European Knight vs Asian Samurai

[Hunter368]

Please don't get smart with me man. Actually, Mr Prizefighter, hand to hand - yes. I'm in the military, remember??? I usually go for a front or rear blood choke to end those though. I've fought guys bigger than me(which is most) and faster than me. I didn't necessarily lose when the guy was simply quicker than I was. USMC martial arts training is based upon being weighed down with gear, and not having much mobility. Now, that aside - with swords and armor - negative, I have no experience. Has anyone here, as a knight or samurai, engaged the opposite??? Stick and move - come on pal, sounds like someone watches too much sports center. This isn't two guys wearing glittery trunks and pretty gloves. With the evidence that soren brought up with the weight of Japanese swords - he ain't exactly running around naked with a Ka-Bar in his teeth. So this samurai will be able to avoid all blows, because his armor isn't sufficient, and his sword will not be able to absorb damage of the sort that a european sword could, so that is another strike. I don't buy the better trained argument, as the knighthoods were professional warriors as well. I don't believe that a samurai could withstand a heavy mounted knights' charge, even armed with a yari. There's a distinct difference between heavy and lighter cavalry. There's some credence to the bow, but let's say that since this samurai is the 2nd coming of Christ, this knight has high quality armor and the arrows are not too effective. The knight engages the samurai at close range, both are on horseback - how does this superhuman samurai defend against the Knights charge???

Hmmmm I don't remember getting smart with you.........thats not how I opperate. I would of thought you would of known that by now.....you have been here for a while. All I asked was if you actually ever fought hand to hand....not sure why you thought that was rude. If you took as rude I am sorry for that....it was not intended. Posting and emails often lose a person real intent......then it can be taken wrong way. (thats I why I put down, "just asking" trying not to be rude)

Prizefighter? Never called myself that, just have trained in full contact MMA for years. Unless someone actually has done that they don't realize some things.....training without full contact or just sparring is not the same. Fighting full contact round after round is extremely tiring no matter how good shape you are in.

I have reviewed and watched military hand to hand....yes.

You sparring with guys who have a speed difference than you will not be much difference in speed. Fighting someone wearing heavy platemail vs someone wearing padded armor is a much bigger difference in speed.

Samurai armor not being sufficeint is a matter of opinion, you are looking at armor from one point of view only........how thick it is and how much can it stop. Some armor was not made for that point.....it was made to be more mobile, flexible....able to protect vs slashing attacks....not vs piercing attacks. Knight armor was made to protect vs blunt and piercing attacks, of course it also protected vs slashing attacks. But it was built for major stopping power, I am sure you would agree. But of course, it came at a cost.....less mobility and much heavier.

I never argued about knights charging, I never argued about them fighting on horse back......someone else perhaps but not me. I agree with you on the calvary charge point. Western Knights charging was a nearly unstoppable thing force......unless you had polearms.

My point about Ali vs Foreman is still valid and a perfect example.

 

[Lucky13]

Isn't it just marvelous how much you can learn here....?? How about throw in a sympathetic Viking to stir things up a bit....

If it's one on one, wouldn't the longbow be useless then?

"A furore Normanorum, libera nos Domine" (From the fury of the north-men, God deliver us.)

 

[mkloby]

Fighting full contact round after round is extremely tiring no matter how good shape you are in.

Round after round - it's extremely tiring after a couple minutes!
Don't forget my point, though. We train wearing flaks and other equipment as well, where you are not marginally slower, but have a serious disability. Granted, we don't do much full contact without PPG, as there'd just be broken Marines laying around everywhere.

Hunter - sorry if I took it the wrong way. Must be all the banging heads going on lately here...

There are definitely some good arguments made here. One problem I have with the reasons for the samurai's victory is that the envisioned battle is one that capitalizes upon all the samurai's strengths and the knight's weaknesses. I'm guilty of that too, which is why I see the Knight crushing the samurai in a charge. I actually don't think you can say in any case "matter of factly" who would win.

Your points about armor are noted - obviously samurai armor was designed with a completely different goal in mind.

If mobility was all that mattered, Knights would not have been as successful as they had across centuries. They routinely routed armies of more mobile, lightly armed and armored troops. Of course there are situations where mounted Knights were at a huge disadvantage, and suffered defeats. Terrain and climate also have a lot to do with effectiveness as well.

 

[Hunter368]

Round after round - it's extremely tiring after a couple minutes!
Don't forget my point, though. We train wearing flaks and other equipment as well, where you are not marginally slower, but have a serious disability. Granted, we don't do much full contact without PPG, as there'd just be broken Marines laying around everywhere.

Hunter - sorry if I took it the wrong way. Must be all the banging heads going on lately here...

There are definitely some good arguments made here. One problem I have with the reasons for the samurai's victory is that the envisioned battle is one that capitalizes upon all the samurai's strengths and the knight's weaknesses. I'm guilty of that too, which is why I see the Knight crushing the samurai in a charge. I actually don't think you can say in any case "matter of factly" who would win.

Your points about armor are noted - obviously samurai armor was designed with a completely different goal in mind.

If mobility was all that mattered, Knights would not have been as successful as they had across centuries. They routinely routed armies of more mobile, lightly armed and armored troops. Of course there are situations where mounted Knights were at a huge disadvantage, and suffered defeats. Terrain and climate also have a lot to do with effectiveness as well.

My point about you and the other guy was this....you both were weighted down the same. Samurai and Knight are not.

I agree on horse back most likely Knight would win, on foot I would say Samurai would win. But you are right in a fight nothing is 100% going to happen the way it should.

No problem with the misunderstanding....it happens sometimes in this format. Not face to face I mean. All is good.

But to watch the two fight would be very cool.....everyone would have to agree on that.

 

[mkloby]

My point about you and the other guy was this....you both were weighted down the same. Samurai and Knight are not.

Sidenote - I meant one guy weighed down with his gear, the other "aggressor" is not. We're not weighted down the same.

I definitely agree the samurai has a better chance of success if both are dismounted.

 

[Matt308]

The samurai did have armour, though it was of protective value, it was more ornamental in nature and construction. A work of art really. Some versions consisted of bands of plate connected with leather and lacquered.

Commensurate with a Knight in platemail? Not hardly. But that was not the Samurai's game.

Whoever made the post that the outcome depends upon the scenario hit it upon the head. A single Knight vs a Samurai or Knights vs Samurai. The single combat goes to the Samurai all things being equal. The Knight is ill equipped to deal with a hard hitting but highly mobile fighter. But amassed and on horse. The Knight wins hands down.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Whoever made the post that the outcome depends upon the scenario hit it upon the head. A single Knight vs a Samurai or Knights vs Samurai. The single combat goes to the Samurai all things being equal. The Knight is ill equipped to deal with a hard hitting but highly mobile fighter. But amassed and on horse. The Knight wins hands down.

Thankyou, thankyou, you may leave your donations in the box at the front door. I will be here all week.

 

[lesofprimus]

Sir Gawain, Knight of Jerusalem, atop his mighty steed Fencer, bears down at a full gallop towards Ashikaga Takauji, Samurai Extroidinaire....

The Knight, glistening in his highly polished armor, screams a powerful yell, and with his lance, bears in on this pretty little Japanese man in his silly armor, his finely crafted and family heirloom broad sword ready at his hip.......

The Samurai smiles, lifts his war bow, and with a smile, launches his broadheaded arrow into the chest of Sir Gawain, who falls from Fencer in a heap of bent and twisted armor....

Shall I do the same commentary for a sword vs sword confrontation, or does this suffice enough to make my point???

 

[Matt308]

You paint such a lovely picture with your pretty words...

 

[mkloby]

Sir Gawain, Knight of Jerusalem, atop his mighty steed Fencer, bears down at a full gallop towards Ashikaga Takauji, Samurai Extroidinaire....

The Knight, glistening in his highly polished armor, screams a powerful yell, and with his lance, bears in on this pretty little Japanese man in his silly armor, his finely crafted and family heirloom broad sword ready at his hip.......

The Samurai smiles, lifts his war bow, and with a smile, launches his broadheaded arrow into the chest of Sir Gawain, who falls from Fencer in a heap of bent and twisted armor....

Shall I do the same commentary for a sword vs sword confrontation, or does this suffice enough to make my point???

Nice gesture, but I'm not happy with that explanation. Why are these two placed on opposite ends of a long flat plain? What if superman misses his mark? I'm not an archer(that just sounds ridiculous saying that) but I cannot imagine it would be a free throw to hit a charging Knight, especially at longer distances.

