What is it about the Sword-and-Shield thing?

[Lorraine Munoa]

A lot of groups, historical, fantasy based, recreational and otherwise, as well as much art and storytelling, pay tons of attention to the knightly use of a sword and a shield. ..Now I've seen us in ARMA fight with longswords, armored and unarmored, with messers, with sword and buckler, but never do we bother dragging out a "kite" to duck behind... Why is that? Were such shields ever used as much as people think? If so, in what circumstances were they used? I mean, to me, it would seem unless you had a spear and were in a formation, or unless you were on horseback, a shield would be a pain to carry when a buckler would do... But I know nothing, so... Guys?

[Brian Hunt]

Well,

one of the reasons is that we have lots of stuff written on all the other weapons you have mentioned, but not much on the actual large shield such as the kite you mentioned. We have he German duelling shields and the Italian rotella. Since we are into the ressurection of the fighting arts that we have writings on, anything we do with the shield is more of a construction of a system, that relearning a written system.

hope my ramblings helped.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[TimJentoft]

Well, the shield has it's uses if you know how to use it. And ducking behind it to ward of blows is not the way to do it...

[Matthew_Anderson]

I've done quite a bit of playing with large shields, such as heaters and kites with single hand sword. Of course there are tactics and techniques that can be learned, but as Brian points out, most of these are developed through experimentation and extrapolation of material on the use of other similar weapons, rather than directly from historical sources that deal specifically with the use of such large shields. I believe the popularity of this particular weapon combination with some medieval recreation/reenactment groups has more to do with the culture of those groups than with the historical sources for this type of fighting. Still, I like sword and shield fighting and it's a great way to get into some dissimilar weapon sparring. If you've never used longsword against a good sword and shield fighter, it's a real eye-opener!

[Travis Beamon]

If you've never used longsword against a good sword and shield fighter, it's a real eye-opener!

I completely agree. Having Ernie and his sword and shield as your opponent is something to be reckoned.

[Lorraine Munoa]

so the popularity in other groups might just be they like em...
When and where was it popular, or rather in use, historically?

[Matthew_Anderson]

"so the popularity in other groups might just be they like em...
When and where was it popular, or rather in use, historically?"

That's just it, I don't really think dueling or even tournament fighting with sword and shield on foot was ever as popular as it is with many modern groups. But certainly it was done, probably most popular in the 12th and 13th centuries. After that, the use of shields declined in the knightly class, probably due to increased use of plate armour.

[JeanryChandler]

Keep in mind the shields that are used by groups like the SCA are a long way from the real thing, generally being alot heavier and larger...

Jr

[Brian Hunt]

Also a large number of the groups that use a sword and shield mishandle the shield. They use it as a slightly mobile wall to block shots and hide behind. The shield is also a weapon in and of itself. You can punch with it, bind with it, if it has a center spike you can stab someone with it. But because you can kill someone by punching them in the head and the neck with a shield, break bones, or knock someone out, it can be dangerous to try and spar with these giant knuckle dusters in a more historical manner.

just some thoughts.

Brian Hunt.
GFS

[Allen Johnson]

There is alot of accounts of duels in the Viking Sagas/ Anglo-Saxon Chronicles about arranged duels with sword and shield. Interestingly enough, there is documentation in there of guys bringing 3 shields to these duels so that when one was destroyed or rendered useless, they could have a replacement one. There are a fair amount of engravings on caskets, gravestones, artwork ect that show 8th-10th century wester european and scandinavian peoples fighitng one on one, sword and shield or axe and shield. This also may just be a simplified illustration of a battle as well.

[William Savage]

Well I think swords were vary popular up until the 15c. Not that I would know.
But when "half-plate" came in the 14c. shields became about HALF as large (kite to heater) then when mostly full-plate was being use sheilds became almost nothing (i think targets were those little shields i'v seen tied on to knights left shoulder?). So you see its all a simple math problem <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

Im not an expert so please feel free to disagree.

[Jason Romandell]

Having fought in one of these groups for a long long time I can answer that with the SCA atleast the style of shield used and the ruleset make it so that that is the most effective armorment. I have found that thus far when fighting those in the fetchbook community, the shield posses a problem as its not common at all and the counters to the shield arent known or practiced. 24 inch rounds are a ton of fun to fight with.

[Brian Hunt]

Well of course it is the most effective weapon combination in the SCA, you are no longer allowed to grab it or kick it open, use it to wrestle your opponent around, etc. The rule change in the 70's that took out the whole leg as a target based upon "safety" but is rumored to have happened due to a king that didn't like lower leg shots, and the fact that if you get legged in the SCA and have to fight from your knees, you gain an advantage by how well covered you are by the shield, plus the advantages that the rules can give you based upon what direction you can attack a man from, death from behind and all that. Also most of the offensive moves of a shield are considered too dangerous and may not be done at all in the SCA. It is amazing what rules can due to make something become more effective than it probably was historically and distort how it may have been actually used. That doesn't invalidate the shield as a wonderful weapon in it's context, but IMHO the SCA's context isn't quite correct because of their rule structure. However, the SCA is a sport and is what it is, and lots of people have a good time there <shrug>. As for me, if I have a full body target and the ability to grapple, I would be happy to fight a sword and shield man with a longsword, or a sword and buckler, or a halberd, or a spear, etc., it's all good fun. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Merry Christmas.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Jason Romandell]

Totally, was responding to the OP about other groups and what the deal was with all the sword and shieds compared to ARMA groups. Believe it or not but there is a strong underground movement to get full leg shots back and to eliminate fighting from the knees within the SCA. And I am in total agreement with fighting those with whatever weapons they want...fun.

[Brian Hunt]

No Problem J Romandell,

I was just pointing out why the sword and shield is so dominat in the SCA, wasn't trying be critical or pick a verbal fight. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

I still have friends in the SCA although it is no longer my thing, so I know about the movement, and the resistance to it by the upper eschelons of the SCA. If they ever do get those rule changes passed, it is going to change the game that the SCA plays alot, especially war scenarios. IMHO that shield wall will become a much more dangerous thing to stand in. I think you will start to see things like pike and halberd formations become much more effective in the SCA and may even see battles that don't involve any shield walls. I also think tournies will become more fun.

just my 2 cents.

Brian Hunt
GFS