What's the use of holding the should like that in the second picture? I tried thinking of every scenario, the terrain, if the user is on horseback. But the teardrop shape was made for protecting the legs and not much else. Even though it's covering more of the forearm, wouldn't be that much useful for shield bashing either.
nvm I got it. It would be a bit better for one on one melee weapon combat. Would make it harder for the opponent to circle you to the left because that's what people would do to a right handed fighter.
Yeah, vertical is for larger shields which you're not going to move as much, diagonal is for medium size shields that will move a bit, and center grip is for small shields that will move a lot. Horizontal is awful on any shield.
Vertical is easier to support than horizontal, and more difficult to have turnned on you; diagonal is king, however; you can also hold the shield higher. The height of a kite shield (dont you ever call it a teardrop again) is that it's long enough to cover the majority of your bod from just about any position, but is lighter than a full-on tower shield; as such holding it low is redundant. In a VERY broad sense horizontal is for resting/horseback, and vertical is for on-foot/active fighting. From horseback you may not even put your arms through both straps; letting your shoulder/neck support the shield with the neckstrap, and letting the shield rest against your elbow so you can use your off-hand to guide the horse while using your main-hand to fuck people up.
Yes to the first part; the second part's fucking retarded. You can move with nearly equal speed in any position, especially in regards to moving your whole body; the lag from the shield's weight should be inconsequential (unless you're a little baby man, or exhausted).
you're an idiot
Have a look at the Bayeux tapestry for a second. The only times you definitely see kites held like the second pic is when they're on horseback. When you're on foot, it's almost always held with the drop down. It's not an answer, but it's a big fat clue.
> what is holding your arm at a 45*/90* angle?
There were many forms of binding for strapped shields from the outset, most of which supported/were exclusively for vertical/diagonal grips. It did not take them long to figure out all of the shot comings of a horizontal grip.
I don't know how people think it's practical on foot to keep it vertical, it greatly reduces the range of motions
legs are more of a concern since they're easier to hit for a footman
You have no leverage with a purely horizontal grip; the shield just swings about your arms. If you want to lazily hold it against your body and just let it's weight do the work that's all it's good for, but if you want to hold it in proper form then vertical is the only way to go.
Horizontal grip is supported by your tricep; vertical grip is supported by your bicep, which is a bigger muscle.
I don't know a lot about shield techniques (more of a single sword person) but being less tired is always a plus.
You have enough leverage to control the shield, it doesn't just flaps around.
It's more difficult to control on the arm axis but you don't need it unless you're trying to bash with the point
I don't know what the image is showing since I have no idea about XVI century fencing
even though this could be bait
OR just so happens to be a genuine questioni'm glad about this thread, since it was answered with really interesting info about shields
Thanks for deliver /tg/
> unless you're trying to bash with the point
> striking people with the bottom of your shield as a primary form of attack; to an extent significant enough to structure your stance around it.
-anyway, no. You can get away with the horizontal grip, yeah, but it's less than ideal. If you want to do anything more advanced than holding it against yourself and shifting it to the left or right, you need to 'choke up,' as it were, by holding your arm perpendicular to the directional force of your opponent's attacks; best facilitated by a 45* angle, which also allows you to use more of your arm's strength to support the shield, and more maneuvering options in general: it's easier to raise, and can be more precisely maneuvered, as opposed to fighting against the drag of it's tails weight, which is now also perpendicular to your grop; as opposed to adjunct and opposing with a horizontal grip. Same number of options; better control = win-win.
And, holding the shield it's self at a 40* angle, closer to you at the top and further from the bottom; principally: a vertical grip where your fist is nearly against your collarbone and your elbow extends outward; this also lets your shoulder share more of the load with your arm. This hold draws a proverbial line in the sand, so your opponent is engaged sooner upon closing and kept at bay by equal measure, without you sacrificing any sort of cover, control, or any other options, and you can chose to disperse said barrier by lowering the tail of your shield at-will, and put it back by simply tilting it upwards again.
wait, fuck me, I said adjacent when I meant parallel and vise versa.
Don't post at 8am kids.
>you need to 'choke up,' as it were, by holding your arm perpendicular to the directional force of your opponent's attacks
You lost me there, my English simply isn't good enough
>This hold draws a proverbial line in the sand, so your opponent is engaged sooner upon closing and kept at bay by equal measure,
Except it's still a very weak leverage that can be fucked with easily, messing with your balance, also if you opponent manages to get past the point you're fucked
I agree that an oblique grip is better, but a vertical one for a footman still is retarded from my experience.
Especially considering how the kite was a war shield and not for duelling and infantry in a battle usually stands in formation where the vertical grip is even worse
Actually, either way you're using your bicep. It's just the angle you use it at. Most of the work would be done at the shoulder, which is already half tense from it being held sideways. Also the back muscles would be working more efficiently with a vertical/horizontal grip.
But that's nitpicking.
> Except it's still a very weak leverage that can be fucked with easily
Except it very much is not. The weight of the shield is being supported by every inch of your arm, both physically and in terms of muscle use, where as you've only got it braced against your forearm and are principally lifting with just your bicep when holding it horizontal.
Indeed a perpendicular grip is objectively superior to either, but I am also arguing in the context to the shield(s) posted/inferred by OP's OP, which do not have an oblique option; unless maybe you like, idk, rand your arm through the bottom strap and then held it by the thumb around the top-right corner.
It honestly makes sense at a glance; accessible from any side for a majority of grip preferences, but I would think such strapping would work better if in a diamond shape than a square one.
> horizontal grip
> where you're pulling up
> against gravity, vertically
> is being supported by your triceps
> the muscle you use to extend your arm