Someone I know asserts that you use your dominant hand to wield your shield, and your offhand to wield your sword.
I assert that you would use your dominant hand for your sword because it requires much more finesse to use.
I cannot find any concrete evidence for either side, and I would love to know if there is any sources to back up either assumption. Thank you.
You just need to position the shield to receive impacts. You don't need that arm's strength as much as you need an arm to create the largest impact against your opponent with your sword. So you'd use your dominant hand.
Also you've lowered the action potential threshold in your dominant hand through more usage so it responds faster and easier to signals from your brain. You need speed and strength with the sword arm more than the shield arm.
Thank you for replying! Thats what I think as well.
Do you have any sources I could link too?
Or a subquestion, would there ever be a reason to wield your shield in your dominant hand?
Much Appreciated.
Someone you know is wrong. Take a look at some medieval art:
And many others, that I can't be bothered to Google. These all depict combatants holding their weapons in their right (and presumably dominant, unless you want to make an argument that historically everyone was left-handed) hands.
Shields were almost certainly not the immobile walls that modern folk imagine them to be - in the Norse sagas, their use as weapons is described frequently, for example - but they nonetheless were clearly intended to serve a defensive purpose, requiring less dexterity and speed. As such, they would obviously be consigned to the off-hand in standard practice. I have no clue why anyone would argue to the contrary.
Thanks for both of the answers, I really appreciate it.