Now, let's assume this Knight has very well made armor, and the arrow does not pierce. What does he do now, since his only hope for victory was a mortal wound at extremely close range. Oh, he's going to be John Deered... that's what

Here's another thing to think about - knights were also trained in archery... but European armies employed separate ranks. Also, if falling a Knight was as simple as that, why were there Knights at all? Why weren't there just armies comprised solely of archers?

Excellent prose, by the way.

 

[Matt308]

mkloby, do you really think that the Wiki defined (45lbs? yeah right) of plain jane 13th century steel is going to protect against a great bow? No offense buddy, have you shot a bow? Likely the quote of 45lbs of plate is for the PLATE only. Underneath you have your chainmail or ringmail fastenings. These tunics add a huge amount of weight. This is why in medieval time squires were required for those knights in full plate. Once they had fallen, they literally could not get up because of weight and encumbrance.

Now 45lbs of plate spread across a full body armour cannot possible have resulted in plate of significant thickness to stop an arrow from piercing. For example, a 70# bow shooting 290 fps with an arrow weight of 420 grains will give you about 78 ft-lb of energy. While this may seem insignificant, consider that the arrow tip is extremely sharp. Thus this kinetic energy is pressing upon a surface area of plate about...what 1/4inch thick? 1/3inch thick maybe? of non-hardened steel. That arrow is going to penetrate.

As noted, the scenario set up is key. A hack for hack between the two is no competition. The samurai will lose everytime. But if there is an engagement distance, the samurai would out maneuver him everytime...all things equal.

 

[lesofprimus]

Anyone remember The Highlander, where Macleod and his Katana match up with The Kurgan and his broad sword???

 

[mkloby]

mkloby, do you really think that the Wiki defined (45lbs? yeah right) of plain jane 13th century steel is going to protect against a great bow? No offense buddy, have you shot a bow? Likely the quote of 45lbs of plate is for the PLATE only. Underneath you have your chainmail or ringmail fastenings. These tunics add a huge amount of weight. This is why in medieval time squires were required for those knights in full plate. Once they had fallen, they literally could not get up because of weight and encumbrance.

Now 45lbs of plate spread across a full body armour cannot possible have resulted in plate of significant thickness to stop an arrow from piercing. For example, a 70# bow shooting 290 fps with an arrow weight of 420 grains will give you about 78 ft-lb of energy. While this may seem insignificant, consider that the arrow tip is extremely sharp. Thus this kinetic energy is pressing upon a surface area of plate about...what 1/4inch thick? 1/3inch thick maybe? of non-hardened steel. That arrow is going to penetrate.

As noted, the scenario set up is key. A hack for hack between the two is no competition. The samurai will lose everytime. But if there is an engagement distance, the samurai would out maneuver him everytime...all things equal.

Come on, when did I ever quote wiki!? Seriously! All I said was that soren's quoted article I found to have been slightly below other estimates, which usually range in at about 60lbs for plate armor. You are right, however, on added weights of other items. I'm not sure about your claim that they had to be lifted if felled. I've fallen with over 100lbs of gear(many times, I might add), and my little butt could still get up. Also - did you notice the part where I said I'm not an archer and commented on how silly that sounded??? Could I have been more clear?

Anyway - by the 1400's plate armor was made produced of hardened steel. With flutes and contours, it was not as simple as cutting through butter. Experiments that I have seen in the past have shown the difficulty of the longbow, in particular, of penetrating this high quality hardened steel.

Also - if the effectiveness of these arrows against armor was such as stated, why would Knights still have been employed in combat???

 

[Glider]

All
I have been reviewing the book my son has re the Longbow and its penetration. In the UK a Medieval Warship has been raised and inside were hundreds of perfectly preserved Longbows from Henry VIII's time.
Tests showed that the pull of these bows was up to 140 lb but most were in the 90-120 area.
The tests were undetaken by experts in the era with staff from the Royal Ordnance and compared with other tests from well know experts such as the Royal Armories. I quote
We may conclude with reasonable safety that even at a range of 240 yards heavy war arrows shot from poundages in the mid to upper ranges of those found on the Mary Rose would have been capable of killing or severely wounding a equipped with armour of wrought iron.
Higher quality steel would give considerably greater protection.

