Never thought I'd say: LARPers, I need you

[Janx]

Having a buckler or a dagger in your off-hand seems to have developed when swords got lighter.

the swashbuckling era so to speak. cut-and-thrust swords, basket hilts, stuff like that.

That stuff is worthless in the heavy sword era (longswords, etc) as a parried blow from them would pretty much carry through.

 

[Umbran]

Out of curiosity, what's everyone's opinion of this 5-minute reenactment & commentary? I don't have experience with battles of this size.

\

My experience is with the SCA. I've been in open field, bridge, and woods battles with hundreds of people on each side of the fight, as well as small-group (like in the film above) and one-on-one tournament fights.

That film isn't too bad. I'd add a couple of notes:

In the film, he notes that spears are really for group work. He's correct, but really, anyone who is alone against multiple opponents is in trouble. In a fight that small, yes, lodging your spear in the other guy's shield is a problem, as you lose your weapon. In a larger battle, the spears can get insanely long, and the spearmen are standing behind the guys with shields, and then sticking the spear in the shield is done to take down the shield, and allow the sword-and-board guy in front to get a hit. Cooperation matters!

That bunch had spears and shield and sword/handaxe and shield. But it didn't have any of what I'd call polearms (what I typically use). Polearms lack the reach of a full 12' long spear, but you really can't run up them like a spear, either.

They often used bucklers as well as daggers, which I don't really understand - I have a lot of trouble parrying or controlling my opponent's weapon with anything of that size, but historically I know it was done. Have you seen enough to say how it works?

My experience has bucklers as being, basically, a second weapon that is only useful for block/parry.

Note something - LARP combat often uses *any* touch is a hit, and your armor is damage reduction. The result is that everyone is extremely mobile, as you're not actually wearing armor.

Re-enactment fighting usually uses real armor - those guys in the film were probably wearing chainmail hauberks under the tabards - and something more like "any hit that I can feel through my armor enough that I really don't want you to hit me like that again" is a hit. In the SCA, it is basically "anything I can feel through the armor, almost any hit to the head, but face, hands, and below the knee are not valid targets".

So, a buckler in heavy-list combat isn't there to fully control the enemy's weapon. It is there to deflect *enough* so that you can call a hit "not enough".

No, it isn't, although I have found that a shield is a clear advantage when fighting against someone who has only one weapon. With two weapons (as you mention) it's possible to tie up the shield with your off-hand, but I'd prefer a sword and shield over two swords.

This is where each person's particular abilities come into play. I do better in single combat with my polearm than I do with a sword and shield.

 

[Dethklok]

This is where each person's particular abilities come into play. I do better in single combat with my polearm than I do with a sword and shield.

Interesting. How do you prevent a fighter tying up your polearm with his shield and rushing in?

 

[Umbran]

Interesting. How do you prevent a fighter tying up your polearm with his shield and rushing in?

Difficult to describe. But consider - with a sword or axe, you have one hand on your weapon, at one end, and your typical strike is with the arm fully extended. With a polearm, I have both hands on my weapon at all times, and a lot of haft to play with, and at least one of those hands is almost always close to my body - I have way more control and leverage on my polearm than a swordsman typically has on his weapon. Retracting it so the haft is in a posture to block is actually really easy.

There are disadvantages - when fighting two opponents, a guy with a shield or two weapons can block one, and attack the other, where that's not usually possible with a polearm - if I'm using the haft to block, I can't use the end to strike. I also don't often get to do "wrap shots", hitting the back of the helm or body of an opponent who has gotten in close.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Polearms- even those not designed to do so- are also pretty good tripping weapons.

 

[Bluenose]

Out of curiosity, what's everyone's opinion of this 5-minute reenactment & commentary? I don't have experience with battles of this size.

As teh narrator says, the group that lost cohesion first was in trouble. I've been in a few fights that size and larger - the Hastings re-enactment weekend often had them when the public aren't around - and that's something I'd expect. It's very hard to break up a solid formation that stays together, and attempting it on your own is a good way to get put out of the fight. Also, an attack from an unexpected direction, like that one spearman performed, is really hard to guard against. Not impossible, but really hard. Although a few people have such good awareness that it doesn't seem to work on them. One other thing it shows is just why ancient battles often have such one-sided casualty totals, because the beaten side really canbe cut down at very little risk by the winners.

They often used bucklers as well as daggers, which I don't really understand - I have a lot of trouble parrying or controlling my opponent's weapon with anything of that size, but historically I know it was done. Have you seen enough to say how it works? Some have claimed that the buckler was used simply as an extended handguard for the sword, but I don't think I'd want a dagger for this. The thing is that if you forget the off-hand, you can stand linearly and gain another 6" of reach; this is always the way I prefer to fight in a small skirmish.

