Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why do swords play just as much an equal role defensively as shields when using both?
#1
My medieval buckler replica, made through old school blacksmithing by a HIstorical European Martial Arts (often abbreviated as HEMA) group, just arrived by mail today. It reminds me of a statement I saw a HEMA practitioner made........
Quote:Quote
Weapons are often used in tandem with shields for this reason. The shield bears the brunt of most the attacks, but even then the weapon does a lot of defensive work. If all you have is a weapon, it has to do double duty. Because contrary to what you might think, when you're legally justified to use a weapon, it's because someone is trying to kill you.
[img=15x15][/img]
I am curious, why is the weapon just as important as the shield is in defensive action? I cannot tell you how people often think of using sword and shield as simple as "wait for the enemy sword to land on your shield, let the sword bounce from impact, and you immediately follow with a strike against your now defensive enemy who's still trying to recover his grip on his sword from the impact".
Seriously popular media portrays it this way from movies such as 300 to video games such as Legend of Zelda and live TV such as Deadliest Warriors. Even and educational sources and serious academic studies portray it this way. Can't tell you how many times I seen the History Channel have people test the effectiveness of a shield by banging swords, warhammers, and other heavy weapons against them and there are videos of university experiments you can see on Youtube where they test a shield's effectiveness in precisely the same manner.
So I am confused.What is meant by the above quote? I mean if scientists and historians with PhDs are saying a shield is enough for defensive action and the sword is pretty much a purely offensive weapon, why is there a need to learn parries, feints, blocks, etc as you stated in your earlier post? I mean real university experiments portray defensive moves with sword and buckler as merely "let it land, bounce off, than follow up with a sword cut or thrust) as universal standard when it comes to discussing about defensive actions!
Is there more to it than simply putting your shield to cover the area that you anticipate will be hit and simply awaiting to hit it while standing still like a stop sign on an intersection?

Since Roman sword and shield go hand in hand in Roman swordsmanship reconstruction, I thought to ask here in this forum.
Reply
#2
Sounds like something you could learn by going out and fighting with sword and shield and training a martial art! Many things are best learned through experience and this is one of them.

There is a fair bit of evidence that European fencing before the 14th century was not always centered on Posta Longa / Langenort and on sword binds like European fencing since the 14th century. Art from the 12th and 13th century CE rarely or never shows swords crossed with the blades at full extension, Xenophon speaks of the shield as for defending and the sword as for attacking, some Indian martial artists use their swords and bucklers in a different way than European fencers use them, and so on. So there are big questions whether the ways of fighting that we can learn from later European traditions are ways of fighting which people in the ancient world would have recognized.
Nullis in verba

I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Reply
#3
(04-23-2023, 10:42 PM)Sean Manning Wrote: whether the ways of fighting that we can learn from later European traditions are ways of fighting which people in the ancient world would have recognized.

Quite so. The late medieval longsword or sword and buckler duelling practised by modern HEMA groups is quite different to the traditional Roman fighting style, with large scutum and short gladius. There's over one thousand years of arms development between them.

Ancient battles were mainly fought using spears. The scutum was an offensive weapon, but the gladius would have been a very poor tool for parrying or fencing.
Nathan Ross
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Does Praetorian Guard play a role on battlefield? Mrbsct 60 12,205 04-28-2013, 07:23 PM
Last Post: D B Campbell
  swords on shields Q Rutilius 4 1,241 07-25-2011, 08:19 PM
Last Post: kazeryu

Forum Jump: