Questions about shields. Please help me with your knowlegde

[Simon Dask]

Hello, I normaly train mma and also got some experience in the philpino arts with sticks and knives, but am interested in all things combat. My experience with medival european is limited to a weekend seminar and a few private meetings. I'm also interested in the way fighting evolved over time. But from time to time I can't find the right answers. I hope your expertise could help me with a few questions concerning the shield.

1)Are shields realy that good?
Through my few sparrings session with shields and most of the you tube videos I could find I got the feelings that fighters with a shield(esp. round or kite not buckler) had a great advantage over the fighters without a shield - using bullrush tactics. Of course the advantage seem not so great when heavy armor come into play. But still it seems easy to use a shield to get close and stab with a short weapon or start grappling.
I understand that in my case it was the way to go because I much better in wrestling than with swords but the videos I saw looked similar. Is this only because most of the fighters I saw were not skilled enough in the use of their weapons while on the other hand the shield does not require so much skill? Or is a shield realy that advantageous?

2)I have read that shields did vanish because the protection of armor became good enough to take a blow unharmed with the appearance of sophisticated plate armor. And only this made room and the need for two handed weapons like zweihänder.
Is this true?
(I actual didn't found many two handed weapons suited for war before 1000AD but this could also be because of not enough sophisticated metallurgy at this time or my lack of researching skill).

2.1)And if this is true wouldn't it than be a bad choice to go for a two handed sword if you don't wear armor? Wouldn't you be at a disadvantage against an opponent with two weapons or a weapon and a shield?

3)For the last shield question this is maybe the wrong place since your experts on europen martial history, but perhaps you know anyway. I never heard of a japanese shield, but since shields seems kinda usefull why is this so?

I hope you can help me to find some answers for these questions.
PS. Please forgive me my bad english.

[Benjamin Smith]

Hello Simon, welcome to the forum. For some depth to your question I strongly recommend that you watch the web documentary that was recently added to the website. These aren't simple yes or no questions.

1) The shield is a weapon with a long and successful history. Most cultures used them for thousands of years including every single European culture. It is simple, cheap, and effective. Shields even saw limited use after the introduction of plate armor because A) not everyone could afford plate armor, and B) it was still an effective piece of equipment (partial answer to #2). Shields do have their limitations though, they are unwieldy for quick self defense situations as they must be strapped to your arm/or are very heavy and annoying to carry around, unlike the buckler which is simply held in the hand and hung on the belt. The shield also precludes the use of two handed weapons which can mount much more penetrating attacks against an armored opponent, or quicker attacks against an lightly armored or unarmored opponent. Shield can get in the way in a grappling situation. There are even techniques to twist a your opponent's shield and create an arm lock. Suffice it to say there are ways to deal with a shield, but unless you know them it.

2) Two handed weapons appear very early. Spears for example are typically two handed weapons. Two handed axes and swords were used as early as 1100 AD and probably a little earlier, hundreds of years before the advent of the particularly large zweihander. Early two hand war swords share approximate dimensions with later bastard swords and longswords. William II "Longsword" of England may have earned his nickname from choosing a longsword as his sidearm. Plate armor didn't appear until approximately 1300, and wasn't common until 1400. This should demonstrate pretty clearly that the answer to your question is basically no, not entirely, because two handed weapons appear several generations before plate armor.

3) I have no idea. I'd ask someone who is an expert on Japanese history, Japanese armor, or Japanese martial arts. What isn't true is that Japanese weapons could easily defeat shields, that is nonsense. No close ancient close combat weapon known to man has been shown to be able to easily cut through or penetrate a decently made shield. Heck there is one colonial account of a shield deflecting bullets in the colony of Virginia.

[CalebChow]

In my experience the shield also tends to be able to obscure sight on the target.

As for two-handed weapons, The Chinese used iron and bronze 2-handed swords as early as the Han Dynasty (206BCE) if not even earlier. Notice the incredibly long hilts:
http://thomaschen.freewebspace.com/photo.html

I've wondered about Japanese shields too...I *think* I read somewhere that they were used for a little bit, but if I recall correctly they fell out of use extremely quickly; I'm not sure why. Again, I don't have any sources that I can list so I could be wrong.

[Sal Bertucci]

As a tid-bit on japanese shields.

Actually one of the traditional weapons of Okinawa was a shield made of a turtle shell. They most certainly did exist.

Part of the declince there might just be on cultural preferences. (just an idea)

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Is this only because most of the fighters I saw were not skilled enough in the use of their weapons while on the other hand the shield does not require so much skill?

In my limited experience, the latter idea seems to be correct--to a degree. When neither fighter is highly skilled, a shieldless vs. shielded fight tends to be won by the fighter with the shield. Things get a lot less predictable when both fighters are properly trained, though.

