• stoicmaverick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m going to press x on that one. What you say is true to an extent, but you would never grab a particularly pointy shield as your only weapon if you had to go on an offensive. Those things make it more effective from a defensive standpoint, but if I had to get into a fight I would choose a knife over any shield you could show me if I could only pick one, especially if I knew my opponent was going to also have an offensive weapon.

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Really? You would pick a knife over a large blunt sheet strapped to your arm that can both block and bludegeon your opponent? Disregarding any sharp edges or spikes, a large shield can easily break bones if swung at someone.

      In a knife vs. shield fight, the shield is an easy victor.

      • stoicmaverick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        My original analogy is breaking down pretty fast here. I was trying to make the point that a purely defensive stance has to work 100% of the time, while an offensive weapon can serve both purposes to an extent. If I had known it was going to go this direction, I would have used the example of a Kevlar vest.

        To answer your question though, 100% maybe. If my option was a butter knife. No. If we’re talking about it decent 12 in knife or claymore or similar. Yes I would. If the flight is that dire, you can take a hard hit with a shield a couple of times, perhaps even a bone breaking one to an arm, and keep moving at a reduced capacity. As long as you can reach around one time and put the blade between their ribs while they’re swinging a heavy shield, the fight is over. The point I’m trying to make, is that defense has to work 100% of the time, while offense only has to work once to do their respective jobs.