PDA

View Full Version : Exactly how silly is two-shield fighting?



Ashtagon
2013-06-04, 07:21 AM
It was never done in earnest where life was on the line. Or at least, I don't know of any documented cases.

So... LARP? Has anyone seen or taken part in a LARP activity in which someone "fought" with two shields? How did it work out?

Are there any other ways that a reasonable test could be done to see how reasonable it would be at a realistic level?

Rhynn
2013-06-04, 07:48 AM
Completely silly. You're just stalling for time until you get hit, because your opponent is wielding a weapon. You might be able to do this for a while, although the shields (depending on size) would get in each others' way: while you can block high and low (the big problem with shields being that if you block high, you're going to get hit in the leg, which is why medieval battleground corpses have so many leg wounds), you can't easily defend both on one side.

Meanwhile, you've got crap for reach (good luck against a spear, in particular), you're unlikely to deal out real injuries (especially if your opponent is wearing padded mail and a helm, or even just quilt), you're really just waiting to screw up and get hurt and/or killed. I guess your one chance is to edge-slam your opponent's weapon arm and then throat, but I'd put your odds at 10:1 or worse.

There's a reason people did not fight with two shields (although I wouldn't be surprised if someone did so in a judicial duel somewhere; but someone also fought one of those up to his armpits in a hole). Combat techniques had a very harsh testing method: if it didn't work, you died.

Spiryt
2013-06-04, 07:52 AM
Depending on particular shields used and their configuration, it would go from completely idiotic to barely useful, I guess.

So one could have one, large, shield to mainly protect oneself, and lighter, more maneuverable one, for example. To deflect strikes punch people, hit them with rant.

The question is 'what the hell for?'. :smallbiggrin:

Jay R
2013-06-04, 08:21 AM
I have no evidence that anybody ever fought with two shields. But I can show you a two-handed shield, from Talhoffer (http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~zend-bsb/grafik-drehen.php?id=00020451&image=bsb00020451_00157.jpg&grad=270)(1400s German manual)

Dienekes
2013-06-04, 09:06 AM
I have no evidence that anybody ever fought with two shields. But I can show you a two-handed shield, from Talhoffer (http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~zend-bsb/grafik-drehen.php?id=00020451&image=bsb00020451_00157.jpg&grad=270)(1400s German manual)

Yes but that was specifically a gentlemanly duel weapon, and not meant for an actual battlefield.

valadil
2013-06-04, 09:19 AM
I think it serves a purpose. If there's a character who needs to be protected give then two shields to hide behind. I think game rules should support this. But if you're talking about using them offensively I'll pass.

imaloony
2013-06-04, 09:25 AM
Well, while the opponent is busy wetting themselves with laughter you can step in and push their nose in with a well-placed bash, so I'd say it works quite well.

Spiryt
2013-06-04, 09:38 AM
I think it serves a purpose. If there's a character who needs to be protected give then two shields to hide behind. I think game rules should support this. But if you're talking about using them offensively I'll pass.

This is actually interesting part - aside from the fact that shield bonuses wouldn't stack in Dungeon's & Dragons 3.5, I wonder how feasible would it be 'realistically'.

Theoretically it's one shield more to hide behind, but in practical use it would probably be way more sensible to concentrate on wielding one shield... Instead of flailing around with two arms encumbered, and occupied.

BWR
2013-06-04, 09:54 AM
VIBROSHIELDS!
(http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Vibroshield?file=KarVastor.JPG)
More seriously, the Rules Cyclopedia had knife, horned, tusked and sword shields that allowed you to do damage with off-hand attacks. Updating them to 3.x shouldn't be too hard, then you'd have weapons that can either serve as shields or shields that serve as weapons.

Rules for two weapons and shield bashes were a bit different in those days, but it might be fun to try.

Incanur
2013-06-04, 09:56 AM
Wielding two bucklers - especially spiked bucklers (http://www.thearma.org/essays/SandB/Gladiatoria112.jpg) - might not be terrible for a street fight. Anything larger strikes me as excessive.

As a side note, I'd buy the one-shield or dueling-shield style for an extraordinary hero. The shield is dangerous enough that superior stats and skill would make it more than a match for swords, spears, etc.

jindra34
2013-06-04, 10:13 AM
Not exactly silly for smaller shields, but highly impractical. Namely because the main advantage of a second shield over a gauntlet free hand or simply metal stick is more surface area with which to obstruct with (at the cost of less options), but if your wielding two shields small enough to avoid fouling them up with each other (and thus making your guard worse) your going to end up with relatively small surface area, and would thus be better to moving to a singular large shield and something else.

JusticeZero
2013-06-04, 10:37 AM
Shields cover the area you want to protect. You can't really cover that twice and get any benefit. Nobody used two shields because there was no point. Offensive use of the shield is only to set up a weapon.

The Succubus
2013-06-04, 11:00 AM
Actually, with a simple modification, I could see shields being highly effective weapons.

First off, you want your shields to be bucklers or slightly larger. Towers are right out. A spike in the centre of each buckler would give you an extra bit of damage when you "slap" with the shield. The crucial bit to make 2 shield fighting work - give each shield a sharpened edge. The shields would allow one shield to slice at your opponent, while allowing the other to defend. Stances and movement would be absolutely critical to making it work, in addition to very lightweight shields.

Spiryt
2013-06-04, 11:03 AM
Offensive use of the shield is only to set up a weapon.

Or to violently wham it's center, or rim, into the opponent.

But it's indeed mostly possible with one arm at time, horribly challenging to really worthily utilize with 'normal' two weapons. With two shields... not really.


A spike in the centre of each buckler would give you an extra bit of damage when you "slap" with the shield. The crucial bit to make 2 shield fighting work - give each shield a sharpened edge. The shields would allow one shield to slice at your opponent, while allowing the other to defend. Stances and movement would be absolutely critical to making it work, in addition to very lightweight shields.

Well, no real way, see above.

Everything one could possibly achieve with two 'edged' shields, one can achieve with one, and has one arm free for much more logical purposes.

neonchameleon
2013-06-04, 11:07 AM
It was never done in earnest where life was on the line. Or at least, I don't know of any documented cases.

So... LARP? Has anyone seen or taken part in a LARP activity in which someone "fought" with two shields? How did it work out?

Are there any other ways that a reasonable test could be done to see how reasonable it would be at a realistic level?

The big question, as already mentioned, is what are you meant to do with two shields? You've no reach and no serious offensive weapon (yes, shields were used more offensively than commonly thought (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc) - but a genuine weapon is needed for the kill). It's a pure defensive option, making the wielder a near irrelevance.

On the other hand there are times I can see it being useful. Bodyguarding. Advancing under a rain of arrows. Smashing through a shield wall to disrupt it. But these are all specialist circumstances and when the combat is joined you want a weapon that can actually kill your enemy in one hand. Otherwise they can more or less take you apart at their leisure.

Scow2
2013-06-04, 12:00 PM
To solve the Reach issue - enchant it with the Throwing property. You can throw one while bashing with the other. Bonus points for painting them Red, White, and Blue.

Remember - use a center, not cross, -grip shield. Those have better reach, mobility, flexibility, and deflecting ability. You can fend off enemies from each side - depending on the shape of the shield, even more. If you're shields are shiny, you can look snazzy doing it. Get in a formation with other confused turtles, spike your boots so you can trample+kill, then surge into the middle of an enemy formation and spread out from there. They can't do a damn thing about you because you have shields in ALL their faces.

Ashtagon
2013-06-04, 12:17 PM
To solve the Reach issue - enchant it with the Throwing property. You can throw one while bashing with the other. Bonus points for painting them Red, White, and Blue.

Remember - use a center, not cross, -grip shield. Those have better reach, mobility, flexibility, and deflecting ability. You can fend off enemies from each side - depending on the shape of the shield, even more. If you're shields are shiny, you can look snazzy doing it. Get in a formation with other confused turtles, spike your boots so you can trample+kill, then surge into the middle of an enemy formation and spread out from there. They can't do a damn thing about you because you have shields in ALL their faces.

If you have to use magic to make it work, it's silly. Sorry.

I started this thread to specifically ask about it's realistic application. Anything can be made to work with enough magic thrown at it.

Also, I rather suspect spiked shoes aren't going to be effective melee weapons in a fight where the opposition are using warhammers and the like (aka. "real weapons").

Scow2
2013-06-04, 01:22 PM
If you have to use magic to make it work, it's silly. Sorry.

I started this thread to specifically ask about it's realistic application. Anything can be made to work with enough magic thrown at it.

Also, I rather suspect spiked shoes aren't going to be effective melee weapons in a fight where the opposition are using warhammers and the like (aka. "real weapons").

The only magic is needed for going Double-Captain America. You don't need it to punch people in the face with a single-grip shield. Your shields are your weapons. By the time you're bringing your spiked shoes into the equation, the enemy is stunned, battered, and trampled under the unstoppable advance of Confused Turtles. Knock them down with your shield, keep them down with your boots.

Ashtagon
2013-06-04, 01:28 PM
The only magic is needed for going Double-Captain America. You don't need it to punch people in the face with a single-grip shield. Your shields are your weapons. By the time you're bringing your spiked shoes into the equation, the enemy is stunned, battered, and trampled under the unstoppable advance of Confused Turtles. Knock them down with your shield, keep them down with your boots.

Videos or it didn't happen. I'm after realistic data, not herofests. Practically speaking, any real weapon is going to have a couple of feat of extra reach beyond any hand-held shield. That's pretty decisive on its own; it's like bringing a butter knife to a swordfight.

Scow2
2013-06-04, 01:38 PM
Videos or it didn't happen. I'm after realistic data, not herofests. Practically speaking, any real weapon is going to have a couple of feat of extra reach beyond any hand-held shield. That's pretty decisive on its own; it's like bringing a butter knife to a swordfight.

But I'd say "Knife to a swordfight" isn't fair to the shielders - a knife doesn't have an extra 5-10 lbs and fist-reinforcement to improve the force of your blows, and is too easy to knock away because of its complete lack of any guard or mass. Reach isn't the only factor in combat, and the surface area of a shield can negate a lot of the linear advantages of a weapon's length. It's more like bringing two shields to a swordfight.

Ashtagon
2013-06-04, 01:40 PM
But I'd say "Knife to a swordfight" isn't fair to the shielders - a knife doesn't have an extra 5-10 lbs and fist-reinforcement to improve the force of your blows, and is too easy to knock away because of its complete lack of any guard or mass. Reach isn't the only factor in combat, and the surface area of a shield can negate a lot of the linear advantages of a weapon's length. It's more like bringing two shields to a swordfight.

So show me a video that demonstrates how two shields are actually viable.

Scow2
2013-06-04, 01:44 PM
So show me a video that demonstrates how two shields are actually viable.None exist, because hollywood and documentaries have overlooked two-shielding tactics used historically, and I have neither the camera, physique, nor friends capable of demonstrating. Unfortunately, those who historically did use two shields didn't have cameras either (Or if they did, none of the videos survived to the modern age)

Spiryt
2013-06-04, 01:47 PM
None exist, because hollywood and documentaries have overlooked two-shielding tactics used historically, and I have neither the camera, physique, nor friends capable of demonstrating. Unfortunately, those who historically did use two shields didn't have cameras either (Or if they did, none of the videos survived to the modern age)

Uh, I thought we're talking theoritically...

What "historical users of two shields" you have in mind?
What had been 'overlooked'?

Cause I've never heard about it.

What sources mention it?

If we could see this, this would be very interesting.

Scow2
2013-06-04, 01:49 PM
Uh, I thought we're talking theoritically...

What "historical users of two shields" you have in mind?
What had been 'overlooked'?

Cause I've never heard about it.

What sources mention it?

If we could see this, this would be very interesting.

And he is demanding video proof of theory.

AmberVael
2013-06-04, 01:53 PM
How silly is two-shield fighting? Well, in my experience, very silly.

The only time I've seen it was in a D&D game. And that game ended up getting very silly indeed. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/Li_Kenta/RequestJ2.jpg) :smalltongue:


(Sorry, nothing useful to contribute here, I just couldn't resist posting a related silly picture.)

Rhynn
2013-06-04, 02:09 PM
None exist, because hollywood and documentaries have overlooked two-shielding tactics used historically

Wait, what?

Links?

Ashtagon
2013-06-04, 02:12 PM
And he is demanding video proof of theory.

Who is he?

As regards evidence, I certainly don't expect to see video evidence dating back beyond 1880 or so. I'm not completely silly.

However, there are numerous historical texts on western (and other) martial arts, many of which have been studied. And then tested in schools that teach armed melee combat. If there were truly a viable historical combat technique that involved two-shield fighting, it would have been written about, and the books would have been studied later on in our video-enabled age.

Failing actual historical evidence, if it were marketable, I am sure Hollywood or Mumbai or Hong Kong or Cairo (yeah, all major cinema centres; don't be so ethnocentric) or any other world leader in cinematography would have done something featuring it. You seem to acknowledge than none have.

Failing even that, there are active LARP communities in many places. If it were viable, perhaps one of those groups would have tried it and videod it. Certainly, they've done videos of most other combat styles, and they have supplies of shields.

jindra34
2013-06-04, 02:50 PM
Its not an impossible or obstructive tactic. It may have even been experimentally practiced at some point in medieval times. It is however on the net an impractical and wasteful approach. Because if your using one to block and one to punch and strike, the second shield is essentially being an improvised punching dagger/katar instead of a shield (and yes you can deflect with those). And if you are freely using both to do both then your wielding a pair of really small shields (1-2ft in diameter) to prevent them from restricting each other. Which means they will be light, and not provide much surface area over gauntlets or reach over parrying knives (like the main gauche), so very little in the way of defense or offense there. And in neither case can you fall into a thin stance and force you opponent to go around your shield.

Larkas
2013-06-04, 02:52 PM
Hmmm, I don't think it's really feasible, but I just though this could be brought to the discussion:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG124_WEB.jpg

I'm referencing the large spiked shield, not the small one. If it was wielded in a very specific position, with the spikes facing the same direction as one's fist, it could be used as a weird, oversized kind of punching dagger. It would be enough to give it some reach (larger than a dagger's at least, but probably only on par with most short swords if all the drawings are in the same scale). I don't know if it's structurally sound (the whole thing would have to be reinforced to not splinter from a blow made perpendicular to the shield's surface), and I imagine it would be very unwieldy to punch with such a massive thing strapped to your arm, but at least it can be "reasonably" imagined.

I don't think such a thing ever saw the light of the day in the real world. It is a potential design alright, but I'm almost sure (you can never be completely sure when you're conjecturing about things you don't fully understand) it would be easier and cheaper to just have a regular shield and a regular weapon on the other hand. Besides, that shield in the image, if used the way I described it, is more like a shield and a weapon, not merely a shield, so I guess it says something about the feasibility of this supposed two-shields combat mode using two regular shields.

EDIT: Oh heck! Anthropomorphic jedi foxes everywhere! :smallbiggrin:

Rhynn
2013-06-04, 02:53 PM
LARP (and SCA too; sorry!) is a bad source, though. If someone untrained with a weapon faces someone with two shields, who knows what the results will be? Granted, someone trained with a weapon may have slight trouble but someone who is doing something crazystupid, but not to the same degree.

The SCA also has the problem of having rules that mess with re-enactment: from what I understand, you're not allowed to strike at the lower legs, which really skews things in favor of big guys with big shields - the usual go-to for taking out a shield-user was apparenty to cut the front leg, which is harder to protect, below the knee.

But if historical two-shield fighting did exist, some HMA types, re-enactors, or koryū practitioners would probably have made video of it, yes.

Scow2
2013-06-04, 02:53 PM
Its not an impossible or obstructive tactic. It may have even been experimentally practiced at some point in medieval times. It is however on the net an impractical and wasteful approach. Because if your using one to block and one to punch and strike, the second shield is essentially being an improvised punching dagger/katar instead of a shield (and yes you can deflect with those). And if you are freely using both to do both then your wielding a pair of really small shields (1-2ft in diameter) to prevent them from restricting each other. Which means they will be light, and not provide much surface area over gauntlets or reach over parrying knives (like the main gauche), so very little in the way of defense or offense there. And in neither case can you fall into a thin stance and force you opponent to go around your shield.

No more than one shield per opponent, unless both are blocking. Ideally, you use a shield to parry+punch, using your other shield to cover yourself further - but both shields are blocking. You may need double-shielding friends.

Spiryt
2013-06-04, 03:04 PM
I would look at this like that - two weapon fighting in general is problematic as it is - nothing beyond case of rapiers had been really theorized about, let alone practiced, for what we know.

Modern practice seems to suggest it's impractical indeed.

So trying to make it 'one step harder' yet with damn shield instead of weapon seems like way too equilibratistic thing.

Scow2
2013-06-04, 03:21 PM
I would look at this like that - two weapon fighting in general is problematic as it is - nothing beyond case of rapiers had been really theorized about, let alone practiced, for what we know.And yet, two-weapon fighting is superior to any form of combat that doesn't utilize both hands. It's better to hold two weapons and only occassionally use one of them, than to have only one weapon, and not be able to use another when you need it.

jindra34
2013-06-04, 03:30 PM
And yet, two-weapon fighting is superior to any form of combat that doesn't utilize both hands. It's better to hold two weapons and only occassionally use one of them, than to have only one weapon, and not be able to use another when you need it.

Are you counting Free-handing in the group of using both hands? And with two-weapon the majority of the time you are just using one. Its just that because of the fact that you hold two, a good chunk of the time you can use the second to strike in a way that recovers for the first. Allowing an increase in tempo of the fight. Or you can (in a manner that shield fighting kinda does) dedicate one to defense and one to attacking, allowing a more flowing approach.

Rhynn
2013-06-04, 03:56 PM
And yet, two-weapon fighting is superior to any form of combat that doesn't utilize both hands. It's better to hold two weapons and only occassionally use one of them, than to have only one weapon, and not be able to use another when you need it.

That depends.

Generally, having something in your off-hand is always better than not having something there. Shield, wrapped-up garment, dagger, the hilt of your longsword/shaft of your spear... but the case of rapiers, for instance, may have been strictly dangerous to the wielder. Basically, it was studied, but apparently almost never used by anyone. (And, of course, having a free hand was often advantageous in duels when you'd go corps-a-corps. In a knife-fight, I think I might prefer one knife and a free hand over two knives, for instance.)

With two shields, though, I'm not convinced it's better than one. I'd say not if we're talking full-sized viking roundshields or kite or heater shields - they're just going to get in each others' way. A weapon and a shield is always a better choice, and I think even using two hands on your one shield may be better than using one on each (put more strength into blows with it, move it faster, etc.). And if we're talking about optimizing those shields for using two, then it's clearly not a case of "the only thing around to defend yourself with is shields, do you use one or two?" and you might as well be sensible and take a shield and a weapon.

Spiryt
2013-06-04, 04:02 PM
And yet, two-weapon fighting is superior to any form of combat that doesn't utilize both hands. It's better to hold two weapons and only occasionally use one of them, than to have only one weapon, and not be able to use another when you need it.

That's good point - however, one will usually/often have some option to sheathe/put away that second weapon while it's not needed.

And enjoy the free hand for whatever other purpose, and there may be many of them - from grappling to holding the torch.

Need_A_Life
2013-06-04, 08:04 PM
Short answer: Very silly.

Even a light, round shield can keep you covered from crotch to chin on its own and using a second shield to create a one-man shield wall will compromise your balance.
Now, how useful would it be? I could see the use of a light shield and a buckler having some potential, but I would still prefer a light shield and a parrying dagger.

Wait, I've got it. One shield used for actual fighting and one hanging on your back, hopefully stopping that stray arrow from killing you.

Rhynn
2013-06-04, 08:06 PM
Wait, I've got it. One shield used for actual fighting and one hanging on your back, hopefully stopping that stray arrow from killing you.

That's SOP in Mount & Blade. :smallcool:

TuggyNE
2013-06-04, 08:42 PM
Idea: change into some form with extra arms, then use all those extra arms to hold extra shields, leaving one (or one pair) for a weapon.

Bonus points if it's a weapon that no one normally uses a shield with at all.

Mr Beer
2013-06-04, 08:44 PM
How about one normal shield and one light spiked buckler type for stabbing? And then maybe make the spike longer and the buckler surface area smaller but still large enough to protect the hand and give the buckler a grip that fits nicely into the hand, increasing the spike's manoeuverability...oh wait, I just reinvented the sword.

Admiral Squish
2013-06-04, 08:48 PM
Images of samurai jack fighting with two shields in that spartan episode keep coming to mind. I'm sure, with that idea as a base, you could do something pretty cool. Maybe pick up unarmed strike and deliver it with kicks, or maybe have them be captain america style throwing shields, so while you're throwing one, you still have the other.

warty goblin
2013-06-04, 09:24 PM
How about one normal shield and one light spiked buckler type for stabbing? And then maybe make the spike longer and the buckler surface area smaller but still large enough to protect the hand and give the buckler a grip that fits nicely into the hand, increasing the spike's manoeuverability...oh wait, I just reinvented the sword.

Sounds more like a katar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katar_(dagger)), really. Except with a big rondel guard.

I suspect shields, particularly those held only by a central grip, don't really make very good stabbing weapons even with the spike. There's just too many really, really easy ways for your enemy to set the point aside and keep it there. You've got the spike itself, and the sides of the shield. All of which offer excellent leverage to your adversary, opposed only by the friction of the palm of your hand wrapped around the central grip.

Thinking about it, the spike probably compromises the effectiveness of the shield as well. Should the foe place their weapon on the outside of the spike near its tip and press inwards, they can flip the entire shield in your hands so it runs up the inside of your arm, with the spike facing towards your other arm. Their weapon is now ideally placed to deliver a draw cut to your neck over the top of your shield, while still controlling said through downwards pressure on the spike.

valadil
2013-06-04, 09:38 PM
This is actually interesting part - aside from the fact that shield bonuses wouldn't stack in Dungeon's & Dragons 3.5, I wonder how feasible would it be 'realistically'.

Theoretically it's one shield more to hide behind, but in practical use it would probably be way more sensible to concentrate on wielding one shield... Instead of flailing around with two arms encumbered, and occupied.

I don't see two shields being used for ambidextrous blocking. More like one shield is for cover and the other is used as a shield. I think this would matter more in a game like GURPs where the direction you're facing matters.

I'm not envisioning this as something a PC would do. But I could see the players sneaking to the end of the troll infested dungeon, rescuing the princess, and then getting into a fight. She's a non-combatant but totally vulnerable. I can't think of anything better for her to do than hold two shields.

eepop
2013-06-05, 10:21 AM
If we're talking about a fantasy world, I think it could be possible, assuming you have some magical shields with properties specifically supporting that style.

Perhaps the ability to resize them as a free action?
Perhaps the ability to pass through your own body and equipment?

Ashtagon
2013-06-05, 11:37 AM
If we're talking about a fantasy world, I think it could be possible, assuming you have some magical shields with properties specifically supporting that style.

Perhaps the ability to resize them as a free action?
Perhaps the ability to pass through your own body and equipment?

I think we established upthread that anything is possible if we throw enough magic at it. :smallsigh:

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-06-05, 11:47 AM
And yet, two-weapon fighting is superior to any form of combat that doesn't utilize both hands. It's better to hold two weapons and only occassionally use one of them, than to have only one weapon, and not be able to use another when you need it.
Nope. You're leaving out a very important variable: attention. One more weapon is an extra weapon you need to keep track of. It's also something that's going to prompt reflex action from the hand holding it, which can place you in a disadvantageous spot. Furthermore, it adds another variable to the positioning and balance equation, when you're trying to keep a solid footing.

It's a trade-off. You can dedicate one hand to blocking and one to striking (easier to mentally manage, and quite effective), or you can sacrifice some of that to have more flexibility in your attack. The more effectively you can track both weapons, the more effective the distraction value of being able to attack with either hand is.

Meeki
2013-06-05, 01:35 PM
The SCA also has the problem of having rules that mess with re-enactment...

That is for armored rattan combat. There is a newer form of combat being practiced that is more focused on manuals and accuracy called Cut and Thrust.

It's more akin to what would be thought of as practice sparring in martial arts, where you go at a speed you can control your blows from actually breaking your opponent. Like other WMA groups but not as structured yet.

However, there is shield bashing to an extent, as well as grappling and unbalancing your opponent. You cannot throw someone or go too far with arm binding and what not, but the general premise of the fight to either strike your opponent with a debilitating blow, either from a weapon, shield or fist, or put them in a position that would break something or knock them over.

All parts of the body are legal and generally a limb loss ends combat. Certain armor is required, such as a helmet and elbow/knee cops, but that's about it. Not like the heavy fighting.

As to the OP, fighting with two targets or bucklers, a target or buckler and rotella in a duel might be alright if you are willing to otherwise toss your buckler to the ground when you see an opening to grab.

Using two shields during the whole fight is just silly. Unless you are fighting in mass combat, shields are not all they're cracked up to be.

Meeki
2013-06-05, 01:47 PM
Nope. You're leaving out a very important variable:.....

Eh, depends on the weapons really. A dagger is extremely light and is just as fast as your hand for blocking. Extra reach = more time to defend, up until a point.

Off-hand weapons can be quite cumbersome and slow your defense (depending on the weapon) but one of the real downfalls of having anything in your off-hand is not being able to grab.

Obviously, this depends on the type of weapon, broad swords are fairly slow compared to rapiers, so fighting with two would be ridiculous IMO.

Although, I'm not quite sure why Spiryt said there are no accounts of two-weapon fighting. There are actually parts of manuals dedicated to fighting with two weapons, such as long-sword and spear, but it is primarily referring to weapons used in judicial or tournament combat (or 1 on 1).

In block based mass combat, fighting with two weapons is kind of asking to be speared in the face.

Alejandro
2013-06-05, 03:29 PM
And yet, two-weapon fighting is superior to any form of combat that doesn't utilize both hands. It's better to hold two weapons and only occassionally use one of them, than to have only one weapon, and not be able to use another when you need it.

Take it from someone who enjoys fencing both foil and epee: I would rather have one foil, epee, rapier, etc and my other hand empty, than two foils, epees, rapiers, etc. And I would rather have a match against someone trying to wield two of of them, than one of them, whilst I only wield one. You'd be amazed how badly the two weapons ruin your form, focus, and footwork.

JusticeZero
2013-06-05, 04:17 PM
Not necessarily that bad if you are not trying to use the off hand weapon as anything other than a reserve for certain situations.

BWR
2013-06-05, 04:35 PM
Does that come from being used to a single-weapon style and trying to use the same style with two weapons, or two weapons being intrinsically inferior?
Because modern Olympic fencing is very poorly designed for two-weapons.

neonchameleon
2013-06-05, 04:35 PM
Take it from someone who enjoys fencing both foil and epee: I would rather have one foil, epee, rapier, etc and my other hand empty, than two foils, epees, rapiers, etc. And I would rather have a match against someone trying to wield two of of them, than one of them, whilst I only wield one. You'd be amazed how badly the two weapons ruin your form, focus, and footwork.

On the other hand I'd rather have a main gauche, buckler, mail palmed glove, or cloak in my offhand than leave it empty. Two long stabbing weapons just get in each other's way, but a short or parrying weapon can help where you can't use the main weapon.

Alejandro
2013-06-05, 05:26 PM
On the other hand I'd rather have a main gauche, buckler, mail palmed glove, or cloak in my offhand than leave it empty. Two long stabbing weapons just get in each other's way, but a short or parrying weapon can help where you can't use the main weapon.

Yes, those are all valid and real tactics used with the rapier or similar weapons. They just aren't used in modern fencing, mostly because you aren't trying to kill or injure the other person. :) They might have good tabletop gaming applications, but in my experience, the split attention isn't worth much more than fun experiment purposes.

It might be worth noting that such swordplay became the gentleman's art. Plain old soldiers on the (European) field used pikes and then bayonets and simple bum rushing and gun bashing.

Jay R
2013-06-05, 05:50 PM
When skill and physical abilities are roughly equal, a trained rapier-and-dagger fighter can defeat a trained single rapier fighter most of the time, at least in SCA rapier combat (which I've been doing since 1978). The biggest advantage is that instead of parry, then riposte, they are done together, with different hands.

Two rapiers takes longer to learn, but is incredibly effective after you get good.

In every combat form I can think of, two hands are usually used unless the rules disallow it. I conclude that two hands are superior - after you learn how to do it.

warty goblin
2013-06-05, 05:57 PM
I don't think anybody is arguing that using both hands isn't superior to using one in the general case. That doesn't preclude particularly terrible weapon pairs being much worse than going single. I don't see double halberds catching on anytime soon for example, and my inclination is that I'd rather use one shield with a free hand for grabbing wrists and disarming than try to manhandle two shields at once.

Alejandro
2013-06-05, 06:25 PM
When skill and physical abilities are roughly equal, a trained rapier-and-dagger fighter can defeat a trained single rapier fighter most of the time, at least in SCA rapier combat (which I've been doing since 1978). The biggest advantage is that instead of parry, then riposte, they are done together, with different hands.

Two rapiers takes longer to learn, but is incredibly effective after you get good.

In every combat form I can think of, two hands are usually used unless the rules disallow it. I conclude that two hands are superior - after you learn how to do it.

1978? I concede the point (ha) to you then, you have way more experience than I do.

the OOD
2013-06-06, 12:55 AM
I have a sword. it can kill you. it could very well kill you if you run at me with a knife stabbing wildly.

I have a shield. it can stop a knife. it will not save protect me forever if you run up to my face and stab wildly.


If you are holding a weapon, anyone wishing to attack you must approach with caution and/or fear rather than reckless violence, therein lies the difference.

(I finally got to use the word therein in a sentence, yay!:smallbiggrin:)

Ashtagon
2013-06-06, 04:03 AM
So... if we assume that shield bashes can still work to deal damage, would it be reasonable to assume that a two-shielder who tries to bash suffers the same penalty that an unarmed striker would suffer (you invite an attack of opportunity when you attempt a shield bash, you can't make attacks of opportunity). This would not apply if you attempt a shield bash while armed with a "real" weapon (including a monk's unarmed strike, and including spiked or otherwise weaponised shields).

Xuc Xac
2013-06-06, 04:08 AM
Jet Li used two shield in "Last Hero in China". It's in a wuxia setting where cool is more important than physics, but so are a lot of game settings. He uses two shields for "Chicken Style Kung Fu". The shields are wings and he has a spiked helmet for a beak and steel claws on his feet.

Video here on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVNJKc61xqw)

Ashtagon
2013-06-06, 04:23 AM
Jet Li used two shield in "Last Hero in China". It's in a wuxia setting where cool is more important than physics, but so are a lot of game settings. He uses two shields for "Chicken Style Kung Fu". The shields are wings and he has a spiked helmet for a beak and steel claws on his feet.

Video here on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVNJKc61xqw)

It looks like nearly all of his attacks are actually with foot-claws or helmet-beak. There are a couple of shield-bashes, but those aren't really his primary (let alone only) weapons.

Kiero
2013-06-06, 05:42 AM
Or to violently wham it's center, or rim, into the opponent.

Precisely, a lot of people don't seem to realise that the dangerous part of a shield is the rim, not the surface. Two obvious targets for the rim are the instep of the foot/toes and the jaw (slam it up or down). Try fighting on with a broken foot/toes or broken jaw.

A shield is a weapon, and a skilled weapon-and-shield fighter does not treat it merely as a defensive device.

Mr. Mask
2013-06-06, 07:01 AM
Reminds me of a large, two-handed shield used in Germany for duels, back in Talhoffer's day. Can't remember what it was called.

Larkas
2013-06-06, 01:07 PM
Jet Li used two shield in "Last Hero in China". It's in a wuxia setting where cool is more important than physics, but so are a lot of game settings. He uses two shields for "Chicken Style Kung Fu". The shields are wings and he has a spiked helmet for a beak and steel claws on his feet.

Video here on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVNJKc61xqw)

That... That video made my day! :smallbiggrin:


Reminds me of a large, two-handed shield used in Germany for duels, back in Talhoffer's day. Can't remember what it was called.

It was brought up very early in the thread. There's an image there, look it up.

Mr. Mask
2013-06-06, 04:39 PM
No one mentioned the name of the shield, that I could see. The picture indeed shows the shield I was thinking of (though I think I saw a different design of that same kind).

Scow2
2013-06-06, 04:53 PM
So... if we assume that shield bashes can still work to deal damage, would it be reasonable to assume that a two-shielder who tries to bash suffers the same penalty that an unarmed striker would suffer (you invite an attack of opportunity when you attempt a shield bash, you can't make attacks of opportunity). This would not apply if you attempt a shield bash while armed with a "real" weapon (including a monk's unarmed strike, and including spiked or otherwise weaponised shields).
Why would you incur an attack of opportunity? Any counterattack/riposte is blocked by a large wall coming at the wielder, with another coming at it. The disadvantage of two-shielding in D&D is that it's a 1d4-damage One-handed weapon.

Two shields offers good defense, and in more realistic combat simulators allows greater ability to impair enemy's attempts to attack, but lacks offensively - which is why, ideally, you'd be a team of two-shielders, and wear spiked boots to finish off those you've stunned, knocked unconscious, and/or trampled underneath the two-shielding juggernauts.

And in the video, Jet Li's bashing ability was greatly hampered by his use of a cross-guard, instead of single-grip, shield.

Ashtagon
2013-06-07, 12:12 AM
And in the video, Jet Li's bashing ability was greatly hampered by his use of a cross-guard, instead of single-grip, shield.

Jet Li in that video has monk levels, and additional real weapons on his helmet and feet. Any available real weapon (which includes monk fists) would counteract the "unarmed" penalty.

ZeroGear
2013-06-07, 01:09 AM
All things considered, combining two-weapon fighting with the improved shield bash feat and two either light shields or bucklers could actually prove effective.
Keep in mind that in 3.5 and pathfinder a shield bash can be made in place of an attack, so it is not unreasonable to assume that one can make a build around nothing but shield bashes.

That being said, if wan wants to add magic to the mix, and wants to push a few limits, having the Shield master feat lest you add the shield's enchantment bonuses to your bash attacks as long as you are wielding another weapon (assuming you are wiling to count your second shield as "another weapon").
This could also bring the benefit of utilizing shields with different special abilities (such as one being arrow catching while the other has the grinding ability) without the constant need to switch shields.

Granted, such a build would have to be heavily focussed, but it is a perfectly doable and viable option for a fighter character.

Mutazoia
2013-06-07, 01:53 AM
It was never done in earnest where life was on the line. Or at least, I don't know of any documented cases.

So... LARP? Has anyone seen or taken part in a LARP activity in which someone "fought" with two shields? How did it work out?

Are there any other ways that a reasonable test could be done to see how reasonable it would be at a realistic level?

The only way you could do it at a realistic level would be to use two spiked punch-bucklers and try to "box" with your opponent. Anything larger than that and your wasting your time and looking stupid. Very few LARPS allow shield bashing to begin with ...Dagorhir and it's off-shoot Belgarath are the only ones that come to mind that allow it and even then there are restrictions. Other Larps like Amtgard and HFS strictly prohibit the practice.

EDIT: I just recalled a weapon called a Madu which is basically a javalin held with the tip pointing toward the ground, with a small buckler attached near the other end to protect the hand holding the weapon. Some LARPS that allow this weapon count it as a shield and some do not. I have used a madu in combination with a round shield before but it's a tricky combo at best as the madu is primarily a thrusting weapon and your usual target is your opponant's legs (although you can attempt to strike a higher location but it pulls your madu out of location and if it's knocked aside, especially across your body, your pretty much fubar'd.) You CAN hold it the other way around and try to swing it like a sword, but the strike surface is small and the length of the shaft make it nearly impossible to wrap around an opponant's shield with out standing nearly on top of him.

JustSomeGuy
2013-06-07, 03:34 AM
I don't know how useful this will be, but it is my experience:

Doing some training for riot control situations/deployments, the 5' perspex shield was used more offensively than the 18" baton - it could be used to push someone back, drag down their shins, strike up into their face, hit edge-on to a limb trying to get around it, and push-punch to an opponent waving their arms about trying to get round/intimidate/do something crazy~stupid... in opposition, the baton could only be used to strike the mid-limbs (not the bony joints or head), or rap knuckles grabbing the shield.

Perhaps it was because of the non-lethal intent, the 'consciously staying legal' mindset, or the fact that we were literally operating as a human wall, or the limitations of the equipment (small weapon with very restricted rules of engagement vs. large, light and transparent shield which could be used more freely because it wasn't classed as a weapon as such and could be used both one and two handed), but the shield was a very important part of the kit.

Although i very much doubt having two shields would be of any use in that situation, before anyone brings that up!

JusticeZero
2013-06-07, 03:24 PM
Yeah, nobody is arguing that a shield is not very useful, we just get very baffled whenever anybody starts thinking that "If one shield is good, two must be even better!"

warty goblin
2013-06-07, 10:46 PM
The only way you could do it at a realistic level would be to use two spiked punch-bucklers and try to "box" with your opponent. Anything larger than that and your wasting your time and looking stupid. Very few LARPS allow shield bashing to begin with ...Dagorhir and it's off-shoot Belgarath are the only ones that come to mind that allow it and even then there are restrictions.

At least in the Dagohir/Belegarth that I've done, nobody really bashes with the shield in the sense of hammering the rim into people. Getting body-checked by the face of the shield isn't uncommon, and using it for pushing or leverage against another shield is certainly allowed though. Since all the shields have about three inches of foam facing, none of this really hurts, although a person may get dumped on their ass every now and again.

John Campbell
2013-06-07, 11:28 PM
If someone wanted to bring two-shield fighting into my game, my response would be to take them down to my garage, tell 'em to grab two shields, and pick up my glaive. If they're willing to have that fight, they can do it in the game.

I'll even be nice and not hit them in the knees and shins.

Thrudd
2013-06-08, 06:09 AM
Double Tiger Head Steel Shields

http://www.wle.com/products/VHG30.html

Clearly not many people used this weapon, and how realistic the form is for combat is questionable, but Wing Lam is a respected Hung Gar and Sil Lum teacher with authentic lineages.

It may look a little weird, but with Hung Gar's long arm methods it actually sort of makes sense.

maybe make double tiger head shields a special monk weapon.

Jormengand
2013-06-08, 06:19 AM
Double Tiger Head Steel Shields

http://www.wle.com/products/VHG30.html

Clearly not many people used this weapon, and how realistic the form is for combat is questionable, but Wing Lam is a respected Hung Gar and Sil Lum teacher with authentic lineages.

It may look a little weird, but with Hung Gar's long arm methods it actually sort of makes sense.

maybe make double tiger head shields a special monk weapon.

I was thinking of something similar, called devil horn shields. They're basically the same thing, but they're also pretty cool.

For the record, the only game I've played which allows you to use two shields properly is SIFRP, and the bonus is negated if you attack with one of the shields (which is not really a good idea anyway.)

Mutazoia
2013-06-08, 10:27 AM
Double Tiger Head Steel Shields

http://www.wle.com/products/VHG30.html

Clearly not many people used this weapon, and how realistic the form is for combat is questionable, but Wing Lam is a respected Hung Gar and Sil Lum teacher with authentic lineages.

It may look a little weird, but with Hung Gar's long arm methods it actually sort of makes sense.

maybe make double tiger head shields a special monk weapon.

lol

Considering your standard martial artist will run through a style demo like that at full combat speed, I think that style would only be useful against one or two unarmed opponants...it's too slow to use against a polearm or sword and board. Watching that clip you can see how unbalanced those things are and how he has to be careful not to hit himself with them half the time.

Rhynn
2013-06-08, 11:12 AM
Considering your standard martial artist will run through a style demo like that at full combat speed, I think that style would only be useful against one or two unarmed opponants...it's too slow to use against a polearm or sword and board. Watching that clip you can see how unbalanced those things are and how he has to be careful not to hit himself with them half the time.

Yeah, just because a martial art is authentic doesn't mean every part of it is useful. Unless we're talking koryū, many martial arts are more sports and display than actual combat arts (although, obviously, the basics like footwork and how to punch and kick are going to work, largely).

ZeroGear
2013-06-08, 06:06 PM
Might also be that he needs to slow down to properly display the movements. Doing something slower than intended tends to make the movement look a little ungainly most of the time.

That being said, there is an entry for these kinds of shields in Bastion Press's book "Arms and Armor", and the entry does note that they are used in pairs.

Thrudd
2013-06-08, 07:58 PM
Yeah, just because a martial art is authentic doesn't mean every part of it is useful. Unless we're talking koryū, many martial arts are more sports and display than actual combat arts (although, obviously, the basics like footwork and how to punch and kick are going to work, largely).

The point is, there really was a case where two-shield fighting evolved into a specialized weapon. Even if nobody today can demonstrate it effectively, it really existed. It may have been designed for a very specific scenario or person, certainly is not an all-purpose weapon system, but it is a real thing. We wouldn't even know about it today if the only people who tried it got killed. Maybe it was never used in battle, maybe it was a type of riot gear for the law enforcement of a certain area. Maybe it was only designed to duel against a specific type of weapon one-on-one in a sort of dueler's arms-race. There are all kinds of weird and exotic weapons that were real and became famous, maybe because they were so weird and different, but also maybe because someone at some point actually used them effectively.
I certainly don't see this type of thing as "unrealistic" in the case of certain types of fantasy RPG/D&D settings, where people wield swords and axes of ridiculous proportion, double headed axes and double bladed swords, and can shoot two or three arrows at different targets at the same time accurately. If someone can do all of those things, they can certainly make a double-shield fighting style work as well. The only question is how should it be represented by the rules. In a more realistic fantasy setting, I can see not wanting to allow it, or only making it available with a special weapon feat. Someone who fights unarmed against fully armed and armored opponents anyway might receive some benefit from such a weapon (which is why I suggested it would be a special monk weapon). Of course, some people don't allow monks in their settings, either.

Thrudd
2013-06-08, 08:39 PM
That... That video made my day! :smallbiggrin:
.

Is it sad that I own that movie? lol The chicken/centipede fight is one of the highlights, but this part was pretty good, too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FdzkTDxKlo

All of Wong Jing's movies are crazy, crazier even than most wuxia, especially the ones with Jet Li from he early 90's. New Legend of Shaolin is another one, and Kung Fu Cult master aka The Evil Cult is even crazier, if you can believe it.

Mutazoia
2013-06-09, 12:18 AM
The point is, there really was a case where two-shield fighting evolved into a specialized weapon. Even if nobody today can demonstrate it effectively, it really existed. It may have been designed for a very specific scenario or person, certainly is not an all-purpose weapon system, but it is a real thing. We wouldn't even know about it today if the only people who tried it got killed. Maybe it was never used in battle, maybe it was a type of riot gear for the law enforcement of a certain area. Maybe it was only designed to duel against a specific type of weapon one-on-one in a sort of dueler's arms-race. There are all kinds of weird and exotic weapons that were real and became famous, maybe because they were so weird and different, but also maybe because someone at some point actually used them effectively.
I certainly don't see this type of thing as "unrealistic" in the case of certain types of fantasy RPG/D&D settings, where people wield swords and axes of ridiculous proportion, double headed axes and double bladed swords, and can shoot two or three arrows at different targets at the same time accurately. If someone can do all of those things, they can certainly make a double-shield fighting style work as well. The only question is how should it be represented by the rules. In a more realistic fantasy setting, I can see not wanting to allow it, or only making it available with a special weapon feat. Someone who fights unarmed against fully armed and armored opponents anyway might receive some benefit from such a weapon (which is why I suggested it would be a special monk weapon). Of course, some people don't allow monks in their settings, either.

Remember the OP asked if this was practical and had/could be done in a LARP, not a PnPRPG...

Thrudd
2013-06-09, 12:51 AM
oops, totally missed the LARP. People were talking about d4 damage etc. for shields and I just went to D&D. Depends on the LARP, I guess, whether it would work or not. You could make an argument to the GM/designer that there could be rules for a specialized dual shield weapon on the same grounds that I layed out for PnP...although a rare weapon it does actually exist. It may not be appropriate to the setting, and you'd have to think of a safe way to design these shields so you could strike with the edges without hurting anyone. Depending on the combat rules used in the LARP, it may not be practical at all. I know some of them don't allow body checks/direct contact, are you allowed to bash with a shield?

Rhynn
2013-06-09, 01:07 AM
oops, totally missed the LARP. People were talking about d4 damage etc. for shields and I just went to D&D.

Yup, a lot of people in this thread have completely missed or ignored what it's actually about... :smallamused:

I still think a LARP is pretty much the worst standard, though. We're talking a bunch of people with no real idea what they're doing acting in a way that no one in a real fight ever would. The first priority in real combat is always not to get hit yourself. Even Olympic fencing has to artificially emulate this with priority/right of way rules; do any LARPs use similar rules?

Edit: Of course, those rules could lead to other kinds of unacceptable behavior. If you've just got simple priority - your hit doesn't count if you got hit first - then fighters would just recklessly leave themselves open to counters so long as they can deliver the first hit home.

Thrudd
2013-06-09, 02:45 AM
Yup, a lot of people in this thread have completely missed or ignored what it's actually about... :smallamused:

I still think a LARP is pretty much the worst standard, though. We're talking a bunch of people with no real idea what they're doing acting in a way that no one in a real fight ever would. The first priority in real combat is always not to get hit yourself. Even Olympic fencing has to artificially emulate this with priority/right of way rules; do any LARPs use similar rules?

Edit: Of course, those rules could lead to other kinds of unacceptable behavior. If you've just got simple priority - your hit doesn't count if you got hit first - then fighters would just recklessly leave themselves open to counters so long as they can deliver the first hit home.

Completely agree. LARP is not a good place to look if you want to know if something is practical in real combat. Depending on the rules, they develop bad habits for actual fighting, and of course use completely unrealistically weighted weapons (and purposefully try to make them as light as possible, in some instances I have seen). Not saying all LARPers don't have any training with real weapons, I know some of them do. But the rules of the game don't allow many real-world tactics to be used, and encourage other unrealistic things.

For the Chinese double shields, I believe they must have developed for a specialized purpose. Not battlefield combat with formations and cavalry charges, or even small skirmishes of soldiers. I think it feasible that it was designed to allow someone to fight the same way they would unarmed yet be able to deal with weapon attacks more safely. It is safer than an armored sleeve and gauntlet and requires less skill to craft. It is uniquely suited to the long arm method of Hung Gar and similar styles, requires little modification from techniques already taught in the unarmed style. In a situation where someone challenges you to a duel, depending on the weapon they select, the double shield might be just the thing you want. At least, somebody thought so. Alternatively, maybe it started as an improvised weapon, which could explain why it is less than optimized for combat. There are hoes, spades, rakes and benches (among many other things) as traditional weapons, after all. No one would ever claim that they belonged in a battle, but they can be used as effective weapons when needed, and their unwieldiness is mostly overcome through training. Why would you bother training with an improvised weapon when there are more efficient weapons that evolved out of generations of combat testing? Easy availability, concealability (not necessarily hiding them on your person, but concealing the fact that they are weapons), and cost. Is such a weapon likely to be something an adventurer would choose to take with them in an RPG (LARP or otherwise)? Probably not. But hey, it's fantasy...

Ashtagon
2013-06-09, 04:09 AM
Yeah, I know I noted LARP as a possible data source. It's not a great source by any means. But realistically, teh sources are:

* Game rules. I specifically want to exclude this, because game rules rarely have much to do with realism (GURPS is probably the only rules set that makes a serious study of how realistic anything is).
* LARP: Safety rules mean these are oddly-weighted, and the rules of the game mean odd combat tactics are employed.
* Sport Martial Arts. These are more about scoring points than killing the opponent.
* Performance Martial Arts: These are more about making a visually-pleasing demonstration of athletic prowess rather than killing the opponent.
* Combat Martial Arts: There seems to be a strange shortage of recorded information regarding people fighting battles to the death armed with nothing more than two shields.

Incidentally, I also want to specifically exclude weaponised shields from the discussion, by which I mean shields that have a blade or sharpened point as an integral component of the shield. Any strikes made with such a shield would be with the weapon component, and it effectively becomes a spear or blade with an oversized gauntlet or undersized mantlet.

Thrudd
2013-06-09, 06:32 AM
Yeah, I know I noted LARP as a possible data source. It's not a great source by any means. But realistically, teh sources are:

* Game rules. I specifically want to exclude this, because game rules rarely have much to do with realism (GURPS is probably the only rules set that makes a serious study of how realistic anything is).
* LARP: Safety rules mean these are oddly-weighted, and the rules of the game mean odd combat tactics are employed.
* Sport Martial Arts. These are more about scoring points than killing the opponent.
* Performance Martial Arts: These are more about making a visually-pleasing demonstration of athletic prowess rather than killing the opponent.
* Combat Martial Arts: There seems to be a strange shortage of recorded information regarding people fighting battles to the death armed with nothing more than two shields.

Incidentally, I also want to specifically exclude weaponised shields from the discussion, by which I mean shields that have a blade or sharpened point as an integral component of the shield. Any strikes made with such a shield would be with the weapon component, and it effectively becomes a spear or blade with an oversized gauntlet or undersized mantlet.

You're right about that. lol Is it really strange that there are no reports of people killing eachother with only shields? Especially if they are not weaponized in any way. So what are we trying to find out, here?
I think that any instance of two-shield fighting would be a unique and one-off case, or will be a specialized scenario like that of the Hung Gar weapon probably developed by and for one person or a very small group for a specific situation. If the goal is to determine if there is a place for a dual shield weilding character in a somewhat reality-based fantasy RPG, I would say yes but with caveats. If it were my game, I would allow it as one of those "special monk weapons" to be used in conjunction with an unarmed fighting style. Though it would take a full round to unstrap them from your back and strap them on your arms...it would be hard to perform many actions with shields strapped on all the time. You would need to know before hand that you were going into a combat situation that required heavy defense and not a lot of manual dexterity. I don't think it could be allowed in most LARPs, either the rules or the style of fighting or both would make two shields unuseable.
If this is only about knowledge of history for knowledge's sake, as you say there is no data to suggest that people used two "normal" shields at the same time. If they were in battle and trying to kill people, they would use a weapon that was much more lethal and efficient. Current evidence suggests it didn't happen.

Can I think of action and fantasy scenarios where it might be cool for someone to grab two shields and go charging into something, or smashing through something? Sure. In the midst of battle they've got arrows raining down from both sides, the hero scoops up a second shield and runs for it, dodging and weaving as he holds up the shields on either side of him, until he reaches the enemy line and smashes into the first archer as he's dropping his bow and trying to draw his knife, knocking him to the ground. He tosses the second shield, bristling with arrows, into another archer and draws his sword as he smashes the downed archer with the edge of his primary shield, and the melee begins...
I might give someone who did that an added defense bonus, because it makes sense from a facing perspective, and it is a cool scene from a cinematic perspective that makes the game fun. It would not be a regular thing, however, always carrying around a shield on each arm in case arrows are fired at you from both sides. It might only help in very specific situations.

Knaight
2013-06-09, 11:44 AM
At least in the Dagohir/Belegarth that I've done, nobody really bashes with the shield in the sense of hammering the rim into people. Getting body-checked by the face of the shield isn't uncommon, and using it for pushing or leverage against another shield is certainly allowed though. Since all the shields have about three inches of foam facing, none of this really hurts, although a person may get dumped on their ass every now and again.

My younger brother does Dag, and he managed to pick up about 15 square inches of bruise when someone decided to open a charge with a rim slam. It doesn't happen all that often, but it happens.

Scow2
2013-06-09, 11:53 AM
Shields aren't really great at killing - at least not as much as an edged or concentrated-force weapon is. However, they are so effective at horribly maiming and messing people up that any regulated martial art where the goal ISN'T to actually kill/seriously injure/permanently mangle your opponent bans shield bashing as a tactic - there's no way to nerf a shield, really.

Two-shielding isn't effective in one-on-one combat- the shields get in the way. It CAN Be effective when outnumbered, but that brings its own disadvantages.

Spiryt
2013-06-09, 05:06 PM
Shields aren't really great at killing - at least not as much as an edged or concentrated-force weapon is. However, they are so effective at horribly maiming and messing people up that any regulated martial art where the goal ISN'T to actually kill/seriously injure/permanently mangle your opponent bans shield bashing as a tactic - there's no way to nerf a shield, really.

This is simply utterly untrue.

Plenty full-contact reenacting groups employ shield bashes in all kind of forms, from full on 'bull rush' pushing to powerful rim thrusts.

They are in no way of form more dangerous to properly armored men than two handed weapon strikes, or thrust - now, thrusts are hard to nerf, and thus usually applied extremely carefully.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvXNsaU2-ag

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWS_gmCHjic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7qNu6zPSqYI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPx5eoz_wHg&gl=PL&hl=pl


Shield impact will from it's nature be spread over quite large surfaces, shield will bend and shake a lot on its own etc. not quite like solid blow with actual weapon.



Two-shielding isn't effective in one-on-one combat- the shields get in the way. It CAN Be effective when outnumbered, but that brings its own disadvantages.

Can you cite some sources you're basing all of this on?

If it isn't effective in one and one, how it can be effective while outnumbered?

Being outnumbered is pretty much multiplying difficulty of combat, doesn't eliminate anything from the things one has to do, only adds numerous other problems...

John Campbell
2013-06-09, 06:05 PM
SCA rules ban shield-bashing (though the line between "bashing" (illegal) and "pushing" (legal) is kind of fuzzy), because our weapons are flexy rattan sticks, but our shields are shields - heavy chunks of wood or metal, with edging required only to keep them from chewing up rattan, and no padding. But, really, having been hit with shields more than once, I think it's more paranoia than it is an actual safety hazard at this point. (SCA, Inc. is really good at paranoia. It's about the only thing they're good for.) Maybe earlier in our history, when the state of the modern armoring art was not at the level it is today...

And someone with two shields vs. me with my rattan pole... I'd be entirely willing to have that fight. Even unarmored.

Shields can be effective weapons in close-quarters combat. But there's a whole lot of space between "effective" and "good".

(Note that when a shieldman comes in on me, my general course of action as a polearm fighter is... well, don't let them do that, because at range they can't touch me and so it's just a question of how long it takes me to win. But failing that - and, all else being equal, running forwards is faster than running backwards, so it usually fails - I go in on them, put my shoulder into their shield, and now their shield is covering me as much as it is them, they're carrying my weight, and if they want to do anything with the shield - like, lift it to protect their head against my strikes - they've got to shove my weight around to do it. And I weigh nigh-on three hundred pounds with my armor on. And even if they wanted to bash me with it, they couldn't, because I've kind of pre-empted it by bashing their shield with my body. This is the "Shields are really handy; thank you for bringing one to the fight for me! And you're carrying it for me and everything, how nice," tactic.)

Rhynn
2013-06-09, 06:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvXNsaU2-ag

And those are rim blows! They look wicked, but that just goes to show how good armor is...


Can you cite some sources you're basing all of this on?

If it isn't effective in one and one, how it can be effective while outnumbered?

Being outnumbered is pretty much multiplying difficulty of combat, doesn't eliminate anything from the things one has to do, only adds numerous other problems...

The only thing I can think of off-hand in European manuals for being out-numbered was using a long weapon and keeping retreating while trying to reduce the number of opponents with fierce attacks. Two shields aren't going to help at all when your opponents can be on opposite sides of you. And if you've got no weapon to threaten them, they can just rush in and grab your shields anyway!

Incanur
2013-06-09, 08:03 PM
It is important to remember that two-weapon fighting in the form of sword and dagger was quite common in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. There is no indication it was particularly difficult to do, even with a 2ft dagger and 4ft rapier (Joseph Swetnam's style). There's limited evidence for battlefield use, but Sir John Smythe wanted his pikemen to do it and Francisco Pizarro practiced it against the Incas. Thus it is only fighting with two long blades that was anything unusual.

LordSeabass
2013-06-14, 06:27 AM
It sounds fun, not silly, have the shields be spiked targes

Kiero
2013-06-14, 03:17 PM
It is important to remember that two-weapon fighting in the form of sword and dagger was quite common in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. There is no indication it was particularly difficult to do, even with a 2ft dagger and 4ft rapier (Joseph Swetnam's style). There's limited evidence for battlefield use, but Sir John Smythe wanted his pikemen to do it and Francisco Pizarro practiced it against the Incas. Thus it is only fighting with two long blades that was anything unusual.

People have two hands, and will generally always use them both when fighting. Whether that's two hands on a big weapon, a weapon and shield (and again, a lot of shields are weapons, without stupid spikes), or two weapons.

Historically, a dagger/knife was an extremely common second weapon of necessity, assuming you didn't have a shield. Native Americans often used two weapons, and pioneers imitating them often used knife-and-tomahawk.