Shield Combat

>>52909588
>how you'd use a targe or heater vs how you'd use a scutum or kite?

Entirely different in terms of how they are used. Different skill set and different moves for devices that really have the fact they are off-hand defensive weapons in common.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc
This vid covers a lot of points when using a Viking/Anglo-Saxon style round shield. The most relevant point here is how you can use the shield offensively to block, bind or strike at an enemy in such a way that it takes his weapon offline and opens him up for your own attack. This is much more important than merely hitting your opponent with the shield.

What in particular do you want to know?

>>52909588
From my limited understanding I believe a bash is used primarily to knock the opponents weapon out of the way or just knock the opponent of balance to allow you to get in a proper hit with your main weapon.
Less a second attack and more an action setting up your main attack as it were.

Type is more for who's using it. Cavalry are more likely to have either a small or one of the pointed bottom shields as it allows them to hold it close on a horse.

>>52909588
At a guess, the reason you'd shield bash would probably because it's a farly broad contact blunt weapon attack- you're not really aiming to hurt the foe as much as you are to get them off balance so you have the upper hand.

>>52909872
So previously I studied dual-wielding, and determined the primary purpose off the offhand was to parry and trap weapons to create openings, as well as to give variable range when you were using a particularly long thrusting weapon an enemy could step into to evade.

In that regard, a shield seems to have the same merits. Which is peculiar as it begs the question why people historically used parrying daggers at all then, when portable bucklers were an option. I'm aware bucklers were used quite differently from your typical shields however.

So what are the limitations and tradeoffs for scutums and "tower shields" (I'm aware that's a misnomer). At what point does a shield become too large to be useful for various shield techniques? Is the loss gradual or binary? For instance, can you attempt to use a scutum the same way you'd use a targe, and just get a poorer result? Or is it simply not possible by their design?

File: 708px-Di_Grassi_16.jpg (79KB, 708x600px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 708x600px

>>52909588
>>52910206
Bucklers could be thought of a deffensive weapon.

You put it as far from you as possible, so it concealed most of yourself to the enemy and little of the enemy to yourself.

Plus, it should go and meet the enemy attack half-way, a dynamic defense which sought to prevent the atack building up momentum.

>giving to every man to understand that the Buckler and other weapons (which are said to be weapons only of warding) may also be of striking, as I will declare in his proper place.
http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Giacomo_di_Grassi

File: London,_British_Library,_MS_Cotton_Tiberius_C_VI,_fol.9r Goliath.jpg (27KB, 278x448px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 278x448px

>>52910206
For clarity, I'm a re-enactor and history MA student. I've done a number of periods over the years but never Romans. However I have used several style of kite shield which share similarities with scutums. There is also a limit to what blunt steel combat can tell us about actual warfare but it does offer some insights.

>>52910206
>why people historically used parrying daggers at all then
Off-hand dagger use is a civilian fighting style. You can use the dagger offensively, the main reason though is that while bucklers are not always practical or permitted to be carried, sword and dagger were an accepted part of dress. It's a style that uses the weapons you can be sure of having access to which is a great advantage for street fights and brawls.

>>52910206
>Or is it simply not possible by their design?
Not possible I'm afraid.

You could think of shields as existing on a spectrum. The smaller and lighter shields are used very actively to block,bind and control incoming strikes, bucklers are the apex of this but targes, rodelos and heaters also fall in this category. At the opposite end you have large and heavy shields such as kites or scutums which block most attacks merely by existing. These are not completely static but they are nowhere near as active as say a targe.

It is indeed a gradual shift between the two extremes. A late-period Viking/Anglo-Saxon round shield with a diameter of c.80-90cm is in the middle. Large enough to cover most of the body in a line fight, still mobile enough to be used very actively in small fights or duels.

cont.

>>52909588
The biggest noob trap is keeping it close to your body, as they often do in movies.
The shield belongs way in front of you, where its useful. If its hugging you like armor it does nothing.

>>52910551
>Not possible I'm afraid.

Understanding that ancient world may be beyond your expertise, I'd like to ask regardless.

Hoplons, from what i can tell, weighed more than Roman Scutums and were used for similar shield formations. Indeed, the Legionary Tortuga was based off the Spartan Hoplites.

Yet I also envisioned Hoplites fighting extensively with their shield. Bashing and striking with the lip. Is this correct? Is it because the Hoplon is round, while the scutum is cylindrical?

More concisely, is the limiting factor in shield combat the size, the shape, or the weight?


An additional question: does using a scutum require any more skill or training than simply carrying it? Or is there more to it than that? I assume using a buckler would require a fair bit of practice. What about the shields in the middle of the spectrum? Ignoring the fancy combat maneuvers, is protecting yourself with one effectively intuitive or does it require extensive practice? If you were skilled with a buckler, would you know how to use a targe equally well? Vice versa? If a scutum requires training, would you then be as skilled using a targe? Or is it different methods of wielding altogether?