I've tried it, but never really got the hang of it myself. I know someone who found it very good at deflecting thrusts and cuts from lighter weapons, and very handy at close quarters. In my experience it's too light to be fully effective parrying larger weapons, but given that it's certainly been used with/against some large swords I suspect there's a way of using it that we didn't uncover.

No, it isn't, although I have found that a shield is a clear advantage when fighting against someone who has only one weapon. With two weapons (as you mention) it's possible to tie up the shield with your off-hand, but I'd prefer a sword and shield over two swords.

Still, I do understand that a heavily armored warrior generally finds the shield an unnecessary encumbrance. Historically, shields faded away as armor improved, and it isn't hard to see that they must harm mobility in an adventuring context. After all, how does someone swing across chasms, swim through rivers, climb cliffs, or hurry through rough terrain with a big shield? I've never really gone tramping around pretending to rescue maidens from dragons, but from climbing slopes or getting buffeted against trees, I can say that adventurers would prize swords over spears and axes, since a sword is quite effective without a shield, and still leaves a person with good mobility.

I've climbed slopes with a shield, and it certainly does affect your balance. Enough that I wouldn't be willing to do so under melee attack if there was any choice. If you can use your weapon to help climb with it's a lot more effective, and then you can keep your shield raised as preotection from missiles, or at least the bean bags that were being thrown last time I tried it. I'm inclined to agree about swords as more effective than axes and spears if you haven't a shield, but I think that my vary depend on the exact technique being used with the spear as there are Asian fighting styles that use one two-handed as duelling weapons. And my personal opinion is that a poleaxe is more effective in single combat than a two-handed sword.

 

[Dethklok]

Difficult to describe. But consider - with a sword or axe, you have one hand on your weapon, at one end, and your typical strike is with the arm fully extended. With a polearm, I have both hands on my weapon at all times, and a lot of haft to play with, and at least one of those hands is almost always close to my body - I have way more control and leverage on my polearm than a swordsman typically has on his weapon. Retracting it so the haft is in a posture to block is actually really easy.

No I think I see that immediately. You can pull back your weapon faster and farther than an enemy can rush with his or her entire body, right? I imagine that it's the two handed grip that allows it - it's quite tough with a spear and shield. Mostly there I end up retreating a lot to keep an enemy at bay.

As teh narrator says, the group that lost cohesion first was in trouble.

OK, thanks. I've seen claims that seemed to disagree with the overall demonstration and dialogue there, such as "lines were only effective when people could lock their shields together," but these usually struck me as odd, and Nikolas' take on things in his video seems much more plausible.

 

[Umbran]

No I think I see that immediately. You can pull back your weapon faster and farther than an enemy can rush with his or her entire body, right?

Yes. That's if you can knock it aside in the first place - you have one arm on your shield or weapon, and have to commit a *lot* of force to get the polearm out of the way.

I imagine that it's the two handed grip that allows it - it's quite tough with a spear and shield. Mostly there I end up retreating a lot to keep an enemy at bay.

Also, the spear you're talking about is probably much longer than my polearm. So, one-handed, you have a leverage problem. In SCA combat, you'll never see anyone using a spear one handed, with a shield, for that very reason. If you have a shield, you have a one-handed weapon. If you have a spear, you're using it two-handed, and trying to stand behind a guy with a shield.

OK, thanks. I've seen claims that seemed to disagree with the overall demonstration and dialogue there, such as "lines were only effective when people could lock their shields together," but these usually struck me as odd, and Nikolas' take on things in his video seems much more plausible.

In my own experience, the larger the groups, the closer those shields need to be together. When you only have a handful of people on a side, you need maneuverability. But when you have hundreds - if your shield line were that sparse, the enemy would walk right through it.

Sometimes, one of my roles with a polearm in a large combat is to support a shield line. And I mean that quite literally - physically hold the shield men up. I'm not using the weapon to attack. I hold it horizontally, just under the shoulder blades of a few men in front of me, and I lean into them, so they *cannot* be pressed back.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The large melees that I have participated in usually start out pretty standard looking with each large group moving slowly and steadily towards each other- until about 20 yards from each other. Then both teams start moving quickly and to the right attempting to encircle or "wrap" the enemy and gain position behind them. It is very much like a chaotic swarm of birds. Whichever group can get around quicker usually wins.

After the initial swirl of death which leaves at least 60% of all combatants defeated, the fighting breaks into isolated pockets of two to four man teams roaming around seeking engagement with weaker teams.

It does get chaotic and there is quite an adrenaline rush at that moment when movement changes from a steady forward stomp into the blur of swirling melee even though the consequences of failure are only getting knocked down and eating a bit of dirt at worst.

Still, it is only combat as sport after all and just for fun.

 

[Jhaelen]

Imagine solidly embedding an axe or a 12' long spear into a shield - it drags the shield down, and in the case of the spear, can even hamper the shield-user's movement.

That's a tactic that actually works in the Runequest rpg. Does anyone know any other rpgs that do that?