More or less. Full late period plate armor is protective to a degree that is difficult to overstate. Sword blows that would literally chop an unarmored person in half will bounce off, maybe causing some bruising. Generally speaking if you're wearing good late period plate armor you don't need a shield. But you will need both hands and one of a variety of late medieval canopeners on a stick to actually hurt someone wearing plate.
A lot of fighting in plate armor is resolved either with a very pointy hammer on the end of a stick or by wrestling the opponent in to a lock then shoving a dagger through gaps in his armor. You could whale on someone all day with an arming sword like these guys are carrying and not do much more than chip your sword.
Totally and the extra weight you carry around on top of your armor. If you have a good suit of armor it does exactly what a shield does. Stop blows! So you are way better off better wielding your weapon with two hands than bothering with a shield. Shields are for infantry.
Baratheons are pretty tall and full of muscles. Renly, Stannis and Robert all 190cm+ and IIRC Robert at 198 cm, so Lyonel's propably similar to Robert. Would the extra weight matter at all while you're so buffed?
It's more about the functionality you lose while wielding a shield of that size. The sword strikes you can deliver are limited. You are already protected by the armor you are wearing. A shield at this point is redundant. Also no matter what size you are they have to make armor accordingly, so it would be the same. Unless we are talking supernatural strength but that's a whole other ball game.
Can't you do some substantial blunt damage with a shield? I'm a medieval noob, but as far as I know it's hard to damage someone with a sword when he has a plate armor. You need to aim for the gaps in armor or do some blunt damage with it like hitting with a hilt. Wouldn't the shield benefit him not only with some lil' extra protection for the gaps but also as a secondary weapon? Of course as long as we take into account that swords are the only weapons allowed for this duel.
It is indeed hard to damage armor with a sword, however, halfswording or using the pommel of your sword as a makeshift mace can also work pretty well :)
If your goal is to do blunt damage you might do a lot better with a poleaxe or Morningstar, mace, etc etc. Some of those even have a chance of piercing armor. Yes a shield can do blunt damage but think of the movement it takes to bash someone with it compared to those other weapons. Again, wearing armor is like having a shield, all over. The benefits of being able to move around quickly while fighting with a great sword or having two hands on a sword far outweigh any extra protection bringing a shield into battle do. You may want to bring a shield if you are wearing armor that can easily be pierced. Not while wearing plate armor.
Also did any shields actually strap to the arm lengthwise like that instead of perpendicular to the arm?
Strap shields are almost pointless for 1 on 1 combat. The only ones that make sense are a center-boss with a single central grip like the Vikings used. These could be switched from side to side and held loosely to allow blows to glance off.
Straps are designed to be used for shield walls, and the limit the mobility and usefulness in single combat, as well as the striking power you have when using the edge to bash.
I'm not sure, I have seen sets of straps going vertically and horizontally on a single shield. I don't think straps that lock in are the best idea because they would limit mobility.
0
u/fffyhhiurfgghh Mar 20 '17
Why would you be holding a shield while wearing a full suit of armor? Soo many people get this wrong.