06-06-2009, 05:38 PM | #11 | |
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Re: DR of shields? Why so much higher than ordinary slab of wood?
Quote:
|
|
06-06-2009, 05:48 PM | #12 | |
"Gimme 18 minutes . . ."
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Albuquerque, NM
|
Re: DR of shields? Why so much higher than ordinary slab of wood?
Quote:
|
|
06-06-2009, 05:50 PM | #13 | |
"Gimme 18 minutes . . ."
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Albuquerque, NM
|
Re: DR of shields? Why so much higher than ordinary slab of wood?
Quote:
|
|
06-06-2009, 05:52 PM | #14 | ||
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Re: DR of shields? Why so much higher than ordinary slab of wood?
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
06-06-2009, 05:53 PM | #15 |
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Re: DR of shields? Why so much higher than ordinary slab of wood?
Even so, it's better to put the pick through the eye grill, or into the neck. Penetrating armor never killed anyone; you want to penetrate flesh.
|
06-06-2009, 05:53 PM | #16 | |
"Gimme 18 minutes . . ."
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Albuquerque, NM
|
Re: DR of shields? Why so much higher than ordinary slab of wood?
Quote:
I believe we can say that polearms were "used more" in China or Europe, just by the nature of large-scale warfare. The question (to me) is whether most combatants equipped with a one-handed weapon filled their off hand with a shield or another one-handed weapon. That's the part of your statement I disagree with. It might be true for some periods of warfare, but I don't think it's anywhere near a universal or even broadly applicable statement. |
|
06-06-2009, 05:56 PM | #17 |
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vermont
|
Re: DR of shields? Why so much higher than ordinary slab of wood?
Shields were in use in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the America's right up through the invention of gun powder and heavy plate.
The primary reason why they're underrepresented in both western and eastern martial arts traditions is that most of the surviving martial arts are designed for civilians, very few people walked around with shields off the battle field. They were, however, disposable in many of these cultures (certainly not the heavy bronze shields of the Greeks, i.e. the legendary Spartan wife who said, "come back with your shield or on it".) The vikings in particular didn't expect a shield to survive the fight and trained to use the shield boss as a buckler after the rest of the shield had been destroyed. I'm not sure how much of a standard that was, it is possible that the vikings used particularly light and disposable shields. I think DR 1 or 2 is quiet reasonable for a viking shield, perhaps twice that for a "fine or very fine" shield; i'm confident that Low Tech will fix it.
__________________
My ongoing thread of GURPS versions of DC Comics characters. |
06-06-2009, 05:58 PM | #18 | |
"Gimme 18 minutes . . ."
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Albuquerque, NM
|
Re: DR of shields? Why so much higher than ordinary slab of wood?
Quote:
And I know swords (of the non-pointy variety) are a ****ty armor penetrator. But they were still used extensively, as the ARMA article you linked stated, due to their versatility. |
|
06-06-2009, 06:07 PM | #19 | |
Join Date: Sep 2007
|
Re: DR of shields? Why so much higher than ordinary slab of wood?
Quote:
If you look at history, you can see two weapons time and again. Sword and rondel, katana and wakizashi or tanto, escrima sticks. Very few man to man dueling styles involve a shield. The buckler was just one choice for the duelist, and not one that ever eclipsed other options. You have the main gauche. Sai are used in pairs, as are butterfly swords. In personal combat, the superior weapon tends to either be used in pairs, or to have good reach with versatility (longsword, quarterstaff, naginata, etc). Shields were dominant among the Roman legions, the Greek heroics, especially the Spartans. They demphasized the individual, because they were armed for group warfare. Shields were used to create a portable wall and to protect against hurled weapons and arrows. Shields were also used with the lance in Europe, because it was a suitable match for the lance or a cavalry weapon. |
|
06-06-2009, 08:47 PM | #20 | ||||
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Iceland*
|
Re: DR of shields? Why so much higher than ordinary slab of wood?
Quote:
It takes a lucky blow or extraordinary strength and skill to utterly destroy a shield in a few seconds. And while you're doing that, the other person will be after your flesh, not your gear. Quote:
And while one hit with a shield might not kill people, someone stunned by a broken nose or knocked down by a hard check is someone who is unlikely to defend against the next sword thrust. Quote:
Of course civilised dandies didn't lug a bloody great shield around while about town, but put a duelist with his rapier and main-gauche against a sword-and-board man and he'd be at a great disadvantage. On a battlefield, where the side with inferior weapons and doctrine tended to lose in the most Darwinian of selection processes, most soldiers have had two-handed weapons. If they do not, they'll tend to have a shield. That's because a shield is more broadly useful than another weapon, being servicable as cover against missiles as well as being a secondary weapon. Quote:
But shield use isn't a result of that. That development led to pikes, musket and artillery. Shields were also used by cultures that tended to idealise individual combatants. Vikings carried shields to war and at home they fought duels with shields and whatever other weapon they chose. The only reason to be caught without one was if you felt the need to carry an axe big enough to hack through maille. Gauls weren't the biggest fans of disciplined warfare according to our boy Big C, but their warriors still carried shields. And why shouldn't they? A shield is a nice thing to have when you're running around nekkid and painted blue. ;)
__________________
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela! |
||||
Tags |
cabaret chicks on ice, fantasy, low-tech, shields, überthread |
|
|