Summary: Not allowing striking with shields is a rule with far-reaching effects on the accuracy of combat and should be reconsidered in the SCA.
In the Society for Creative Anachronism, a historical re-creation group that has a large focus on historical combat, you are not allowed to strike with a shield (SCA Rules Handbook. See section "Conventions of combat" III.b.10).Other historical combat re-creation groups have varied rules on this. Belegarth, a foam-fighting group, allows striking with a shield, what they call "shield bashing". They do not allow pushing with a shield.
I think SCA should allow players to strike with their shields.
Key points:
- Historical accuracy of using a shield to strike during combat is somewhat undetermined (not enough known by me)
- You should be able to strike with a shield in SCA
- Most SCA combatants use a shield, so the effects are far-reaching
- Technology is available and it could be made safe. Lighter materials could be used
- Pushing with a shield or in any other way is a quick way to make the activity significantly less safe and should be reserved for full-contact (kick, punch, whatever you want) competitive weapons fighting
Historical accuracy
The fact that one could strike using a shield indisputable. Whether or not it is historically accurate is another story. I think it could really depend on the culture, but I believe it certainly did happen quite a bit. Many shields, especially those with a shield boss, have very obvious sharp protrusions that, to me, seem to be designed for punching/stabbing.Kali is an ancient fighting system of the Philippines that emphasizes weapons fighting. While learning Kali/Escrima/Arnis I have repeatedly queried instructors about shield use (it's not widely taught with Kali) and they have repeatedly demonstrated back the fundamental rule of the fighting system - what you learn to do with one weapon you should be able to do with another. Shields that I have seen in Kali are much smaller, narrower shields than I was used to seeing from European or even other Asian countries. They are exclusively center-grip and you hit with them just as you would with a sword, stick or empty hand. The motion is slightly different, but is easily adapted.
I'm not familiar with many other ancient fighting systems that use shields and would love if someone could chime in on this.
Why you should be able to strike with a shield
While SCA combat puts much of its focus on killing or severely damaging blows (glancing shots are not recognized and other strikes such as kicks, punches, etc are not allowed), striking with a shield provides significant tactical advantages even though strikes with one would not be deadly. As most SCA combatants use shields it would have far-reaching affects to the game. Just as in Kali, imagine being able to have one more weapon to strike with. This turns the shield from a passive piece of armor that consumes an entire limb into a combination armor/weapon for a previously idle side of the body. This would be a huge game changer as most players would gain an extra limb to fight with.Equipment
Currently, SCA shields are generally made of wood or metal. In order for shield striking to be safe this would need to change to a lighter or more padded material. Belegarth uses wood-core shields with foam padding. Another alternative could be to use materials such as polycarbonate, Lexan or similar plastic materials.Why you shouldn't be able to do more than strike with a shield
The biggest argument about this is, of course, safety. SCA heavy combat is not designed to be a full-contact sport, or even a sport at all. It is recreational and fun and its combatants are not professional fighters.While being able to push or charge an opponent or multiple opponents with a shield has many tactical implications that could be game-changing, there is no safe way to implement such tactics.
Posts
4 comments:
Shields were historically used offensively. Sometimes men pushed at each other in dense formations, although how common this was is disputed. Roman legionaries were trained to punch with their large centre-grip shields, but very few actual wounds would be caused by shields. The use of the shield is to get into position to use your main weapon. By punching with a shield, you can close with an opponent, fend off an opponent, unbalance an opponent, blind an opponent, but hardly kill an opponent.
In combat, a man will use whatever he has to get the job done. The edge of a shield, if brought down hard on a neck, could deliver a savage blow, but this would be an attack of opportunity rather than a planned main attack form.
A man had to carry a shield around with him lot in a war. He'd spend 99.99% of his time with his shield _not_ fighting with it. Shields were not covered in spikes because that 99.99% would be made miserable by constant complaints from passers by getting pricked by the barbs, and constant trips to the tailors to repair snagged clothing. Shields were not designed to wound.
I am not a member of the SCA. One reason not to push with an SCA would be that it is a good way to get a shield broken. A man in battle doesn't mind risking his kit if it will save his life, but for an SCA member it would be pretty annoying if some idiot broke your beautiful shield. Shields would have to be substantial enough not to break, and this might mean that they'd be substantial enough to hurt someone. The top edge of a shield can be bashed back into the front teeth of the user.
On the other hand, the front of a shield is very blunt. The SCA will have to decide how much it wants to simulate warfare, and how much of its kit and membership it wants to get home in a convenient number of pieces.
Hey Lloyd -
Really appreciate your input on this.
Good point about not having barbs or other offensive gear attached to shields.
With regard to the SCA - even currently all shields are lined with something, usually rubber or foam, on the edges to prevent injury. All combatants have a helm with minimum gapping designed to always be less the minimum dimensions of all fighting weapons and shields.
Good point about them breaking though. I think Lexan and polycarbonate ones would be pretty sturdy, but I know in Belegarth they have wooden ones break pretty regularly.
i'm liking the martial applications of the shield and the idea of the punch and bash concept. i believe that it can not only be used but taught in a safe manner if you use lighter materials and simply pad the rim to minimumize the potential dammage. i've been bashed hard enough in armor by rattan sticks to bruise me for weeks and that was ok by regulation and by both me and my opponent. the shield punch or bash can't possibly be that much worse. I agree that it is generally heavy and believe that it slows the punch to a generally safe level for heavy weapons fighting. its where you get the body behind the shield with the shoulder that gives it force though but still without the snap of the stick effect in the attack.... the concept has valad points worthy of looking into for shield combat applications....the scottish targe was such a weapon for consideration perhaps minus the center spike but it is still a weapon all the same and should be used as such if realism in reinactment is to be considered
Have you ever fought in SCA heavies combat? SCA heavies combat IS a full contact sport. The shield IS NOT a passive form of armor. IT IS actively used to deflect blows, move the opponents shield out of the way and push opponents back. STRIKING an opponent with the edge of the shield IS illegal, contacting an opponent with the face of the shield IS NOT(note, I am just getting back into fighting after a several year lay off, so that ruling may have changed, but it does not seem that way from what I have been observing) The lack of an actual shield punch wouldn't add enough to the sport to be worth the headache of changing the rules in an international organization.
Duncan Graeme
Post a Comment
- Your email address will not be displayed.
- You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>.
- URLs will not auto-link. Use the following HTML to post links: <a href="http://yoururl.com">name of the page</a>