# Shield grips



## Zack (Feb 11, 2016)

I don't know where else to put this, or if it will help much, but I wanted to mention something very important about shields. Most people I talk to think that a shield has a simple vertical grip and you just hold it out in front of you. This is true, to a point, later on in history - about the Roman Age I think - the grip switched to a strap and grip that anchors the shield to the forearm while also allowing the person to steady it with a grip. This type of grip vastly improved the shield in a number of ways. One, it better absorbs blows, and allows the user to keep it in a protective position. Also, since shields are LIFELINES in large sword-to-sword battles of you lose your shield your as good as dead, however a shield anchored to the forearm is nearly impossible to drop even if hit very hard. Whereas a simple gripped shield gets blasted from the hand, and the person dies in a matter of moments. This is the primary reason why the Roman soldiers lasted so long in the battle of 300. Now, don't think that a forearm-anchored shield user won't get staggered from heavy hits, all I'm saying is that the shield won't go flying away. The last notable bonus is that a forearm-mounted shield is vastly superior in terms of bashing power when compared to a gripped shield. Another reason why the 300 did so well. (Don't forget the shape of the shields allowed for a shield wall as well, which is a highly effective fortification). Two more points, a forearm-mounted shield's size is proportial to the size of the user's forearm. Also, the Romans attached throwing darts (Plumbata, I think) to the inner wall of the shield, giving them another weapon. Also, spears and javelin at this point changed. The tips became very long and very thin, but the shaft and body of the spear were very heavy. That was done so the spear has a greater chance of stabbing the shield user when it went through and on the off-chance it didn't actually hit the person, the tip would twist and make it impossible to remove the spear from the shield. Since the spear was so heavy, it forced the person to discard the shield, as it was no longer useable. Let me know if this helps at all, or if I forgot anything.


----------



## Jerseydevil (Feb 12, 2016)

As a military historian, I have to disagree with a couple of points here:
1. The Romans were not at Thermopylae, the battle of the 300. That was the Greeks lead by the Spartans. Rome was a backwater that no one cared about at that time and had nothing to do with the conflict.
2.Roman shields were almost always used with a center grip. This allowed the metal boss in the center to be used to punch forward and still cover the person holding it. 
3.Cavalry would have the shield strapped to their arm (Throughout history, not just the Romans) because they needed the hand free to grip the reins of the horse.
4. A center grip shield allows the user to drop the shield, intercept blows, and go on the offensive while still leaving the person protected. Consider this: The maximum power of a punch is at the full extent of the arm. The same is true for a sword, ax, mace, spear, whatever. A person with a center grip shield can move it forward and intercept the blow before it becomes too powerful and retract or redirect if there is a feint. The bending of the elbow and shoulder also means that the arm will move with the blow, lessening the impact. A shield attached to the forearm means that the user cannot project outward, an as a consequence, can only take the blow at the full impact. The impact can be transferred through the shield and possible break bones on the other side, especially if there is no give to it.
5. Center grip is more mobile. To block a blow to the legs with a center grip shield, the person can push it outwards, blocking it. If it is a feint to the head, it can be retracted quickly. A shield strapped to the forearm means that the user would have to wait for the enemy weapon to be almost connecting, then drop their entire upper body, leaving the user off balance and the head and torso exposed to a quick counter
6. The Greeks did use shields strapped the the forearm, but this was to protect their neighbors. Picture this: There is a three foot diameter shield strapped to your left arm (this is the approximate size of a Greek _hoplon_). Hold it in front of you. If the shield is centered on you, the rightmost edge is getting in the way of your weapon hand. In a more natural position, the arm will be left of center, which means that the left side of the shield is not protecting you, but the person to your left. In a densely packed Greek phalanx, this worked well for that type of warfare, but not for others. The Romans did not fight shoulder to shoulder. There was about a foot gap between them so they had room to use their swords. 
7. The only people I can think of (other than cavalry for the above mentioned reasons) that used the shield strapped to their arms are the Greeks and their Hellenistic cousins. The Romans, Celts, Norse, Saxons and other German tribes, and soldiers of the Middle  ages all used center grips on their shields.
8. A shield strapped to the arm may be harder to tear off, but if someone tries to rip away your shield, that would be a perfect opportunity to just stab him.
9. Not exactly historical, but I am aware of reenactors  that state that the center grip is much more versatile, comfortable and just generally more usable than the forearm grip. I'm not a reenactor myself, but have done martial arts and have played around with some weapons and can confirm this.
In short, Strapped arm shield grips are useful in a very tight formation, but not very dependable elsewhere.


