ProfessorCirno said:
You know what
nobody brought onto the battle field? Duel wielding.
Also, it amuses me you talk about realistic midieval fighting and then use as an example...Star Wars
Again, you can bring your pick sticker out in war if you want. I think I'll keep my + one hundred against arrows and other enemies' attacks.
Caveat: I should mention that I've been training in Renaissance martial arts for the past 5 years. I also have studied the subject extensively including perusing both actual period manuals on the medieval martial arts and analyses of them by modern experts. I frequently give lessons on the subject, ranging from the mechanics of medieval weaponry to actual styles, to correcting misconceptions created by Hollywood. I can, if you'd like, provide citations for everything I've written.
If you actually read my post, you'll notice that I was using an effective real-world martial arts style (Escrima) to explain why two-weapon fighting with lightsabers would be
much easier than two-weapon fighting with swords. I was, essentially, explaining why the
Star Wars situation is the exception to the general rule.
You're right. In medieval (and renaissance) warfare, you generally carry either a weapon and a shield or a big, heavy, two-handed weapon. And, shocker, those are the weapons choices available to D&D fighters in Fourth Edition.
However, outside of warfare, a shield is encumbering, hard to carry, and not always as useful as you might think. For example, the renaissance style of backsword and buckler is terribly effective, both on a battlefield and off it. Bucklers are smaller than shields, easier to carry, and more maneuverable. It's not as good against unexpected attacks from multiple opponents, but most D&D combats are more like duels than warfare. A shield also impedes your vision in a way that a buckler (or defensive companion weapon) does not.
Most of the manuscripts we have on medieval fighting show surprisingly little shield work. For instance, Hans Talhoffer's seminal text on german martial arts has only two sections on using a full-sized shield, and both relate to judicial combat, not battlefield warfare. By contrast, the longsword (hand-and-a-half, remember...) is the focus of about half of the text. Contrary to popular belief, sword and buckler fighting did not originate in the Renaissance, but was used all across Europe from about the twelfth century onwards.
Basically, it comes down to this. Soldiers (and civilians) were always making tradeoffs between protection, mobility, and offense. In early times, when armor was rare or less effective, shields were more common. As armor improved, shield use declined. By the mid-to-late renaissance, many soldiers opted to forgo shields in favor of better offensive weaponry (like poleaxes and longswords), because their
armor alone offered sufficient protection.
In civilian use, a shield is bulky, being hard to carry and hard to bring to bear quickly when you're attacked. In response, people came up with the buckler - a light, maneuverable shield that offered many of the benefits without the drawbacks. However, when pressed, a dagger can be used as an off-hand (primarily defensive!) weapon. And it's even easier to carry than a buckler. Its secondary value as a surprise attack gives it a slight offensive edge over the buckler, but it's limited area means you lose out (a little) defensively.
When choosing real weapons, tradeoffs are the name of the game. However, as my swordmasters emphasize in their training, steel versus flesh is NOT a fair contest. If someone smashes you in the face with a buckler, unless you're lucky, you're (probably) only a few moments away from getting killed. It doesn't matter that you blocked your opponent's sword when he shoves a dagger through your ribs...and so on.
If Fourth Edition can instill some sense of the tradeoffs involved while still preserving the genre flexibility we're after in a fantasy setting, I'll consider it a success.
