use one or two handed. It has much better control in two hands, but is still very effective in one. A sword and buckler, when used in the I.33 style, gives the advantages of the long sword, namely reach, to a short sword. The buckler is used to cover the exposed wrist and allows the user to extend.

Just so you know my background , I study the German long sword.

[Greg Coffman]

From period artwork, bucklers, medium sized shields, and large shields continued to be in use after full plate came about. This suggests that shield use was a matter of preference. From the frequency that shields appear in the artwork, the buckler was still commonly used whereas other shields were not as preferred, and fighting without a buckler, perhaps with a longsword or some other weapon, seemed to be preferred a bit more than fighting with one.

Of course, even in pitched battles not everyone would be wearing full plate. Brigandine was very common among men at arms. Many fighters are depicted as only armored from the waste up. So in a battle, some percentage of the people you went up against were at least partly unarmored.

Why would someone use a shield in full plate? Wouldn't you rather take a blow on a shield than your arm or head even when in full plate? And then there is the ability to just smack the tar out of the other guy. If you knock him down, then you can get to a weak spot easier. To me, shield and rondel almost make more sense the shield in sword.

As has been pointed out, longswords were definitely used in unarmored situations. As long as we are talking about unarmored situations, would knights or other men at arms carry shields around with them or would shields just be carried into battle? It seems to me that fighters would not have taken their shields around with them and that they were generally reserved for times where conflict was eminent. The buckler on the other hand is a good traveling companion as it is easily carried with the sword. So unless we are talking about judicial combat, duels, or on the battlefield, I would not think of the longsword meeting up with the shield but with the buckler in unarmored encounters.

However, hypothetically, in either an unarmored or armored encounter the better fighter would win. There are things the longsword can do against the sword and shield and techniques the sword and shield can do against the longsword.

[Greg Coffman]

Now, with regard to specific techniques you just need to learn how to fight with a longsword and how to fight with a sword and shield. There is a world of techniques to learn and choose from.

With the longsword, or just fighting against sword and shield in general, you can attack the other person's wrist as he/she strikes. Learn how to use a shield or buckler so it covers your sword arm and you don't expose your wrist. With the buckler or shield you can crowd in and tie up the longsword before it has time to strike. Use the extra reach of the longsword to go for the legs especially with the one-handed "das gayszlen." This can at least keep your opponent from crowding in. Strike hard and fast with the longsword so the other guy doesn't know where to put the shield on the second or third strike. Instead of raising the shield to block a strike to the head, thus blocking your view and giving him/her the ability to cut at your legs unbeknownst to you, keep the shield where it is and step forward and offline out of the path of the cut to your head and bringing you in range for your own counter cut.

I'm no expert in longsword and have seen even less sword and shield work, but those are just some things that I would think of in a longsword vs. shield fight. The fight is probably not equal; the sword and shield has an advantage. But it definitely comes down to the better fighter who knows how to use his or her own weapon(s) and use it against the other person's weapon(s).

[Logan Weed]

Another note - Shields were used to defend against projectiles.

Plate armor was nearly complete proof against projectile weapons of the time, a shield would have been redundant.

While against say, mail, a shield provided much needed protection against arrows and slings that were quite capable of injuring a man through his armor. Without shields an infantry formation would be vulnerable against skirmishers and bowmen.

Also, if you're going through the trouble of carrying a shield around with you, why aren't your wrists armored too? Obviously you expect a fight.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Well, I'd say it depends on the kind of sword-and-shield method used in the encounter. In most SCA and many reenactment groups, the man with sword and shield simply stays in place while interposing the shield between his body and the blow. This method is very easy to beat with a two-handed attack from a longsword since a feint from the longswordsman can easily bring the shield out of line--and often the shield's warding position will prevent the sword-and-shield man from seeing the longswordsman while the latter turns from the feint into the real attack. I think it's mostly because the shield's movement in this method is highly predictable--up, down, right, left, occasionally a straightforward rush--and the sword-and-shield man's movement telegraphs where his shield is going to go in a very obvious manner. So, with this "static shield" method I believe the longswordsman will win most of the time.

If we look into the sections on the sword and round target (rodela) in the Italian manuals, though, we'll find a more active method of defense where the shield is used in a dynamic manner, either using the edge to beat the enemy's sword out of line or stepping in and out to suddenly present the shield against the coming blow while simultaneously launching a counterattack with the sword. The shield becomes a much less predictable factor since the sword-and-shield man now has several options for facing the same attack--whirling forward, punching at the enemy's sword arm, or stepping backwards and out of the way. (Some people call this method the "Stephen Hand" method, although Hand himself asserts that it's not his creation at all but merely his extrapolation of the Italian sword and round target style found in the Renaisance manuals into earlier medieval sword-and-shield styles.) With this method I believe the sword-and-shield man would be at a rough parity with the longswordsman and the fight is going to be determined more by the individuals' personal strengths and weaknesses rather than the general merits and demerits of the fighting methods.

[Greg Coffman]

I am not familiar with the Italian rodela or any other shield manuals except for MS 1.33, but couldn't we extrapolate that most all shields were generally to be used in this manner versus the "static shield" style you presented? Whether it was and Italian rodela or a French heater, wouldn't historical fighters employ the shield in such an aggressive manner? I don't mean that you say otherwise; my point is that I don't see this as specific to the rodela.

[Allen Johnson]

I agree that "aggressive use" a shield is not limited to the Italian rotella.

[Brian Hunt]

One of the reasons why groups like the SCA only use their shield in a defensive manner is due to their rule set's ideas on saftey. I have long said that a shield is the nicest set of knuckle dusters you could wish for. I was using an agressive, offensive shield form a long time before Stephen Hand ever wrote his article on shield use that he expolated from german dueling shield, buckler, Italian Rotella, and iconographical evidence. The shield is as much a weapon as your sword and should be used that way, and like a sword it can be used to defend you against attacks. However a shield is also vunerable to attack. I can bind it and use it against you, I can grapple it and use it to move you to a vunerable position, and I can hide behind your shield almost as well as you can hide behind your own shield. Like anything sword and shield has it's advantages and it's disadvantages.

All the best.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Jeffrey Hull]

Brian -- that brief post of yours made some helpful points. Thanks!

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Yes, I was essentially saying the same thing--I've never read Hand's book, but I've talked with him in another forum and he confirmed that his methods were indeed based on generalizing the methods of the rodela to earlier shields. I've tried it myself and it works well enough with both heater shields and round Viking/Anglo-Saxon shields. So, although we have no solid historical evidence for its use, we can safely assume that it was what a real sword-and-shield fighter in history would have used. But it's certainly still quite a novelty among reenactment circles.

And Brian, have you published the results of your work? If not, it would be a good idea since I bet your interpretations won't be identical to Hand's and it would be interesting to see where you differ and where you concur. These points would help the less experienced practitioners (like me) gain a better understanding of sword-and-shield fighting as a whole.

(And, BTW, funny signature.)

[Brian Hunt]

dLafayette,

I have been too busy with other writings and research to concentrate on writing about sword and shield. I have just finished up a joint translation with David Knight on the polearms of Paulus Hector Mair, and I am involved deep in other translations plus a second book as well. I will think about an article on my views of sword and shield, but that will be a lttle ways in the future.

Glad you like the sig.

Brian Hunt
GFS