A point about shields
Peter Connolly has ...
Peter Connolly has some info on this. The Roman scutum according to him was pretty heavy and strong by the standards of Viking shields.
Random question: ...
Random question: how heavy and how strong is a typical rectangular Roman Scutum circa 1st century AD? I'm kinda familar with the viking style shields and I get the impression that one cannot actually 'block' incoming blows with them, but instead has to actively swipe and parry with the shield in order to avoid shattering it. But when I look at those legion reenactments I see those guys block with their Scuta held in a stationary position as if they were made of titanium alloy?
Ah, excellent! ...
Ah, excellent! Thanks for the quick reply!
It stuck around for ...
It stuck around for a very long time. Indeed, smaller shields especially remained centre grip to the very end - hence 'swash and buckle' (bucklers are centre-grip). The main change was the disappearance of shields in general.
I have a question. ...
I have a question. Kites, heaters and onward all seem to be shown exclusively with enarmes. Bosses show up on kite shields but apparently they're just vestigal. With the Norman kite shields that makes a lot of sense, given the Norman's use of cavalry. But one would think that foot soldiers would want to keep the mobility of a centre-grip. So did the round, saxon style shield just stick around? Were there bossed, centre-grip kites & heaters? Or did everyone really just switch to arm straps?
You can punch with ...
You can punch with the edge of a center grip very easily. It is much harder to block a blow to your sword arm with an argive grip since you have to turn to face it. You will actually stumble more with an argive grip because the give in the center grip will absorb a large portion of the impact. With an argive grip, your arm absorbs all of the impact. Argive grip was better for formations and from horseback. A small argive shield can be used with a 2 handed weapon
Now the lower guard ...
Now the lower guard, I give you this one, it is actually more awkward with a two strap, but it's not as hard as you make it out to be on the video, while with a central hand you can just lower your whole arm to get into the right place, while with two straps you just have to curl your arm. Of course if you are using a small shield then it is just like you did too awkward, but if your capable enough you can just bend your knees a little without lowering your back and problem solved.
Ok second part: ...
Ok second part: Now the punching, you can do that on a two strap shield it's just a bit different, the central one is just a forward punch while on a two strap is more like an horizontal bash which has good and bad things, it does pack more punch than the central one, but leaves you a bit open, I personally prefer the horizontal bash but I guess it is more of personal preference. Ugh I hate being a blabber but there will be a third post.
I usually agree ...
I usually agree with most of your videos, that's not the case on this one. I do have some experience with shields. First of all, the central grip, your argument is kinda flawed because with two side grip you can actually accommodate your arm into the central piece and not only that makes it stiffer so if your getting a strong hit you will stumble less than a central grip. Not enough space, will continue on the next one.
With the strap the ...
With the strap the targe was supposedly used with a dirk (dagger) in the left hand.
Good points on the ...
Good points on the center grip. The Scottish targe has to typical off-set handle and arm strap, but when studying the fighting styles that we know about, (for instance Thomas Page) has the sword arm forward and the shield arm back, so much of the parrying is still done with the sword. I'm curious though when this handle style developed since Scottish targes typically sported that same boss indicative of a center grip.
incidentally ...
incidentally carrying a center grip shield on long marches is why celtic and roman soldiers wore their swords on the right hip, instead of the left hip. Having to extend your arm a few more centimeters so its not always knocking into your sword got very painful after a few hours.
One way is with an ...
One way is with an arm straight down by the side. Another is the same, but with the arm outside the shield and the shield inside-out. These only require the fingers to form a hook. Another is to pass a strap behind the handle and sling it over your shoulder. Some had fixings on the inside for a strap away from the handle.
How did soldiers ...
How did soldiers carry the center grip shield while marching? Curious because normally that's how soldiers spend most of their time, and that center grip looks awfully awkward for a long hike.
I would say that ...
I would say that the Argive grip gave considerably less manoeuvrability, and that the 'give' in a centre grip shield is positively useful.
Another question, ...
Another question, you seem to know a lot about this kind of stuff so I might as well get an opinion from an expert. Why didn't people use the argive grip for shields instead of the single center of gravity handle normaly seen on shields like the one from your video? Wouldn't it be better to have an argive grip on shields instead of the single handle since the argive grip would provide more maneuverability and stability than the center gravity handle?
Made it myself.
Made it myself.
Just wondering ...
Just wondering where did you get the shield we are seeing in the video, it looks cool and I really want one of those to add to my collection.
I have worn my ...
I have worn my greaves many times, and did not find them a burden in the slightest.
Metal greaves were ...
Metal greaves were actually pretty uncommon. They're about the most burdensome kind of armor to wear (besides a very heavy helm). They do tend to show up on warriors we know to have used cross-gripped shields (or no shields at all), fought on horseback, or both. Classical hoplites, late medieval knights, heavy cavalry of all kinds, etc. So yes, metal greaves protected against low strikes, and enabled the safe(r) use of shields that were inadequate for blocking them.
Not very. Plenty of ...
Not very. Plenty of centre-grip cavalry shields. Reins? What's wrong with just using your knees?
I always thought ...
I always thought that cross grip shields were for cavalry, the reasoning being that you could keep the shield ready with your hands at the reigns, with the extra point of connection. Also, it makes sense for the stance your in, defensively. How close am I?
you should do a ...
you should do a video about the idea that some warriors used the case to black i never researched this but id like to know if it was true
After sparing with ...
After sparing with a shield for some now, I disagree about low strikes. Low strikes are not attempted as often as you might think because many soldiers wore metal greaves that protected them well and you ran the risk of sticking your spear in the ground which could lead you open to an attack or dropping your spear. The feet were your only viable target but I doubt it was attempted very often. Also, low strikes may lead you to be stretched out too far when using a shorter weapon like a sword.
Yes, they did. But ...
Yes, they did. But abandoned for various reasons. Samurai didn't used shields because of many reason, the main reason was the bushido, so the samurai couldn't hide himself, plus, samurai carried to many weight already, and used two-hand weapons, even if they could, they probably would not use it. Resuming thing up, they didn't thought shield would have great utility to them. Maybe the main reason was some philosophic thing, like "if I strike first, they want strike me anyway."