----------



## Russ (Feb 12, 2016)

In addition to JD's thoughtful comments I would point out another couple of flaws in the OP's reasoning:

1) One is not just about surely dead if one loses one's shield.
2) We really don't know enough about the battle of Thermopylae to say with certainty why they were so successful
3) Different tools for different jobs.  I have fought with shields both ways and old texts show them used both ways.  I would not suggest one technique is inherently better than the other.


----------



## Zack (Feb 12, 2016)

I knew I was wrong as soon as I said Romans. Duh, I knew it was Spartans, just got some wires crossed. The points you guys have on the center gripped shield are definitely valid, but why was I taught a forearm shield was superior? Kinda feel stupid now. I knew it was the Greeks...wow, but if a fail there.


----------



## Zack (Feb 12, 2016)

Oh well this is a research thread so we always have somebody to correct it, and hey you do learn new things everyday. Now I'm not arguing so please don't take it that way. One of you said that forearm shields are effective when used in tight formations, correct? Is that one of the reasons why the Testudo formation was so effective?


----------



## Jerseydevil (Feb 12, 2016)

Zack said:


> Oh well this is a research thread so we always have somebody to correct it, and hey you do learn new things everyday. Now I'm not arguing so please don't take it that way. One of you said that forearm shields are effective when used in tight formations, correct? Is that one of the reasons why the Testudo formation was so effective?



I'm not taking anything as argumentative. The whole point of this forum is to share information, discuss, debate, and eventually write a good story. I'm just giving my opinion based on my understanding based on a whole lot of books and documentaries. Military history is one of my two great passions, so I feel practically obligated to reply to this sort of thread. 

The Roman Scutum (The rectangular curved shield) used a center grip. The famous testudo formation was rarely used, pretty much only when assaulting a fortification or when under missile attacks, which were rare. It was not nearly as common as Hollywood would have us believe. With the shields overlapping and creating a roof, visibility was almost non existent, and the Roman swords could not be used. A commander who orders testudo against advancing infantry or worse, cavalry, is at best incompetent. The Romans had specific formations for such events, which translate to "line formation," and the very creatively named "repel cavalry" formation.

One theory about the Greek hoplon being a forearm shield it the idea of community oneness. In a one on one duel, a forearm shield is more of a liability than asset, which meant that anyone who breaks formation would be vulnerable. The Greeks placed a great deal of emphasis on community and service to the greater good of the state as a whole, so this was possibly a subconscious way to enforce that principle. There is no way to prove this, but it is an interesting theory. Shield walls can and were formed with center grip shields. This was something the Norse and Germanic tribes excelled at. 

I would recommend the books _The Complete Roman Army_ by Adrian Goldsworthy and _Warfare in the Classical World_ by John Warry. These books are more focused on the organization, logistics, and overall tactics used by ancient armies (Especially Goldsworthy, which is very extensive), but there is some very good descriptions of equipment and weapons.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 12, 2016)

There is good video demonstrating the value of the center grip shield from a viking/round shield perspective. The center grip makes the shield a very good weapon, and you want it to pivot and slip from hits, not take the blow. The video below also goes into basics with swordplay.

Sword & Shield Fighting with Roland Warzecha - YouTube

One of the worst things D&D ever did, outside of the term chain mail, was to categorize the shield as a type of armor instead of a weapon, heh heh.


