Which arm was the shield held in?

score:38

Accepted answer

Perhaps you're thinking of a video game, because I'm sure that what you posit makes no sense whatsoever in hand-to-hand combat.

A shield is just movable armor. It's big enough not to require a lot of accuracy in placement, just a shift toward the direction of attack. Its design, at some minimal level, will resist blows from hand weapons passively, i.e. requiring no strength. You could faint underneath a scutum and it would still deflect the odd sword thrust from your body.

Even if you're 100% successful in blocking his blows with your shield for the first few minutes, however, you'll eventually get tired, and find yourself on the pointy end of his blade. If you don't run away, you must attack him and kill, injure, or frighten him enough to remove that threat, and the enemy is not going to impale himself on your sword in the spirit of cooperation and fair play. Stabbing, slashing, or punching a disabling blow is going to take a lot of strength, and if any civilization used its dominant arm for shielding instead of swording, it's not likely to have lasted long enough to have a written history.

Upvote:0

Just to chime in on your reasoning of maximizing defense at the expense of offense.

The Macedonian phalanx used a Sarissa spear which was 2-3 times the length of the traditional Greek Dory spear. It was so large that it required two hands to hold the spear. The Macedonian shield was thus smaller than the traditional hopolite shield and held in no hand but draped around the neck of the soldier.

Sarissa The sheer bulk and size of the spear required the soldiers to wield it with both hands, allowing them to carry only a 60 cm (24 in) shield (pelta) suspended from the neck to cover the left shoulder.

A good offense is often the best defense. The Macedonian Phalanx's protection wasn't the undersized shield at all, but rather was the five layers of spears facing outward the longer spears afforded the formation.

Upvote:1

As a useless piece of extra trivia to this, the fact that mounted warriors of knights generally held their shield in their right arm, whilst riding a horse, shielded them from attack from someone coming from the opposite direction.

As this habit of riding on the left side, with the shield held in the right arm evolved and developed over time, it's the reason why cars in the UK drive on the left hand side of the road!

Here's some additional research to driving on the left hand side of the road –

In the past, almost everybody travelled on the left side of the road because that was the most sensible option for feudal, violent societies. Since most people are right-handed, swordsmen preferred to keep to the left in order to have their right arm nearer to an opponent and their scabbard further from him. Moreover, it reduced the chance of the scabbard (worn on the left) hitting other people.

Furthermore, a right-handed person finds it easier to mount a horse from the left side of the horse, and it would be very difficult to do otherwise if wearing a sword (which would be worn on the left). It is safer to mount and dismount towards the side of the road, rather than in the middle of traffic, so if one mounts on the left, then the horse should be ridden on the left side of the road.

Source

Upvote:1

According to the Wikipedia page, "Shield", the shields were shown always in the left hand. The reason might be, if the shield was in the right hand, then it would be harder to kill your opponent or in worse cases opponents. Another site is http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/rosivach/cl115/military/hoplites.htm

Upvote:1

Regarding left handed people it is believed that they were forced to learn to fight right handed, as has been pointed out this was to allow them to work as part of a formation. However it is also believed that once formations broke up individuals may have switched to their dominant hand, as in a melee they are nolonger a disadvantage to their comrades.

In melee or a one on one fight a left handed person has an advantage, they would be used to fighting right handed opponents where a right handed person would not be used to left handed opponent. This puts the right handed person at a disadvantage.

Some swordsmen (both left and right handed) are believed to have trained with both hands. This gives two advantages, firstly it builds strength in both arms, secondly having some skill with your non-dominant hand would be useful in the event of injury or has been pointed out when attacking up a castles spiral staircase.

Interestingly in the British army left handers are still taught to shoot right handed. This is be cause of the current in service rifle (SA80) is a bullpup design which can only be fired right handed (unless you want the casings ejected into your face). It can be fired left handed only if the bolt is configured on the left hand side, and the MOD refuses to buy left handed rifles.

Upvote:1

It turns out that with sword-and-shield, or any weapon with shield, where one should hold the shield is based on the shield type. Example: in China in Three Kingdom war about 245 AC. They had many shields, recognisable as typeof light and heavy shield. Light shields are used with the left hand and combat in non-open field and with charging troops. The heavy are used with the right hand and combat in open field when formed as a group in formula Turtle form. That's it.

Upvote:2

By heraldics the shields for one figure designed to face to the enemy. So the figure was facing leftwards, and generally the shield was worn on the left hand.
Try to imagine the concept, the shield's face facing out on the left hand, and the figure looks towards left, so towards the enemy.

The case is different with more figures, that is more complex, but a single figure gives a good hint on the usage.

I have a good book on this subject, but the wikipedia article also good enough.

So traditionally it was worn on the left hand. The arguement of "stronger hand" falls if you consider in a battle you need to kill or incapable the enemy, so it is more essential to use the weapon with the hand which is stronger and more precise.

Left handed people are more problematic in this subject, I have no sources yet to decide if they worn their shield on the right hand, and the weapon on the left hand. I can either imagine that they were forced to learn the righthanded fighting or they were left alone as exceptions of the rule.

Upvote:2

In addition to the other reasons for the shield on the left, the shield on the left makes it easier to parry sword thrusts in single combat, assuming your opponent is right-handed.

Upvote:9

It makes sense that in formations, everyone uses the same arm to hold the shield since the benefits of order in the formation far outweigh those of individual strengths. For example, hoplites carried their shields on their left arms, covering also those to their left. Anyone who was trained to be a hoplite would learn to use the shield on their left arms and would consequently find that to be their stronger shield arm irrespective of their natural preference.

Perhaps such a choice was possible in societies that did not fight in formations and did not enforce the use of a specific arm in training. I'm not aware of any.

Upvote:11

This only makes sense if you are not holding a weapon (e.g. a shield bearer). If you are holding a weapon, the weapon should be in your right hand for accuracy and strength.

I have studied several different styles of sword fighting and also the history of the sword, but I have never seen any reference to using a shield in the right hand when a weapon is present.

There are circumstances in which a left hander might choose differently, however.

More post

Search Posts

Related post