3)For the last shield question this is maybe the wrong place since your experts on europen martial history, but perhaps you know anyway. I never heard of a japanese shield, but since shields seems kinda usefull why is this so?

Whose shields? If we're talking about the infantry, the Japanese made extensive use of large pavises planted on the ground for protecting their formations of foot archers. These pavises seem to have been a very important part of Japanese tactics since they were present almost all the way from the time of earliest records of Japanese warfare to the cessation of large-scale warfare with the 17th-century unification of Japan under the Tokugawa shogunate.

Japanese infantry might also have used smaller personal shields in Chinese/Korean-style spear-and-shield and sword-and-shield formations during the most extensive period of contact with the Asian mainland, somewhere around the 6th to the 8th centuries. These troops were probably regular units recruited and maintained under the auspices of the central government, so it's quite likely that the personal shields disappeared along with the troops when political authority in Japan devolved from the central Imperial court to local landowners and feudal barons.

As for the samurai, the reason why they didn't adopt the shield is still a matter for dispute, but the nearest thing to a consensus we have tends to favor the idea that it was because the shield didn't fit well with their archery techniques. Remember that for most of their existence the samurai were heavy horse archers, not unarmored sword-wielding city guards.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

As for two-handed weapons, The Chinese used iron and bronze 2-handed swords as early as the Han Dynasty (206BCE) if not even earlier.

Some scholars have expressed doubts about the idea that the bronze two-handers were actually intended for two-handed use. I don't think there's any disagreement about the steel two-handers, though.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Hello Simon, welcome to the forum. For some depth to your question I strongly recommend that you watch the web documentary that was recently added to the website. These aren't simple yes or no questions.

1) The shield is a weapon with a long and successful history. Most cultures used them for thousands of years including every single European culture. It is simple, cheap, and effective. Shields even saw limited use after the introduction of plate armor because A) not everyone could afford plate armor, and B) it was still an effective piece of equipment (partial answer to #2). Shields do have their limitations though, they are unwieldy for quick self defense situations as they must be strapped to your arm/or are very heavy and annoying to carry around, unlike the buckler which is simply held in the hand and hung on the belt. The shield also precludes the use of two handed weapons which can mount much more penetrating attacks against an armored opponent, or quicker attacks against an lightly armored or unarmored opponent. Shield can get in the way in a grappling situation. There are even techniques to twist a your opponent's shield and create an arm lock. Suffice it to say there are ways to deal with a shield, but unless you know them it.

2) Two handed weapons appear very early. Spears for example are typically two handed weapons. Two handed axes and swords were used as early as 1100 AD and probably a little earlier, hundreds of years before the advent of the particularly large zweihander. Early two hand war swords share approximate dimensions with later bastard swords and longswords. William II "Longsword" of England may have earned his nickname from choosing a longsword as his sidearm. Plate armor didn't appear until approximately 1300, and wasn't common until 1400. This should demonstrate pretty clearly that the answer to your question is basically no, not entirely, because two handed weapons appear several generations before plate armor.

3) I have no idea. I'd ask someone who is an expert on Japanese history, Japanese armor, or Japanese martial arts. What isn't true is that Japanese weapons could easily defeat shields, that is nonsense. No close ancient close combat weapon known to man has been shown to be able to easily cut through or penetrate a decently made shield. Heck there is one colonial account of a shield deflecting bullets in the colony of Virginia.

Don't sell the shield short. Shields usually prevent grappling from happening in the first place. Further, they can be very useful for knocking somebody off balance with a body slam. I'm unaware of any techniques wherein somebody "twists" the adversary's shield to the side (sounds like suicide to me. Nice thrust from behind my shield to finish said fellow off). It's also surprisingly easy to deflect with the sword and use the shield to smash the other guy's face in. Not to mention, it closes off several lines of attack with little or no effort.

If you are blinded, partially or completely, by your shield...well...you're not using it right. Don't stick it in front of your face, hold it slightly off to the side. Your shield is primarily for protecting your outside, not your inside. Your shield side is the one you always present to your adversary. If your adversary has gotten to your inside (the sword arm side), so that you have to raise the shield to protect it (and blind yourself), you've done something terribly wrong.

Do not attempt to protect your legs w\ the shield. That's not what it's for, and it will get you killed (or give you a bump on the head these days). Use footwork instead to protect your legs (pass back, traverse, etc.), or run it with the shield and smother his attack (while stabbing or cutting visciously with the sword).

-B.

