As an aside regarding historical shield use.
Shield use disappeared at the end of the medieval era when fullplate became high quality and more common.
It wasn't that fullplate appeared, it's that a proliferation of metal-enriched polearms appeared with all sorts of spiky bits designed to snarl up the enemy. A strapped-on shield is a lovely "handle" to be hooked and yanked (and if the target is on a horse, so much the better, because a head-first pile-drive from the saddle might just kill them outright).
I'd consider most historical details with a pretty big grain of salt. I have heard so many contradictory facts over the years about how combat worked, what people did and didn't do, etc all from fairly studied members of the historical community. The only constant I've found is that we have some general ideas, but even facts are up for debate.
To the OP, I'd just ask: show me a character build that uses shields offensively and we'll show you another build that works just as well doing something else.
From what I've read, hooking and yanking wasn't much of a combat tactic. I'm interested to see where your info came from as there's tons of reading material out there and I could easily have missed something.
My understanding is this:
Most late medieval polearms were halberd or lucerne hammer type deals providing a thrusting point and swung spike or hammer. The weird bill hook style weapons with all the bits coming off were older and originated with farmers putting long handles on what were essentially pruning axes. A hook and pull type attack wouldn't have all that much strength behind it and would mostly be of use after your formation broke and cavalry was overrunning your position, you generally wouldn't design weapons for that.
The narrower polearms where necessary to strengthen the point, as the old flat style poleaxes would bend with use against heavy armor. At the same time swords became more diamond shaped like an estoc rather than the old flat fullered blade design to increase rigidity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what I've read, hooking and yanking wasn't much of a combat tactic.Plate armor is the best armor not because it's necessarily more impervious, but because it's slippery. A polearm's or mace's hook, or a bearded-axe, is far more likely to glance off than it would if you were wearing chainmail, etc. ....Only -4 AC if you fall down? IRL, if you go prone in a mass-melee, you're just done as several opponents will swarm on top of you and jam points through eye slits and other weaknesses.
My understanding is this: Most late medieval polearms were halberd or lucerne hammer type deals providing a thrusting point and swung spike or hammer. The weird bill hook style weapons with all the bits coming off were older and originated with farmers putting long handles on what were essentially pruning axes.I don't know if that's true or not. I do know that halberds and bills are designed the way they are to snag. It's a misnomer to assume (as gamers tend to do) that axe-heads on polearms made them more destructive versus plate. Well, no, because you can't cut through plate. Maybe give a concussion through a weak helmet, perhaps, but that's simply due to excess mass at the end of the weapon, not due to it being sharp.
A hook and pull type attack wouldn't have all that much strength behind it ....
You don't need a ton of strength to *pull* (as oppose to push, or attempt to wound through armor) somebody off balance once you've snagged then. Especially if they're top-heavy, elevated on a mount, and/or tired from fighting. If you're in a pike formation, you have your shoulder-mates who'll lend a hand when you shout "I got one!". The thrusting points are largely useless against armored targets except once after you get a target on the ground.
-- If you have four or five guys standing on you poking away, you're not going to make it.
The Swiss Reisläufer (mercenary companies) were largely responsible for the obsolesce of mounted knights as viable battlefield units, and those lingered on only in regions where opponents did not utilize infantry polearm formations (e.g., the hussars in eastern Europe facing off against the Ottomans).
The Reisläufer were eventually matched by German copycat mercs, the Landsknechts, and battlefield tactics evolved again, as the latter deployed Zweihänder greatswords to prevail in "push of pike" struggles wherein everyone's polearms became snarled together into massive hedgehogl balls, and men unable to maneuver in the center of the thickets could be picked off with steel of more manageable length.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The hooks and snags are literally to pull knights off their horses onto their asses where generally a friend can take a dagger and stick it through an eye socket or into an armpit.
Or more likely threaten to do so; corpses rarely get ransomed.
Slim Jim, I'll be honest. I'm not sure what this has to do with shields disappearing.
Pike Push was considered the undesirable result of two pike squares clashing, was devastating to both sides, and was an early modern event. It has little to do with armor or shields. They were sniped by cavalry, and overrun by cavalry when their formation broke, or they became engaged in a push of pike.
The mounted knight type unit lost out not as much against pike squares as they did against pike and shot squares. Pikes of course don't have hooking implements on them, so this doesn't have much to do with the shield discussion. Cavalry's ability to run down retreats and assault unorganized troops became more relevant as warfare modernized as well, and armor just wasn't a part of that.
halberds were mostly anti pike weapons, used in the middle of pike squares, and used to break pike formation out of pike push scenarios. The axe head was there as their targets were primarily unarmored pike men, and enemy pikes. They were later replaced in the center square by fire arms.
Also, Hussars faced infantry pike formations regularly. The Hussar's lance was extremely long and hollow making it sturdy enough to drive through unarmored pike men, and long enough to do so with time to turn about without getting poked. Their armor was lobstered, not the sort of gothic plate we generally talk about as full plate.
As for the strength of a pull versus a push. You have a longer distance for force on a push, and it's a safer direction to move. Pulling someone down via their shield doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but you could easily push them backward via their shield.