Edge versus flat...with a wrinkle

[Shane Smith]

The edge versus flat debate has been done to death when it comes to longswords and there is still no wide consensus in the WMA community at large to speak of . But now lets come at this from a new angle and discuss something that is potentially the next big debate on the horizon when it comes to medieval sword and shield in my opinion.

When employing a medieval kite, heater or round,there is some debate concerning the value of employing them as one would the medieval dueling shield as seen here http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/198.jpg http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/199.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/SoloT/0021.jpg

Some may argue that this evidence suggests that the kite/round/heater shields would be employed in a sweeping left to right rotating motion that results in blows being taken on the flat of a shield face as a fairly fast rule.(It seems to my mind that the rotational style of fighting seen with the dueling shield form may well be so because it is necessary to rotate it's bulk around the axis of the grounded point particular to the form)

In my own sword and shield work which is based on the battlefield shield-wall concept of maintaining maximum cover while returning fire simultaneously and the concepts put forth by John Clements in his book "Medieval Swordsmanship",I maintain the face largely oriented forward. In doing so,many blows will be parried from the rim, or edge if you will, of the shield. Shots to the left will generally fall fairly flat on the face as I frequently turn my left elbow into the cut a bit which allows the shield to assume about a 45 degree angle from my center front line. Shots to the right I will simply deal with by moving my left elbow slightly right and let the shot fall on the rim while I take off the offending arm of my opponent(when all goes well anyways). I likewise parry overhead shots with the rim via a subtle raising of the shield(while maintining vision over it). This style seems to lend an incredible economy of motion and is a very intuitive method of employment in my opinion.

The flat parry advocates may state that by twisting the body and moving the shields flat to your right side, you may likewise parry/stop these blows on the flat.I will concede that that will work in the absolute sense but it may well leave you very open to an elbow push from the bind depending on the opponent and his armament.It also seems a bit more awkward in earnest application. I am not a big fan of having one of my limbs crossed over my body while enaged in close combat whether unarmed or armed.The odds of being tumbled to the ground and bound seem much greater.

What do you think? Edge primarily? Flat primarily? Or both? My personal educated guesses(as I deem them LOL!) dictate the judicious use of both.

*Disclaimer; I will point out in advance,I know that my own style is no less an extrapolation or an educated guess that anyone elses.I claim no high ground on this issue and am only seeking to get a feel for what kind of things others are observing in their own work.

[John_Clements]

I think it's definitely both.
As Hank R. has shown conclusively, when necessary a shield can indeed be held with the edge forward and the face to the side, but if you open your shield up like this, an aggressive opponent will easily take advantage of it with numerous blows of his own shield to knock it aside and expose you---and these violent actions are things I have seen virtually no shield users employ or practice as they can be quite dangerous in free-play or sparring (even when armored). Yet they are core elements of shield use in our opinion. Also, I have a number of historical images that show shields used face on against opponents holding them edge on. So, yes, I think both were used as needed depending upon the type of shield you had and the weapons you were facing. It would make no sense for anyone to argue that they were held only one way or the other. A sto duelling shields being an example of the overall method of using shields in general? No that’s just absurd. The hand held buckler is the foundational weapon for the shield in my opinion, as they came from the larger arm worn versions.

JC

[Ryan Ricks]

it seems to me that the flat is used in blocking thrusts, or when agressively taking a passing step forward towards your opponent in order to stifle his attack.

also the flat seems to be used when blocking high. it struck me one day that i've seen illustrations of combatants rotating their shields 90 degrees to hold it flat over their heads to block high. illustrations in mr. clements book show this (medieval swordsmanship, clements, 168, 172). i've seen a couple illustrations depicting a workout at the pell showing this same technique. While Mr. Clements does not explicitly state this, it seems logical.

this seems to give a great deal of protection from high strikes and overhead thrusts, while not obscuring your vision. it's also not a big problem to move the shield back into place quickly.

ryan

[Casper Bradak]

It seems to me shield use isn't nearly so hard to figure out as sword use or something similar, if you apply the same principles. I also think there's no reason to believe they were used differently than illustrated in the renaissance manuals, such as Marozo's.
There are only so many ways to minimize your targets, and defend with economy of motion.
This may be a poor example, but I think it's definitely worth consideration. The SCA for example, has been using effectively historical shield designs, within their rules as purely defensive items, for their own goals with no historical source material, for a few decades now. Yet their guards and defenses match those of the renaissance manuals and most medieval text 99%, simply from so much experimentation, trial and error. As far as the shield use itself goes, for defense, it may be the only historical aspect to their fighting, because it's the only and best way to use one.
Definitely the edge and flat.
I think some ideas can be gained from the duelling shields, bt it's a whole different animal and largely does not apply.

Ryan, have you tried using the edge to stifle attacks? In my experience it often works better than the flat, punching at the wrist, hand, or ricasso.
Also, things may change a bit from wasters when blocking thrusts. If you block a pointy metal sword on the flat of a wooden shield when it thrusts, it may stick and stifle your counter if they're thrusting with intent.

[Ryan Ricks]

hmm. i hadn't considered that. i was aware that you could punch with the edge. we'll have to give that a try.

so for intercepting a thrust, would you recommend angling the shield a little before the thrust connects so as to deflect it, instead of having it hit squarely?

ryan

[Casper Bradak]

I'll assume we're talking a horizontal thust to your body, and generalize about the shield type. Chances are if he's thrusting to your body it will be to your sword side as it should be the only likely opening. Just set it by with a punch from the shields edge.
One of the biggest problems beginners have with shields is they overextend their parries and blocks. (or blind themselves, which is often mentioned) Just as with a sword you should only be moving it far enough to stop the attack. Don't tie up your sword on that block.
If he's thrusting at your body to your shield side, either you need to work on your guard, or he's deliberately trying to pin or manipulate your shield. In that case angle your shield a little toward him, maybe giving a short backhand beat to his weapon, again not moving the shield out very far at all.
Those are about the only thrusts I think one can generalize on without talking about the particular design of shield, as you should be using different guards/parries with different shields.

[Ryan Ricks]

ahh, right, i guess they wouldn't be deliberately thrusting at your shield.

normally we aim our straight on thrusts at the face or thigh. we've had some pretty good luck with a sort of under-handed thrust coming up from nebenhut, this seems to work pretty well for getting under a shield.

i'm not sure how a straight thrust to the sword side would work. it seems like one must take a large step forward and to the left. we'll have to try that one out.

ryan

[John_Clements]

BTW, let me add, this so called flat shield stance, is nothing new and being somewhat misunderstood I think. If you study sword and buckler, you will see the buckler can be held so that it proctects the hilt and hand of the sword held in a "middle" position. Enlarge this buckler to an arm worn shield and hold it in the same manner and suddenly it seems to be sideways with the edge toward the opponent and the flat to the elft, but it's really just the same stance. It protects the side as well as the sword hand/arm and leaves the weapon free to strike or thrust. It also leaves the shield edge available to hit with against the opponent's shield to create openings. Make sense?

JC

[Ryan Ricks]

yes, you mention in your book to push the shield out in such a manner when thrusting. we have certainly practiced that a lot.

i hadn't considered this in conjunction with full arm strikes, though.

ryan

[Casper Bradak]

Yeah. It's not pointing right at the opponent, but forward at an angle. From the opponents perspective, it'll still be covering you, but instead of being held close and flat, it's extended and angled to facilitate easier defense and offense. Anywhere from your opponents center to 45 deg.
This is the general method for enarmed round shields, and more of a transitory position for closer, flatter held heater shields.