forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Not debating this issue. You have your opinion and I have mine, and we have both stated them.

Valarian wrote:In individual combat, having two axes can be more advantageous than a small shield. ...... They may not have been normal practice, especially in the line of battle, but they were used.

This sums it up nicely. A very uncommon if not rare fighting 'style' for the chain and board era, unlike what hollywood wants us to believe.

aramis wrote:Note that I've known several SCA-Heavies who use dual weapons ...

I'm not particularly keen on using SCA anecdotes, although I admit I'm guilty of doing it myself. Sure there's the occasional concussion or black eye or broken bone*, but nobody fights to kill or with for fear of their life, which certainly affects how you attack and defend. People are out there swinging modified bats at each other, but nobody is really trying to shove 12 inches of steel into your eye or your armpit. Lol, also remember, our SCA is the hobby that unleashed the 'historical' Florentine fighting style (two swords) on unsuspecting sword schools and LARPers.

If anyone has the opportunity to join the SCA (and can afford it), do so, you won't regret it. You'll learn alot, make lifelong friends and will be able to tell stories about how you broke your ribs twice in one year.



*(I know some people intentionally try to give people concussions and black eyes and broken bones, but that's a different story).

Just to throw another chunk into the mixer there's been some discussion on another forum about a blog concerning injuries suffered in combat as evident from skeletons uncovered at various locations. Makes for interesting reading.

http://www.tameshigiri.ca/2014/06/12/fa ... word-arts/

Looking at the material on Visby (fought outside a walled town in the mid 14th century) we see a disproportionate number of leg injuries. The writer speculates on this in the post as to it's unusual nature.

A UK tv documentary about the Medieval Dead discussed this and the conclusion was that the mercenary Danish forces attacked the legs of the peasant Gotlanders, who were wearing poor and outdated armour, to bring them down before finishing them off. Obviously their armour and shield were enough to prevent death from body blows but being hit in the side of the knee was enough to cripple them and allow the Danes to butcher them.

Rich H TOR resources has some good rules for dual wielding rules. Particularly like that they are limited to Slayers.

Hermes Serpent wrote:Just to throw another chunk into the mixer there's been some discussion on another forum about a blog concerning injuries suffered in combat as evident from skeletons uncovered at various locations. Makes for interesting reading.

http://www.tameshigiri.ca/2014/06/12/fa ... word-arts/

Looking at the material on Visby (fought outside a walled town in the mid 14th century) we see a disproportionate number of leg injuries. The writer speculates on this in the post as to it's unusual nature.

A UK tv documentary about the Medieval Dead discussed this and the conclusion was that the mercenary Danish forces attacked the legs of the peasant Gotlanders, who were wearing poor and outdated armour, to bring them down before finishing them off. Obviously their armour and shield were enough to prevent death from body blows but being hit in the side of the knee was enough to cripple them and allow the Danes to butcher them.

You hit what's open. (Not in the SCA - where knees down are not allowed in heavy - but that's an artifact of the safety rules.) A shield won't defend the lower legs unless you duck, in which case it won't protect the head. And in either case, it's possible to do a pretty powerful wrap (a blow that strikes the back of the target, usually with the tip or backedge). The swords we see in Tolkein are a mix of 1 and 2 edged. Visby would have been mostly two edged... but also had lamellar armor (overlapping bands of metal, called lames) with the lames inside the leather (rather than outside, as is normally found) or laced (as is common in the orient and middle east).

Also important, and SCAers doing live steel testing on animal carcases have repeatedly replicated this: you don't need to get through the armor with the edge to produce devastating injuries with a sword. (We had a big roast at one event - but before we roasted the pig, we put him in gambeson and chain. Sir Kylson hit him twice on the left side, then removed the armor and examined the skin. Then roast him. I got a chunk from the right shoulder - there were bits of ribs from the left lower chest hit, and a buddy who got a ventricle found a 1/2" chunk of bone inside the ventricle... but the skin hadn't been broken. Oh, and the pig had been humanely slaughtered that morning, about an hour before the test. It still hadn't cooled to ambient.) Gamers generally like to think of wounds as cutting things open, but that's not the reality of many wounds. A blow to the arm may not even be visible on chain, but still shatter the arm's bones, or cause compartment syndrome. And if you cut the hamstring, he's not running anymore... dispatch him later after he's weak from blood loss. Most of the historical wounds aren't body wounds - that's the one thing a shield will do to prevent - they're head, arm, and leg. You learn to aim for these, because it's easier than getting the shield out of the way. Feints and fakes are important.

