Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-13842697-20130729162413/@comment-50.70.28.115-20140410013851

202.156.8.15 wrote: There was probably a sword of Ysgramor too, just that we all don't see it. Long weapons like battleaxes were all good for horseback (most practical, very deadly if used in conjunction with the momentum of the horse) and field fighting (not as good as a sword and shield, but decent), but Ysgramor probs went CQC in rooms, houses, caves with a sword and shield (try swinging a battleaxe in a confined space!). Many warriors always carry a back up one hand weapon (mostly a sword, which is well balanced for fast attacks and not as off balance as an axe or mace, without the very short reach of a dagger) for close in fighting, mainly to avoid getting stuck, hurting their comrades, to attack faster and use a shield.

In fact, Ysgramor probably had a bow for long range as well. In fact, proper archers always carried a sword or axe (one handed) for fighting once their arrows were used up or the enemy came too close. Maces were mostly used by priests and monks.

So, there is no problem with Ysgramor's shield if we accept that he used different weapons for different situations you have obviously not been on horseback if you think two handed weapons (with the exception of a spear)are a good idea, that and you have some historical inaccuracies. first off military commanders almost never took part in ranged combat as it was seen as cowardly. the secondary weapon for most often a dagger due to its ease of draw and general use purposes. finally priests and monks in the west were literally never armed, save in games, and the small groups of monks in the east that were martial used primarily staffs and bladed weapons in conjunction with martial arts. the primary users of maces were knights to crack open their enemy counterparts armor. btw I have seen you sat the point about 2 handers on horseback elsewhere