On Tuesday 26 January 2010, you wrote: |
But why would your sword make him move, unless it creates a significant threat even on an armoured spot? |
I believe that the defender must respond because, contrary to some of the assertions made earlier in this thread, I don't think that a combatant under these conditions can afford to neglect attacks against unarmored regions such as the face and, very often, much of the arms and legs. It's the perception of threat that's the key here, whether or not the attacker may be able to hit a particular target at any specific moment. To avoid the risk of potentially disabling injury the defender must react, unless he's certain that the adversary cannot hit his target. After that, it's a question of skill in combat. I'm certainly not willing to guarantee that even a very convincing attack with the sword to, for example, the face between the helmet and the shield will inevitably result in the defender's acting in such a way as to leave himself immediately vulnerable to a shield-strike.
Quote: |
I agree that the shield is also good at impacts, but it does not reach as far, and is probably slower therefore less deceptive than the sword. I'm all for treating the shield as a weapon but not so much that the sword becomes reputedly useless as long as there is a bit of armour involved... |
I'm hardly arguing that the sword is useless. I'm suggesting that the idea of using it deliberately to deliver impact damage against armored--mailed or helmeted--portions of an adversary is unlikely to reflect historical practice. I'm also arguing that the shield is probably a superior device for the delivery of impact damage. And finally, I'm arguing that in order to make such a system work, the sword and shield need to be used as complements to each other. Regrettably, these issues don't lend themselves to instant clarity. How, for example, do you envision the shield-strike being made? I imagine a thrust with the shield's leading edge. And as I'm talking about early-medieval round, center-grip shields and the swords contemporary with them ("Viking" swords), I also envision a situation in which the majority--I'd venture to say the great majority--even of well-equipped combatants who own mail don't enjoy coverage of the arms below the elbows or the legs below the knees; and in general, actually, I'd argue for somewhat less coverage than that.
I know that there will be exceptions to all generalizations, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the generalizations, if those generalizations are well founded and if the limits of the situations to which they're meant to apply are understood. You are, naturally, free to disagree with my premises or the conclusions I draw from them. For my part, I'll continue to believe that attacks with the early-medieval sword against mail or helmets are likely to be ineffective and thus likely to have been avoided by historical combatants.
Quote: |
Regards, |
Best,
Mark Millman