Sword vs Shield

I say, the sword is truly more powerful than the shield. A shield is a material object one hides behind, relying on its strength to protect, not one's own. Those who hide behind their shield, trust in its strength not their own, leaving them weak and unable to improve. However, the sword can cut a swath through the enemy and can defend as well as attack. One who uses the sword meets oncoming attacks fiercely and does not cower in fear, trusting in their own strength as well as their brothers. The sword is only as powerful as the one who uses it, however this allows wielders of the sword the potential for unlimited power for their prowess may increase, but a shield cannot become any stronger than it already is.

no i think attack is better

Another often quothe proverb is " the best defense is a good offense." Besides if one cannot effectively strike ones opponent what chance does one have of winning? All you can hope for is a draw or defeat. 

In Defence of the Shield

I choose the shield. Often in battle one needs to protect, waiting for the enemy to tire before delivering the fatal blow. A sword's use is obvious... The shield, however, has many abilities. One may choose to merely hide behind a shield or one may choose to "use" the shield. Shields may be used for pure protection as well as aggressive and deadly weapons.

Seemingly only defensive, to the inexperienced, the shield can be used in parrying and blocking attacks. A master knows the shield's edges can effectively slash and stab. It's face can be used as a battering ram and a fence, hiding an attack. A shield can be worn on either arm or on one's back to free up both arms  for other tasks... Such as disarming the enemies sword and using it against him, while still having your back protected. It may also be thrown as a long range disc projectile. If not hitting with deadly accuracy distracting long enough to deliver a mortal wound. While most wildly stab, hack and slash with sword... Using a shield in combat, requires tactical, and strategical skill.

Indeed, I choose the sheild. It is more powerful than the sword. Not only because it is more flexible... or because it is designed with the sturdiness to bear prolonged attack... The most important reason for my choice is because it's not only able to protect one's self in battle but the man beside as well.

I would take a sword. A sword can strike when you choose, when your enemy is at his weakest, or in a faint before going to another side. It is up to the shield to re-act to the sword, not the other way around and thus the shield is at the mercy of the sword.

It would depend of the shield and sword, a broadsword can smash the shield, the hand and a half can be blocked followed by a punch to the face, a Katina can slice the shield, a knife or dagger, it really doesn't matter, can sneak across the side of the shieldand stab, the gladius would be too short to get around and can be hit in the face. I know a little shields, the Roman shield, whatever it is, couldn't be snuck around and reaching up would be no good, the large shield could be sneaked around and you could be killed but it couldn't be smashed but you cannot hit them in the face with it, and small shield, (hand shield?) would be just a horrible idea. If I had to chose my weapon it would be the hand and a half, or Katina.

The shield is a far more versatile tool.  If larger than a buckler it provides protection from auxiliary fire.  Like the sword, the shield can come in a variety of crafts to suit the needs.  The most important possession of a Spartan warrior was the shield. It served multiple uses including protection from auxiliary; melee protection for the user, as well as the fellow flanked warrior, as well as a stretcher. Should one lose the shield they were dishonored.  “Return with this shield or on it!”  The mass and weight could be easily used to cause a bludgeoning death blow to an opponent.  This however is only one type of shield.

As armor improved over the years to the knight’s plate with internal mail and padding, bludgeoning weapons were sought as the sword could no longer penetrate or slash through it. A heavy shield could translate enough force to cause the knight to die from internal bashing after repeated blows.

 Vikings would sometimes edge the rims of their shields to be better at slashing thus using it more as a weapon in tandem with the center shield boss.  By driving down with the shield edge at the opponents feet they could make a crippling attack whilst still offered protection from the shield. The center boss piece could be used for a direct ramming assault causing heavy impact that could easily kill an unarmored foe should an attack strike the head or chest.

Spiked shields though rare, and almost completely absent historical reference are deadly in their application.  A center boss not rounded yet pointed can now perform thrusting penetration type damage. Certain tribes of the Celts would incorporate many different lengths of center shield spikes.

A shield user need not hide behind his defensive tool enduring multiple blows from an opponent.  Parrying the attacking weapon outward to the side just as one would perform in an outward sweeping motion not only redirects the momentum of force but leaves the attacker open to a bludgeoning bash with the rim if it is dull, a slash attack if the rim is bladed or a rigged spike similar to a buzz saw jab. 

Smaller shields such as bucklers were crafted intentionally to defend against swords. One such design during the renaissance particularly with rapiers had a center trapping piece that could ensnare the tip of blade. Due to the forearm straps, manipulation for the shield user far outweighed the wrist power of the trapped sword user.

The epitome of an archaic shield would be metallic plate over wood. The wood layer underneath the plate absorbs the shock of the impact.  The Roman Scutum after being redesigned to protect against piercing and slashing attacks from several swords that could destroy it including the falcate sword was very powerful.  The center boss offered a strong punch and they would take the bottom of the shield and ram it at an opponent at waist level.  This pinning maneuver made it easy to use a slashing attack at the abdomen. 

Shields are heavier than swords, and due to the forearm rest would have shorter range than a sword.  Should a shield happen to be crafted with a round shape around twenty-six to thirty inches, metallic carbon plate over wooden layer with a spiked center boss, as well as a bladed outer rim it can know perform bashing, slashing, and bludgeoning attacks and counter attacks.  Though I do not believe such a thing was ever used in combat outside of Hollywood.  The Mortal Kombat movie comes to mind where an outclassed Johnny Cage happens to pick up such a shield from the debris of the fallen and uses it to block a fatal fire attack, slashes Scorpion’s torso cleaving of the top portion of his skull then decides just to chuck it for some reason to resume a martial arts weaponless stance.

Make no mistake I am not disrespecting the sword at all.  Its use can range to extremes of artistic flare, and designs accentuate different cultures and uses.  The cavalry sword, the rapier, kitana, all are fascinating killing weapons perfectly suited for their set design. 

I just wish to point out it is not cowardly to use a shield no more than it is to incorporate armor.  A shield is like a type of exterior armor that can be used as a powerful defensive and offensive weapon.

Musashi despite defeating multiple swords man at once, epic swordsman in single combat, and defeating stranger more exotic weapons such as the kusarigama, could not defeat a more defensive staff fighter. Defense is not better than offense, and likewise offense is not greater than defense.  You need a measure of both to succeed.