"Shield or Mail in combat?" Topic

Hey all.

This ought to bring out lots of opinions…(keep it civil!!)

I'm developing a set of basic Dark Ages rules for use with my gaming club. I've been reading and pondering the following question:

In a ONE on ONE fight, each armed with a handweapon, what would be more important if you could only choose one…. having a shield or having mail armor?

Remember, don't take things like shield wall or spears or things like that into account. For now, I'm just thinking of the ONE vs ONE fight.

Thanks, curious to hear your thoughts!

J

Depends on the weapon, of course. Some are meant to be wielded two-handed, others one-handed. Some weapons smash your opponent, making chain mail marginally effective.

Also depends on what you're used to doing. Personally, I'd take a shield.

I think I would prefer the shield as well. I think you would have a tough time blocking things with your arm covered in chain mail.

Having done a number of sword forms, I can attest that shield is better, so long as it's the right weight. A too-heavy shield will be too slow to handle, but sword-and-buckler would be a good choice.

If you've got enough space to wield it, a spear might be a better choice even one-on-one. Reach tends to be undervalued in game rules.

My initial thought is for a shield.

I think there is a set of videos on YouTube where a group of guys put armor in various forms to the test against the weapons of the time period. Mail was great against small weapons such as daggers and arrows but was not good against axes and swords.

Shields on the other hand did a nice job of not only deflecting but stopping the blows all together.

Shield. In a one-on-one, you'd imagine that you'd be able to focus all your blocking abilities against the one foe quite effectively.

Again, you really don't want to stand in chainmail with your arms open saying 'come on, hit me with an axe!' You might be able to do that with a shield however.

If you are hit really hard, a shield may allow you to keep fighting. The mail can save your life, but you will probably be out of the fight.

A really big shield!

Absolutely a shield, as you keep your agility and could use it as a weapon too.

Spoke with some SCA folks this Summer about shields. Shields were used primarily to block, but also to entangle the opponent's weapon: it would often get stuck in the shield -- twist, and disarm them by yanking their stuck weapon out of their hand! I'd take a shield, any day, over a coat of mail. Cheers!

And not to pooh pooh the lessons I learned in the SCA, but in my day it was "against the rules" to entrap someone's weapon with your shield, and considered downright rude to punch him with it.

I'd sure want a shield if I was in a melee with heavy weapons. There probably wasn't much padding under that chain mail. Yes, I'm allergic to pain.

If you need to run away you can drop your shield and run faster. I would think it would be a lot harder to ditch your coat of mail if things got nasty.

I'd opt for the defensive value of a car door. I'd slam it and drive away fast.

Shield all the way so long as it is 1 on 1. Might change my mind in a real melee though.

Thanks everyone!! That was definitely helpful!

J

The couple of times I've seen people in our HEMA group do freeplay with Viking sized shields it was a decided advantage. Against longsword users (either 1 or 2 handed) or a dual wielder (arming sword and dagger) the shield/sword combo won handily. Usually through entrapping or blocking and then reaching around from behind the shield such that the opponent couldn't see the strike coming in order to defend properly.

A video to show some perspective.

YouTube link

Shield initially, but shields got smashed up pretty easily!
If you want to see how I handled the mail v shield question, download my Sword and Dagger rules from: link

A very experienced axman can do without a shield especially in a one on one fight. Nothing is more deadly than a two-handed ax! Also, nothing leaves you more wide open when you go into a power swing.

Personally, being a tyro, I'd take short spear and shield. And I suspect that the vast majority of warriors felt the same….

I can imagine a shield boss would be even more effective than brass knuckles in a one on one beat down.

Shield, just makes more sense

A shield, I can hide behind it and pretend to be doing something useful. Much easier easier to throw away when the time comes to leg it as well. The enemy cavalry can cut down all those poor saps in armour first.

My vote also goes to the shield.

In addition to the earlier posts about being able to use a shield offensively and, of course, as a barrier, it can also be used to bind the opponent's shield and/or their weapon to open them up to your attack.

From what I see of those nutter re-enactor types (as opposed to the other type) that go bashing the bejaysus out of each other a shield would be my favourite. i like the fact it combines both defensive and offensive capacity.