It's something to think about when describing wounds - the armor may still be perfectly servicable, not even a link missing, but the guy in it bled out internally...

"A shield won't defend the lower legs unless you duck, in which case it won't protect the head."

Unless you are using a tower shield.

Armour is great at deflecting slashing and piercing damage, but it is also really good at transmitting concussion damage. You would have to hit someone in heavy aromur with a sword to do serious damage, but if you hit the same person with a fairly solid strike with a warhammer or mace you are probably going to break something.

Going for the legs is nothing new. Lightly armoured Levy troops would regularly ground a knight and then start working on the visor with with a poinard or something similar.

Beran wrote:"A shield won't defend the lower legs unless you duck, in which case it won't protect the head."
Unless you are using a tower shield.

I beg to differ on the point where a shield won't protect the legs. It will, unless you're carrying a buckler. Even a small round shield can be presented out from the body to intercept a low blow. A tower shield is unwieldy, useful for formation work only, but a round shield can be manoeuvred in to the way of a blow. This is why the shields are not strapped to the arm, but used from a central boss handle (as Danish and Saxon shields were). If you have a strapped shield (as hoplites did) it is again only useful for formation work. You can't lower it enough without exposing yourself to attack and it leaves half your body uncovered. The sizes were similar, Viking/Saxon round shield and Greek Hoplite, but the uses (and materials) were different. Too many are thinking of shields as passive defence, they weren't. In the dark ages, they were an active part of your defence. You carried a shield in to battle to defend yourself from missile attacks (spears, axes, arrows). You used it to barge people out of the way in a charge, to push people away from you in battle and to intercept weapon blows.

Valerian - the rounds historically had both center handles and straps for the forearm in many cases.

There are good reasons for a largish round (28-36") to be used strapped like a heater. The first is that they mass quite a bit - they're a circle of hardwood an inch thick. 19.5L of hardwood masses about 17.5kg. (19L is from 2.5cm thick, 0.5m radius, 0.05m inner radius; SG of most hardwoods is around 0.95.) ANd then there's a 0.5 to 2.5 kg boss. They are 15 (pine) to 20kg. Given that mass, reason 1 is grip strength - it fails quickly with vibration. Reason 2 is inertia - the potential to injure the wrist with sudden changes is increased by center-hold only. Third is the ability to move it quickly - closer in is less moment to overcome. Fourth, the forearm isn't going to be smashed by the edge if a mass weapon hits. Fifth is control of angle; it's easier with a two strap system.

aramis wrote:Valerian - the rounds historically had both center handles and straps for the forearm in many cases.

There are good reasons for a largish round (28-36") to be used strapped like a heater. The first is that they mass quite a bit - they're a circle of hardwood an inch thick. 19.5L of hardwood masses about 17.5kg. (19L is from 2.5cm thick, 0.5m radius, 0.05m inner radius; SG of most hardwoods is around 0.95.) ANd then there's a 0.5 to 2.5 kg boss. They are 15 (pine) to 20kg. Given that mass, reason 1 is grip strength - it fails quickly with vibration. Reason 2 is inertia - the potential to injure the wrist with sudden changes is increased by center-hold only. Third is the ability to move it quickly - closer in is less moment to overcome. Fourth, the forearm isn't going to be smashed by the edge if a mass weapon hits. Fifth is control of angle; it's easier with a two strap system.

I'm not going to argue on the possible advantages of straps, but I think that there's something wrong about the weight. As far as I know, even large shields rarely reached 2.5 cm of thickness and their mass was (apparently) significantly lower than you suggest. According to best reconstructions, a Roman Scutum weighted around 10 Kg. Medieval infantry shields ranged between 1.8 and 5 Kg depending on the material and design. Even an heavier knightly shield rarely if ever went above 8 Kg.

And you also need to take training in as a factor as well. The Roman army trained with practice weapons that were twice the weight of the real thing, so the soldiers would be used to the weight of their equipment and not be burdened by it.