"When melees got personal " Topic
14 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Medieval Discussion Message Board
Action Log
10 Aug 2015 8:27 a.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Changed title from "When meles got personal " to "When melees got personal "
Areas of InterestMedieval
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Workbench ArticleJay Wirth shows how using inks makes it easier to paint a 15mm scale army.
Featured Profile ArticleFor the time being, the last in our series of articles on the gates of Old Jerusalem.
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Gunfreak | 10 Aug 2015 7:18 a.m. PST |
So for eons, most armies in and around europe, used shields they all fought more or less the same way. The shield ment even in a battle the some of the less enthusiastic fighters could distance the self. But if we fast forward to say the 100 years war, most shields are gone. Instead you have major use of polearms. This ment you had to be active in your defence. While with a shield you could hide behind it and hope one of your more bloodthirsty comrades kills who ever tries to kill you. While with a polearm you have to fence for your life, and you can't be on the defence for ever as each second you don't kill your attacker he gets closer to killing you. To make matters worse, you might simply have some padded armor mabye with some mail or plate reenforment. While the guy attacking you is in full plate. |
skippy0001 | 10 Aug 2015 7:55 a.m. PST |
If you are noble your family's coat of arms are displayed on the shild. You could just write a note on the shield that says "wound and ransom me!"…but literacy back then was dicey. Your shild could deflect or lift the pike or polearm so you can introduce the guy with the pigsticker to Mr. Warhammer. |
MajorB | 10 Aug 2015 7:57 a.m. PST |
If you are noble your family's coat of arms are displayed on the shild. I think the point that Gunfreak was making is that by this period shields were no longer in use. |
Great War Ace | 10 Aug 2015 8:20 a.m. PST |
Only in the latter HYW. The first "half" of it shields were still very much in use. Real polearms fighting en masse only increased as armor protection turned to cap-a-pie plate armor. Of course, there were always those who fought with two-handed weapons and either slung the shield over the back or discarded it altogether. E.g. the huskarls on the Bayeux Tapestry do both, as they use the two-handed "Dane" ax. So "up close and personal" was always a part of fighting for some warriors even in the long era before cap-a-pie plate armor. As for shields being something you can hide behind and distance yourself from an enemy: that only sort of worked in a shieldwall with buddies on either side of you. But you still had to watch for the thrusting spear coming at you over and below the shield edge. And if you were unfortunate enough to have a duel forced on you, a shield was of minimal value, since any number of techniques existed to neutralize or dislocate a shield. That "Dane" ax I already mentioned, can be used to rapidly snag a shield down and out of position, with a swift follow-up of the edge raked across an exposed part of the body behind, and then the coup-de-grace of a "roundhouse" blow. A skilled axman knew how to cope with a shielded foe. The shield itself was usually only expected to stand up long enough to finish the fight. Saga accounts describe how the shields were riven to pieces during combat…. |
Bellbottom | 10 Aug 2015 8:21 a.m. PST |
I thought shields were still in use in the 100 years war, but were mostly gone by the Wars of the Roses? |
kallman | 10 Aug 2015 10:30 a.m. PST |
As mentioned the use of shields began to decline as armor improved and weapons became larger and deadlier. The early part of the HYW would see shields in common use. However, by the time of Agincourt shields had pretty much fallen out of common use. |
Great War Ace | 10 Aug 2015 1:44 p.m. PST |
To nitpick, I believe that the common use of the shield was still in vogue at the time of Agincourt. "Pavised" MAA are specifically described by the eyewitnesses on the French side…. |
Mako11 | 10 Aug 2015 5:34 p.m. PST |
Yea, my understanding is that as full plate became more common, and was improved, shields became a bit superfluous, e.g. around 1400, or the early 1400s. Interestingly though, there are some pics of knights/men at arms carrying full sized, round shields in the renaissance, Italian Wars, 100 years later, so it appears that not all got rid of them. These appear to be made completely of shaped metal. Note, these are far different than those little shields the sword and buckler men used. |
Matheo | 11 Aug 2015 9:13 a.m. PST |
Mako11, those pictures most probably show nobles equipped for tournament, not for battle. |
Gamesman6 | 06 Sep 2015 3:25 p.m. PST |
Thinking that one can simply hide behind a shield, severely misses how they were used. If one tries it you will get hit. Equally thinking that pole arms makes you more vulnerable, misses how they can be used |
janner | 06 Sep 2015 9:45 p.m. PST |
I suggest that it is a mistake to consider a shield as merely something to hide behind. Although limited to use of the sword and buckler, I.33 demonstrates how a shield can be used in combination with a sword as part of an active 'martial art'. Moreover, being in shield range is no different, I would argue, to being in armour range as the attacker would have been aiming to hit the person and not their equipment. As an aside, representation of close combat distance is, in my opinion, a common error in films. Actors are seemingly taught to aim for their opponent's sword (or shield) rather than look to hit the body. |
Gamesman6 | 07 Sep 2015 3:14 a.m. PST |
While the goal is to hit the opponent, not just their weapon, one needs to bridge the gap to get to the opponent, that will in general involve controlling the line between you and the opponent, and the tools they have in that space, failure to do so, before trying to hit the opponent leaves one open to being hit. Much of what we see in movies etc, is IMO the poorly realised or understood representation of people trying to gain the lin to attack. Often the problem is made worse by the fact that the protagonists are too close and could hit each other, but can't so they then attack the weapons. |
janner | 07 Sep 2015 4:41 a.m. PST |
Indeed, hence I used I.33 as my reference point because, as you probably know, it focuses on gaining such control at least risk by use of sword and shield in partnership. I suspect that we are coming at the same point from different angles, ie once the combatants were that close, having a shield or not was irrelevant to the degree to which it was 'personal'. Moreover. that an inactive defender was an easy target irrespective of their having a shield if the attacker knew their trade, especially if the attacker fought as part of a team. On films, my impression is that they are usually too far apart in sword fights. But I take your point about their wish to avoid hits |
Gamesman6 | 07 Sep 2015 12:03 p.m. PST |
we can probably find equal numbers of film fights where they are too far and too close. When too close on attacks the weapon because you don't want to hit the opponent, when too far away, they attack the weapon as that is the only thing close enough to be hit! :) Certainly what almost always gets ignored is what you say on team work. the team that is able to work together the best is the one most likely to win |
|