DR of shields? Why so much higher than ordinary slab of wood?

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Icelander

A shield is a nice thing to have when you're running around nekkid and painted blue. ;)

Quoted for Truth.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I don't know what sort of people you're postulating here, but hacking a shield to pieces in a few blows isn't something people can automatically do against a resisting opponent. Sure, in the real world, the shield has less DR and HP than the Basic Set would give him, but it's still a pretty tough piece of wood and it may have iron bands and rim.

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.

Attacking the shield is not a primary strategy. As I said before, the shield user has some options. If they hang back, the shield is only going to last so long.

A shield is a weapon. A solid block of limewood with someone's entire weight behind it will serve very well to knock people back or even down. And unlike a mace or axe, a shield can strike short snapping blows while still being effectively interposed between you and the other guy.

If you are wielding two weapons, interposing a threat is also a similar matter. A shield is a weapon, but primarily a defensive one. It offers tremendous advantages over nothing at all, but lesser advantages against another weapon.

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.

I don't think I need to make an elaborate argument about the relative difference between being hit in the face with a heavy shield, possibly while wearing a helm, versus getting an axe or dagger in your face. And the pick, well, that's something else again. Again, not to denigrate the shield, but it's not a killing weapon. It is a defensive weapon. If you wanted to kill an unarmored and unarmed man in a locked room using a shield, it would be a difficult process with no guarantee of success.

The shield can be bashed with, but it can also be bashed. It can be kicked. It is by no means an impenetrable shield.

That shows that a lot of sports or arts use two weapons, not that they're the most effective combination. Duelling weapons aren't the best weapons of a culture, they're what civilians carry or what has a certain fashion cachet.

Dagger and longsword was a common battlefield array. Musashi's two sword style was assuredly not a civilian dueling sport. Dueling weapons will be the best weapons of a culture, within the constraints of the dueling conditions. Inferior weapon conditions tend to eliminate themselves from active dueling practices. Obviously, the lack of heavy armor and shields changes conditions, as does dueling for blood rather than absolute defeat.

It's a mistake to think, though, that potentially deadly duels were simply a matter of fashion. The dueling tradition, worldwide, has tended to support the notion that it's better either to have a longer weapon, or to wield something in each hand. A buckler is a fair choice, but far from the only one.

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.

He would be at some disadvantage, most likely. However, that assumes both are unarmored. It's somewhat unfair in that neither the rapier or main-gauche is a heavy battlefield arm, so setting them up for comparison is a bit of a strawman. A broadsword and rondel would be a fairer comparison. In that case, things look more even. Now, supposing both are in armor, I think the advantage shifts in the direction of the person with two weapons, even a rapier and main-gauche. While the shield guy can certainly play the part of the beater, at some point, the battle is likely to come down to close combat. In that scenario, the dagger is the monarch of battle.

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.

But cover against missiles is only a concern in massed battles. It takes an exceptional archer with a good chance of aiming to snipe individual targets from any distance. Again, the importance of a shield depends heavily on attacking in formation. Once you close ranks with the enemy in melee, the shield is not clearly the best choice. All the more reason shields were rarely built to last.

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.

Aside from the fact that the Vikings tended to glorify stupidity in the face of danger and believed themselves unkillable except at their destined hour, they are the very definition of warriors who tended to make do with the equipment at hand rather than specialized dueling equipment.

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. ;)

Classic military discipline has little to do with the ability to form a shieldwall. If a bunch of drunken reenactivists, strangers to each other, can do it, I'm sure it's a feat well within the capabilities of professional warriors of history. In the wars between the Romans and the Gauls, the shield would have been quite useful so it's not surprising it was used.

I'm not sure what the thrust of this argument is, since I have stated several times I have not been arguing the shield is inferior or that uncountable soldiers marched into battle with inappropriate equipment. My point was simply that the prominence of the shield varies according to the circumstances and that for much of the so-called Middle Ages and beyond it was not that prominent.

In ancient warfare, particularly with the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, the shield had a highly respected place in the martial arts. That esteem is far from universal throughout history.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Musashi's two sword style was assuredly not a civilian dueling sport.

I beg to differ. Musashi's great fame and reputation rests almost entirely on his success as a duellist, I've heard little about his success as a soldier.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

I'm not sure what the thrust of this argument is, since I have stated several times I have not been arguing the shield is inferior or that uncountable soldiers marched into battle with inappropriate equipment. My point was simply that the prominence of the shield varies according to the circumstances and that for much of the so-called Middle Ages and beyond it was not that prominent.