[Benjamin Smith]

Brandon, I did not intend to sell the shield short. Quite the opposite actually. My criticisms stem from trying to establish that the sword and shield is not necessarily superior to other weapons. I do wish to rebut two points though:

A) One can grip an opponent's shield, particularly a large one, and execute an arm-lock with it just as if they had grabbed their opponent's arm. If you're ever in my neck of the woods I'd be happy to show you two or three such techniques. There are ways to prevent it, and counters to it, as there are with every technique, and there are techniques to deal with those counters. What I am saying is that it is a real option. Heck, I.33 shows one such a grip against a buckler, a much smaller target with which you would have much less leverage. Having said that, your assessment that shields typically make grappling more difficult is correct.

B) Getting your adversary to defend themselves in a way that limits their vision is completely possible. I'm not talking about holding your shield in a guard that does this. Example an attacker deflects an oberhau and strikes at the head of the man with the sword and shield. This can lead someone to raise their shield to prevent a lethal blow, you can then pull the blow short and strike to another target. Has the opponent done something wrong? Yes, they missed with their first blow and left themselves open. Is this uncommon, that depends on who is fighting and how well they've been trained or not. The point is that it can happen, even a good fighter can make that mistake.

About making mistakes by the way. All fights end after at least one person makes a mistake. If no one fails to execute their techniques properly the fight goes on. Someone has to make mistake before a fight ends. Between two fighters where the wins are split 50-50 that means that each of them made at least one mistake in half the fights, it doesn't matter if those two were beginners or very skilled fighters. I've never lost a one on one fight where I wasn't saying to myself "If only I'd done/seen/noticed X, I could have...." Getting your opponent to make a mistake is the reason for the numerous deceptive techniques practiced in this art, and is the cause of many, perhaps most, victories.

Also, there are many different kinds of shields. The long Norman "kite shields" for example are designed to protect the forward leg. You are, however, correct that most shields do not function that way.

[Bill Tsafa]

The use of shields pre-dates the Ancient Greeks and was used right up until into the 15th century. It is probably one of the most successful and long-used war tools of all times. I think only the spear can claim as much favor through the centuries. Spear and shield as a combination were used in battle too.

Shield use requires training. You can't just pick it up and know how to use it. If it gets in the way or limits visibility, it is because the person does not know how to use it. The key to using a shield is to fight around it. Consider that if a person only trains with a shield and single handed weapon, and pick up a longsword for the first time, they will feel like their hands are hand-cuffed together. No fighting arts just come naturally.

The following webpage will give you an idea of some of the basic fundamentals of fighting with a large heater. Every shield type has its own fighting style.

http://mysite.verizon.net/tsafa1/pell/index.htm

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Brandon, I did not intend to sell the shield short. Quite the opposite actually. My criticisms stem from trying to establish that the sword and shield is not necessarily superior to other weapons. I do wish to rebut two points though:

A) One can grip an opponent's shield, particularly a large one, and execute an arm-lock with it just as if they had grabbed their opponent's arm. If you're ever in my neck of the woods I'd be happy to show you two or three such techniques. There are ways to prevent it, and counters to it, as there are with every technique, and there are techniques to deal with those counters. What I am saying is that it is a real option. Heck, I.33 shows one such a grip against a buckler, a much smaller target with which you would have much less leverage. Having said that, your assessment that shields typically make grappling more difficult is correct.

B) Getting your adversary to defend themselves in a way that limits their vision is completely possible. I'm not talking about holding your shield in a guard that does this. Example an attacker deflects an oberhau and strikes at the head of the man with the sword and shield. This can lead someone to raise their shield to prevent a lethal blow, you can then pull the blow short and strike to another target. Has the opponent done something wrong? Yes, they missed with their first blow and left themselves open. Is this uncommon, that depends on who is fighting and how well they've been trained or not. The point is that it can happen, even a good fighter can make that mistake.

About making mistakes by the way. All fights end after at least one person makes a mistake. If no one fails to execute their techniques properly the fight goes on. Someone has to make mistake before a fight ends. Between two fighters where the wins are split 50-50 that means that each of them made at least one mistake in half the fights, it doesn't matter if those two were beginners or very skilled fighters. I've never lost a one on one fight where I wasn't saying to myself "If only I'd done/seen/noticed X, I could have...." Getting your opponent to make a mistake is the reason for the numerous deceptive techniques practiced in this art, and is the cause of many, perhaps most, victories.

Also, there are many different kinds of shields. The long Norman "kite shields" for example are designed to protect the forward leg. You are, however, correct that most shields do not function that way.

Cool.

[Robert Bertram]

Yeah... most of the stuff on youtube sucks.

A lot of it are just people playing around in their back yards or at the park with fancy stuff they bought off the internet..

Other videos are of people who have tried to recreate fencing, just like ARMA, but a lot of those aren't very good either. Many of them are based off bad(very bad) interpretations of Medieval manuels.