Later the book goes into detail about the better armour and generally a hit to the body would be very unlikely to penetrate until you get down to around 33f
which is close enough for anyone.
But and its a big But the British archers were well aware of this and aimed for the face.
I quote some examples from the book
At Poitiers the French noted that the Men at Arms of King Jean's division were thrown into confusion by vollys of arrows shot at their heads.
At Crecy Phillip VI was wounded by an arrow to the jaw
King David II of Scotland was badly wounded by two hits to the face
Henry VI was wounded by an arrow to the face in 1403
In 1356 the French Lord the Bastard of L'Isle (don't you love that name) was slain by an arrow that went through his head.

All the above would have had the finest armour available at the time which is why they were quoted.
As for range these aren't quoted but if it helps I would certainly be able to hit a head at 40 -50 yards with most of my arrows and have no doubt that a trained archer of the time would better that. I use a one piece wooden bow without any mod cons. It isn't a Longbow but its close.

Small point about Knight being trained in the use of a Longbow. They were but wouldn't come close to the ability of the foot archer and wouldn't be able to handle a true warbow. The foot bowmen were trained from a very early age and graduated to a warbow. Such were the forces on their bodies the bones in the left arm became thicker than the bones in the right arms (assuming you are right handed).
Even if they wanted to take a bow onto the field to hit the horses can you imagine trying to fight with a sword, shield, lance, wacking great longbow and arrows. It isn't going to happen.

 

[mkloby]

Excellent info Glider...

May I ask - how easy would it be for you to mash the face of a Knight at full charge on horseback? Serious question - what do you think your odds would be? As Matt so lovingly brought up again - I'm not an Archer

I would seem to think that they could not be too great; it doesn't seem to be an extremely common occurrence... I can't recall any epics of gallant charges of Knights all felled at close range by headshots... especially since at that range after that shot your about to be bulldozed into hamburger or turned into pink mist.

 

[Lucky13]

As in man to man gentlemen, weren't the knights most of the time NOT all the time armed with more than one weapon? I remember seen sometime a medium sized battle axe hanging on their side. Or am I wrong? What about shields? Another thing, they been a Knight, it's probably not the first time that they're wearing armour so they're probably used to dance around in it, with fellas in the same size as them and not not half pint sized men in silly looking hats...

 

[Soren]

Well I am for one with Mkloby on this one.

As to the longbow and its penetrative abilities, well a typical longbow of the time could be pulled to around 160 -175 lbf, which is pretty powerful, enough power for an armor-piercing style arrow-head to penetrate thin plate armour at 100m - HOWEVER tests have been carried on english arrow-heads of the medieval period, and what was found was that all of them were of considerably lower metallurgical quality than the plate armor of the time, and they would simply bend or flatten out on impact with the plate armour with no penetration. And as to the famous incident at Agincourt where hundreds of french knights were mowed down by english longbowmen, well actually they weren't, it turns out that it was the muddy clay field on which the battle took place that spelled doom for the french knights. The clay'ish soil of the field created a vacuum when'ever a flat surface came in contact with it, a knight taking a step for example, which made it very hard to walk in - and if you fell over and your flat armor came in contact with the soil then you could forget about getting up again cause you were in effect sucked tight to the ground. Thats how an entire army of french nobles were defeated by English longbowmen.

And as to even the strongest longbow even being capable of partially penetrating a great-helm, well thats a big NO, it wasn't even close. Even a two handed war-axe has great trouble against the great-helm, it would sooner break the guys neck before it ever penetrates the helm.

Now lets hear what John Clements has to say on the subject of the traditions, physiology and armor of each warrior:

"The Warriors

We can reasonably assume that the personal attributes such as individual strength, speed, stamina, age, health, and courage, are fairly consistent between such professional warriors. Assuming we can somehow control for these attributes, we could match combatants with some equality. It would not be unrealistic to believe on a whole that neither was likely decisively stronger or faster than the other. Although, we can't discount physiology as a factor and this reasonably would be an advantage for the European (16th century samurai armor examples are sized for men around 5'3"-5'5", while European armor from the same period and earlier would fit men ranging from just under 6' to about 6'5"). Interestingly, while the European concept of physical fitness among knights by the 15th century emphasized the classical Greco-Roman youthful physique of a narrow waist and broad shoulders on a lean frame, the Japanese ideal was one of a more mature man having a wider base and broader middle –no doubt reflecting the natural ethnographic characteristics of each race, but also influencing the fighting techniques they employed. To what degree this occurred is worth contemplating.

We might also want to consider the forms of warfare each swordsman was experienced in and focused upon. The early samurai engaged in a ritualized style of warfare where individual champions might fight separate battlefield duels following established protocols, as opposed to a later mounted archery style of combat amidst pike formations of lesser foot soldiers. Their clan warfare was decidedly feudalistic yet with acquiring and honor and renown also being a goal. Skirmishing was not also uncommon and there were a few large scale military expeditions to Korea and surrounding islands. But most combat occurred in the environment of the home islands.

Whereas in contrast, knights emphasized mounted shock warfare with couched lances, and off the field a concern for chivalric and judicial duels as well as tournaments of all kinds. The Western way of war for knights was directed more at a traditional battle of annihilation as part of an overall campaign of conquest. Yet, individual challenges, whether to the death or not, were frequent. Knightly arms and armor were the result of a dynamic interaction of Latin, Celtic, and Germanic cultures as well as Turkish and Arabic influences. The environment knights fought under was extensive and diverse, ranging from the cold of Scandinavia to the deserts of the Middle East, from the plains of Western Europe to the deep forest of the East, and the swamps, fields, and mountains in between. There is also no question that athleticism, physical fitness and conditioning were integral parts of knightly chivalric virtue as considerable literary and iconographic evidence from the period testifies.

We cannot overlook the role that culture might play in this contest. Samurai warriors existed in a hierarchical and conformist culture that rewarded obedience and loyalty over individuality. Knights existed in a more complex and fluid society that emphasized self-expression with a long tradition of reliance on individual initiative. Both cultures had experience fighting against outsiders and foreigners: the Europeans encountered the Turks, Mongols, Saracens, and others; the Japanese encountered the Koreans, Chinese, Mongols, and others. Thus, in considering the historical record on cross-cultural collisions in different locations, would we want to give the edge to the more socially diverse Europeans on this?

On an individual basis then, we must consider what effect might be played by the quality of fatalism within the samurai code of bushido, or rather the resolute acceptance of death that motivated the fiercest samurai. But then, we cannot overlook the quality of piety and faith that could motivate a noble knight to great feats, or of the ideals of chivalry that he might uphold to the death. It's possible a Medieval European knight would have a certain disdain and scorn for his foreign, "pagan" adversary. Of course, the Japanese warrior's well-known attitude of proud invincibility and readiness to die for his lord could equally make him vulnerable to an unfamiliar foe. Contempt for life and contempt for a dangerous, unknown opponent you might underestimate can be a disastrous combination. While courage is important, fighting spirit alone is insufficient. There are surely intangibles here that we cannot be measured with any reliability. These and other non-quantifiable, psychological factors aside, we are left with weapons, armor, and training. "

 

[Soren]

The Armor

Armor changes things in swordplay. If you've never trained in it, you can't imagine how it affects your movements and execution of even simple actions. It has been said that while Europeans designed their armor to defeat swords, the Japanese designed their swords to defeat armor. There is a certain truth to this, but it's a simplistic view. The better Japanese armor was constructed of small overlapping lacquered metal scales or plates tied together with silk cords in order to specifically resist the slicing cut of the katana. It allowed good freedom of movement while offering excellent protection. But if it got wet, the silk cords soaked up water and it became terribly heavy. Though the earliest styles of samurai armor were designed with large square plates more as a defense against arrows, the later forms were intended primarily to be used by and against similarly equipped swordsmen and to lessen the tremendous cutting capacity of their swords. It was durable, effective, and provided for ample movement. But how would it hold up to the stabs of a narrowly pointed knightly sword? This is an important question.

Medieval European armor was designed and shaped more to deflect strikes and absorb blunt force blows from lances and swords. A knight's armor varied from simple byrnies of fine riveted maile ("chainmaile") that could absorb slices and prevent cuts, to well-padded soft jackets, and metal coats-of-plates which were designed equally to protect from concussion weapons as penetrating thrusts. Maile armor existed in numerous styles and patterns but arguably reached its zenith in 15th century Western Europe, where closely-woven riveted links could resist any drawing slice as well as being proof against many slashes and thrusts from swords. Maile of such equivalent was not used in Japan.

A complete suit of fully articulated rigid plate-armor, which has been described as unequaled in its ingenuity and strength, was nearly resistant to sword blows and required entirely different specialized weapons to effectively defeat it. With its tempered steel and careful curved fluting it was just invulnerable to sword cuts-even, it can be surmised, those of the exceptionally sharp katana (some high-ranking 16th century samurai lords actually owned pieces of contemporary European armor, gifts and purchases which they even wore into battle -they did not prize them merely as exotica). Plate-armor for foot combat was well-balanced, maneuverable, and sometimes even made of tempered steel. It was well-suited for fighting in, and is far from the awkward, lumbering cliché presented by Hollywood. Unless you've worn accurate well-made plate of this kind, it is impossible to really know how it influenced the way a knight would move.

Without the necessary weapons designed intentionally to face and defeat plate armor, any fighter armed with a sword alone would have difficulty (katana or not). Indeed, full European plate armor with maile might very well damage the keen edge on particularly fine katanas. After all, we should not forget that despite the katana's vaunted cutting ability, the samurai were able to successfully rely on their armors as defense against it. There is every reason to imagine knightly armor would have been just as, if not more, effective. If we therefore assume the armors to be more evenly matched, say maile and partial plate for the knight as used around 1250, things would get more interesting. However, the samurai did often carry an excellent thick dagger which would have been quite useful. Curiously, each warrior was highly skilled in using their respective armor-piercing daggers and with close-in grappling (something not generally known about actual knightly fencing skills)."

 

[Soren]

"The Shield

We must consider whether the knight in this hypothetical duel will be armed in the familiar shield and short sword style or will use only a single long-sword? If armed with a shield, we must ask what kind? Will the knight employ a center-gripped type with front umbo or one worn by enarme straps? Will the shield be the highly effective "kite" shape with its superb defense or one of the smaller, more maneuverable convex "heater" styles? How about a thick steel buckler (a fist-gripped hand shield)?

There's a reason virtually every culture developed hand-held shields for close-combat and why they continued to be used literally for thousands of years. They were very effective. In 15th century Europe, it was only the combination of the development of full plate armor and two-handed swords combined with heavy pole-arms and powerful missile weapons that finally reduced the long reigning value of the shield in warfare. The Medieval style of sword and shield fighting is distinctly different from the two-hand grip and quick full-arm slashing cuts of Kenjutsu. Medieval short swords are properly wielded with more of a throw of the arm and a twist of the hips while making passing steps forward or back. Strikes are thrown from behind the shield while it simultaneously guards, feints, deflects, or presses. A sword and shield is a great asset over a single sword alone. Fighting with sword and shield offers a well-rounded and strong defense that safely permits a wide range of both direct and combination attacks.

A sword can cut quite well from almost all angles around or underneath a shield. Indeed, since the shield side is so well guarded, the opponent is the one limited to attacking to only one side –the non-shield side. While a large shield does indeed close off a tremendous amount of targets to an attacker, it also limits, to a far smaller degree, freedom to attack by the shield user. As it comes out from behind their shield to strike, an attacker's weapon can be counter-timed and counter-cut –and this is indeed one tactic to employ against a shield user. Yet a shield user's attacks are not at all one sided. A shield can be used offensively in a number of ways and at very close range.

Katanas are powerful swords used with strong techniques, but thinking they could simply cleave through a stout Medieval shield is absurd. Even with a katana a shield cannot simply be sliced through. Medieval shields were fairly thick wood covered in leather and usually trimmed in metal. Not only that, they were highly maneuverable, making solid, shearing blows difficult. More likely, a blade would be momentarily stuck in the rim if it struck too forcefully. Unlike what is seen in the movies, or described in heroic literature, chopping into a shield's edge can temporarily cause the sword blade to wedge into the shield for just an instant and thereby be delayed in recovering or renewing an attack (and exposing the attacker's arms to a counter-cut). Shields without metal rims were even favored for this very reason.

Kenjutsu (Japanese swordsmanship), though consisting of very effective counter-cutting actions, also has no real indigenous provisions for fighting shields. Although a skilled warrior could certainly improvise some, those unfamiliar with the formidable effectiveness and versatility of a sword and shield combination will have a hard time. The shield was not used the way typically shown in movies, video games, stage-combat, or historical role-playing organizations such as the SCA. Fighting against a Medieval shield is not simply a matter of maneuvering around it or aiming blows elsewhere. If a warrior does not really know the shield, or hasn't faced a good shield fighter, then they cannot be expected to know how to ideally fight against it.

"

 

[Lucky13]

Great read! Keep it coming Soren!