My point is that given a choice, I'd select a sword-and-board over any form of twin-blade or mace-and-axe combination. It's not something I'd want to carry around all day while out drinking, wenching and looking for slights to duel over, but in a fight, a shield would in my opinion be far more useful than a knife or any other weapon in the off hand.

A key point in its favour is that while a stout shield may well block attacks from both the broadsword and rondel of your foe, but I can't exactly imagine it's easy for him to use the blades to parry your shield checks and bashes.

Not to mention that few people in history have the necessary coordination and skill to attack with two weapons at the same time. The reason for carrying two weapons is usually* to attack with one of them and defend with the other. In that case, a dedicated defensive weapon like the shield is much more useful than just another blade or bludgeon.

*Fiction and legend would have us believe otherwise, but in real life, it doesn't appear to happen all that much. Turns out that most people can't repeat the fancy tricks with two blades they learned in a dojo once the fight turns real.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Not to mention that few people in history have the necessary coordination and skill to attack with two weapons at the same time. The reason for carrying two weapons is usually* to attack with one of them and defend with the other. In that case, a dedicated defensive weapon like the shield is much more useful than just another blade or bludgeon.

*Fiction and legend would have us believe otherwise, but in real life, it doesn't appear to happen all that much. Turns out that most people can't repeat the fancy tricks with two blades they learned in a dojo once the fight turns real.

Y'know, escrima emphasizes a variety of two-weapon fighting styles. And escrima is really not too far removed from a combat art. I really don't think it's that it's "hard." I just think that it's not been as historically effective as a shield.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

Y'know, escrima emphasizes a variety of two-weapon fighting styles. And escrima is really not too far removed from a combat art. I really don't think it's that it's "hard." I just think that it's not been as historically effective as a shield.

Fighting with two weapons isn't all that hard. The hard part is controlling them both at the same time with enough awareness of them both to make accurate strikes and remain ready to use them for defence.

It can be trained, sure. But that doesn't give you two independent sources of offence, since while you have two hands, you don't have the ability to focus on many things at once. At most, the weapons can be used to make a joint attack where each hand basically does the same thing, so the attention isn't divided too badly.

Most two weapon styles that I've seen performed are either pre-rehearsed art forms that would have limited battlefield utility or they actually alternate which weapon the user is focusing on. For example, boxing uses both hands to punch, but not at the same time.

[Dienekes]

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

The DR of shields range from 5 to 9, from the smallest to the largest.

I assume these are wooden shields (although leather or hide on a frame of wood or wicker seems an alternative.

But B558 lists wood (for doors and walls) to DR 1 per inch. and the "cover DR" table B559 lists even less, DR ½-1 per inch?

So why are shields that hardy?

This isn't much help since I can't recall enough of the post to do a decent search, but I do have a vague memory from the past three years, that I hope I'm not wrong about, of Kromm posting on the topic and mentioning playability as a factor; i.e., that it wouldn't be much fun to track damage and replace shields to the degree that strict realism might demand.

At least some of the discrepancy between shields and doors/walls, though, is explained by the shield's motion in combat. Not being fixed to anything solid, it deflects and gives way rather than absorbing all the energy of every blow.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Fighting with two weapons isn't all that hard. The hard part is controlling them both at the same time with enough awareness of them both to make accurate strikes and remain ready to use them for defence.

It can be trained, sure. But that doesn't give you two independent sources of offence, since while you have two hands, you don't have the ability to focus on many things at once. At most, the weapons can be used to make a joint attack where each hand basically does the same thing, so the attention isn't divided too badly.

All of that applies equally to shield use.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by aesir23

I beg to differ. Musashi's great fame and reputation rests almost entirely on his success as a duellist, I've heard little about his success as a soldier.

In that case, I suggest that instead of "hearing," you do a little reading. Not only was he a famed samurai duelist who fought other samurai, but he was an accomplished swordmaster and general with many students. He participated in a major military uprising, and ultimately died peacefully and was buried in his armor.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

All of that applies equally to shield use.

Indeed.

Which is why it's nice that a shield does something useful while being held passively. This is its great advantage over other secondary weapons and why I'd choose one over a knife or a mace any day.