Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dethklok" data-source="post: 6251418" data-attributes="member: 6746469">Out of curiosity, what's everyone's opinion of this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixm6sXe1TYE" target="_blank">5-minute reenactment & commentary</a>? I don't have experience with battles of this size.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification