Exactly how silly is two-shield fighting?

[Ashtagon]

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]

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]

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?'.

[Jay R]

I have no evidence that anybody ever fought with two shields. But I can show you a two-handed shield, from Talhoffer (1400s German manual)

[Dienekes]

I have no evidence that anybody ever fought with two shields. But I can show you a two-handed shield, from Talhoffer (1400s German manual)

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

[valadil]

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]

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]

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]

VIBROSHIELDS!

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]

Wielding two bucklers - especially spiked bucklers - 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 - 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.


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

[Rhynn]

None exist, because hollywood and documentaries have overlooked two-shielding tactics used historically

Wait, what?

Links?

[Ashtagon]

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]

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]

Hmmm, I don't think it's really feasible, but I just though this could be brought to the discussion:

Spoiler

Show

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!

[Rhynn]

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.