>>52909588
You could ask the /cgl/ larpthreads, there's plenty of HEMAfags who half-know what they're doing there, plus the odd historian who actually knows his shit.

>>52910762
I like to think I'm fairly good in general on the ancient world, but I'm afraid I just don't have the same level of knowledge about specific fighting styles compared to the Early and High Medieval periods. Hoplite shield bashing is beyond me, sorry.

However IMO size is the main factor in how a shield is used. Certain shapes obviously won't work very well, and weight is A)usually a function of size and B)shields do not have to be heavy to be effective and lighter construction methods can be used. However a small shield can not defend against as many attacks from all angles compared to a larger one and a large shield cannot have the same dexterity as a buckler.

>>52910552
This is correct. Matt Easton did a video recently that touched upon the "cone of defence" a shield projects around the body. Precisely how far a shield is held forward varies. Smaller shields such as bucklers could held at the full extent of the arm, I find having the forearm at 45 degrees works well for a Viking shield while even a 12thC kite that curves very deeply around the sides of the body seems to be held about 30cm away based on the artwork.

>>52909588
>Targe
Very versatile. It's great for bashing thanks to the center grip, but it's big enough that it provides a great deal of protection from arrows. Its primary weakness is it's easy to drop compared to...
>Heaters
They're strapped to you arm, which means that you won't be dropping it any time soon. Also, having it strapped means you have a sheet of metal that is always in position to block at least part of your body. In exchange for that, it loses versatility. Basically, your only offensive options are the Hollywood backhand (bad idea) and punching with the shield, which is not all that efficient.
>Scutum
So, these come in several sizes. Ignoring the fact that roman shields evolved over the years, you have the gladiatorial shields that are smaller and flatter, and the legionary shields that are bigger and curved. In general, they're a defensive option, intended to cover as much of the body as possible. The difference is in the specifics of use - the gladiatorial shield can be wielded more easily than the full-sized scutum, and that means it's easier to use for deflection and striking, as opposed to just blocking.

>Buckler
Portability above all. Bucklers are light, easy to wield, and make a great striking weapon, but they're useless against projectiles.

This is coming from an amateur enthusiast, so if anyone more knowledgeable sees any problems let me know.

>>52910762
Shields do require training to use, and simply relying on instinct will result in death if you should meet an actually skilled combatant. However in most cultures shield use is taught alongside weaponry and the expectation is usually that unless using a two-handed weapon you will have a shield in a battle situation.

A Viking shield absolutely requires extensive practice. Duels are harder because they allow the use of those fancy techniques since you have space and only one opponent to worry about but even staying alive in a battle is a skill that includes good use of a shield.

While a a fair bit larger, a targe is still a fairly small shield so a lot of buckler techniques would be useful, while the reverse is also true though you may need to watch out for strikes that a targe would block but a buckler is too small for. However beyond basic combat awareness and some footwork not much scutum training would be relevant to targe-work since they sit near the opposite extremes of the spectrum.

File: 9i6r75u498468.jpg (69KB, 545x1043px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 545x1043px

This is more about fighting against shields: Is it common, or at least do you think it was, in martial arts to deliberately attack the shield to break the defense? Is it possible with one-handed weapons to bash the defense aside, or make the defenders arm numb, break it even? Does it only work with certain weapons? Probably not with some knife, but is it something you could do with an ordinary sword of its time?

>>52911851
Swords? Outside of a Falx, no. Axes? Hell yes. Shields are designed to take hits, and in general hacking away at it is a waste of energy. The trick is to get around the shield or make the user drop it. Romans and Greeks threw javelins/pilum because if they got lodged in a shield, that shield was useless.

>>52911851
Sort of.

Most shields were inherently semi-dispoosable items that would be unlikely to last more than a few battles, at least when we are talking about wooden shields. Some very light shields were made from wicker which is not going to survive very long, while Greek aspis (Hoplons) were faced with bronze for extra strength.

The attrition of combat will cause shields to fail. There is also the Holmgang Viking dueling code which allowed each warrior the use of three shields wth the expectation that all three might be consumed before the duel was over and written accounts of several duels confirm this. In a pitched battle lasting several hours the shield could be subjected to hundreds of strikes so failure is a distinct possiblity.

So yes it is entirely posible to break an opponents shield in combat and few shields had a long life expectancy (Aspis' excepted).

However it is not easy for any single stroke, and even with success there is the chance that your weapon will become entangled in the ruined shield leaving you vulnerable, especially when using thrusts. I would say that it would be unlikely to deliberately target the shield with destruction in mind using one-handed weapons, but that shield failure was very possible as part of the normal flow of attack and harassment delivered with the intent of scoring a kill shot using most weapons.

Much easier and more reliable is hooking, pushing or levering the shield aside to create an opening. Go around the shield, or move it in a way that allows your weapon in. Roland's vid showcases several such moves.