I am not 100% disagreing with you but when you start spouting incomplete facts at people you are just begging for someone to come and tear your post to shreds.
The different kind of weapons mentioned in your post and in earlier all have their strong sides and their weak sides. For example, a two-hander has an increases range of which people can be hit and the power it strikes with is almost doubled compared to one-handed weapons. But your flexibility, as mentioned before, is taking some blows and your defence is worse than that of a shield wearer.
This can be applied to every kind of weapon. All of them have their strong suits and their weak suits. Some may be better off against other weapons but they might be as good to another weapon.
Who said anything about piercing the armor? You do know that you can bypass the armor by hitting the weakspots, aka the joints?
Your usage of the term "real combat" is mindboggingly stupid, combat does not equal war. Combat is the act when two or more people use violence on each other to inflict harm. Something called "real combat" is a term that is nonexistent and frankly does not make any sense.
I can agree with you that a shield can be used as a weapon, but saying that someone with a shield facing someone without a shield would "smash the hell out of him" is very unlikely. A shield CAN be used as a weapon but is a very inefficient weapon due to it's short reach and low attack power.
About your statement that "THEY DIDN'T HAVE PROPER METAL AND WOOD TO MAKE SHIELDS WITH", I would very much like to see some proof backing up that statement. I doubt you will ever find anything to back this up (because there is none).
But hey, you wanna talk back? Good luck with that.
There could be some misspelled words in there and some holes, but hey, it's late!