----------



## Zack (Feb 12, 2016)

Ok, thanks. Man, my history professors are so far off, it's kind of sad. Anyway thanks a lot for the help! I really appreciate it.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 12, 2016)

People, including professors, get a lot of funny ideas and they get perpetuated. Mail is a major for instance... for a long time, mail was considered lousy armor. Forget the fact that ancient peoples spent big money on this difficult to manufacture armor and wore it for centuries, it's just junk! What were they thinking?

Turns out the ancients knew what they were doing. Mail is mighty good stuff, just try slicing through those rings, good grief. And better against arrows than you'd expect. And seriously, this myth still gets put off on people in demos using butted mail, because, well, how much better could it be riveted or solid link? It'll drive a person crazy. 

Leather is the new mail, and leather and other textiles have even less chance to defend themselves because so few period examples remain intact, for obvious reasons. There is the ever popular "stick a dagger through your leather boot, pretty easy ain't it?" statement. Well, your boot isn't armor, neither is your leather jacket... although it can be handy when laying down a motorcycle... There are shields made from hardened leather, bet they work. Linen can stop an arrow at point blank, for crying out loud. A conversation with a guy in England a few years ago who tested leather armors for a museum told me not to underestimate them. Weight to protection was more the issue, metal is far more efficient protection, but beating your way through hardened hide armors is no fun. So really, to torture D&D, effective leather armor would be horrible for weight and maneuver compared to mail and plate.

To paraphrase Shrek, armors got layers...


----------



## TheKillerBs (Feb 12, 2016)

This has long bugged me but not to the extent to actually try to find out on my own so I figured I could ask here.  Would the usage of a small side-strapped shield allow the usage of a two-handed pole weapon as well? It seems to make sense, after all, side-strapped shields were designed for one to be able to keep one's hands on the reins of one's horse, yet I've never seen a reference to that sort of usage of one.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 12, 2016)

Theoretically? Sure. It's usefulness would be questionable. At that point it really just becomes a piece of armor, no longer a shield/weapon. I lot of pole fighting occurred in full plate, so such a thing would be redundant. Plate armor essentially made the shield unnecessary, hence greater development of pole-arm "fencing" and individual combat, as well greater use and development of two-hand swords. 



TheKillerBs said:


> This has long bugged me but not to the extent to actually try to find out on my own so I figured I could ask here.  Would the usage of a small side-strapped shield allow the usage of a two-handed pole weapon as well? It seems to make sense, after all, side-strapped shields were designed for one to be able to keep one's hands on the reins of one's horse, yet I've never seen a reference to that sort of usage of one.


----------



## TheKillerBs (Feb 12, 2016)

Ah, yes, that makes sense. I guess it might be a useful guard for the lead hand if one were to fight with a pole weapon and not in plate armour, though.


----------



## Jerseydevil (Feb 12, 2016)

TheKillerBs said:


> This has long bugged me but not to the extent to actually try to find out on my own so I figured I could ask here.  Would the usage of a small side-strapped shield allow the usage of a two-handed pole weapon as well? It seems to make sense, after all, side-strapped shields were designed for one to be able to keep one's hands on the reins of one's horse, yet I've never seen a reference to that sort of usage of one.



The Macedonians (King Philip, Alexander the Great and the Successors) used long pikes, about 18 feet long and also had a shield strapped to their arms. This only worked in the dense formations of the Greek inspired phalanx that they used. Such an arrangement was useless in close in fighting. The pike is far to long and unwieldy outside of a hundreds-strong formation. I have never heard of a strapped shield and pole-arm in any other context. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I've just never heard of it.

Shields in general started to disappear as plate armor became more prevalent (shields were used in jousts, but that was for all practical purposes a specialized sporting event). The reason is simple: why use a shield when you are essentially wearing one? Using something like a halberd with a chunk of wood and steel tied to the arm will be at best unwieldy and awkward, if not outright exhausting.


----------

