If you want to fight with me using weapons and armor I am participating in a larp event in South Carolina February 23-25. I am one of the neutral barons, Marmaduke Le scrope. You can fight under me as I need me. At arms and knights
@@senseishu937Excellent points. He is wearing chainmail and holding a kite shield. This video explains why shields got smaller in the Middle Ages: armor got better. But, as you know, it wasn't any less extensive in the year 1100 than it was in the year 1350.
It's fun how Italians invented both the biggest shield- the Pavise, which you post up and hide behind, And the smallest one - the buckler. A steel dinner plate with a handle.
The buckler isn't the smallest shield. I would like to introduce the dueling shield: a tea saucer with a handle 😂 It even had a specific style used with it that was highly effective and energy efficient.
Where canI find more information about this shield (maybe even images)? When I looked it up I only found shields which were definitely bigger than bucklers.
@@jamesmerkel1932 did they also invent Brass Knuckles? Because I think that would be the next step. The whole sword and buckler /dueling shield combo did make quite a racket though and gave us Swashbucklers.
The basic/minimal protection for warriors from the Classical ages to the Middle ages are basically Helmet and Shield, Body Armor is often for a assurance if an attack got pass the shield.
Even then, some -unfortunate infantry- light infantry would go to battle without either, since they'd be using a two-handed weapon (read: a pike) but not have access to anything beyond that, and also because a poorly armoured soldier is usually preferable to a missing soldier. I like your Steam graphical mods BTW.
@@spaceracer6861 The term Light Infantry is often stereotyped as poorly armed Infantry, though it can mostly be true there are a lot of Light Infantry that is used for specialized purpose, from the Roman Antesignani, Greek Peltast, Macedonian Agrianians and Iberian Almoghavars.
for warriors yes, for knights no. A full suit of battle ready plate armor is expensive as shit, knights trained their whole lives and either were rich nobles or were sponsored/hired by one. The average soldier in europe never had as good of equipment because they werent as good of soldiers.
@@atheonbanan1518 Source?, There are no such thing as Battle Ready Plate armor as far as I know, the most expensive armor are "Fitted Armor" where it's Tailor made for the user, where a Chainmail shirt has nor one less or more Iron ring. The Average Soldier in Europe really depend on the time period as in the early periods most of them would be freemen who would provide their own equipment which is mostly Gambesons but as the time goes on the average soldier would be able to afford munition armor like Brigandines which was once available for the Man-at-arms retinues.
Could it also be that armour specifically got better at defending against *arrows?* When armour wasn't full coverage and an arrow (or javelin) volley could cut down a formation, having a shield big enough to duck under and protect completely behind would be a tactical necessity. While the total lack of armour is a massive inaccuracy in the film *300,* the "We will fight in the shade" scene does show the utility of a shield that you can hide your entire body behind. Now, if you had full plate armour, the arrows would not be a serious threat. ....Okay, maybe cover your visor with your gauntleted hand or use the small shield you still carry.
Exactly my thoughts Armour gets enough to defend against ranged. Plus weapons changed. Infantry stopped being sword and board, and went to Pikes. If you ditch the shield, you can have a longer pockey stick, and if you're sticks longer. They can't poke you. Then when Guns came around. Armour was ditched entirely
@@kharnthebetrayer8251 It took a while for armor to be ditched entirely, as the very early firearms were not able to pierce through plate reliably, but the better the guns became, the less armor was worn, up until WW1, where armor was reintroduced, mostly with helmets.
@@kharnthebetrayer8251 infantry was never sword and board, thats a game/movie invention. it was spear and shield. even the romans considered the pilum the primary weapon that broke the enemy formation (ie they were throwing spearmen, rather than thrust spearmen). shields also dropped out of popularity before pikes. two handed polearms predate widespread use of pikes. also as said above, firearms did not cause the ditching of armour entirely. infact plate armour became more common during the rise of firearms. a cuirass went from the armour of a rich man to munitions grade armour. it was long after firearms were dominant that armour began to be reduced and even longer before it became a rarity.
@@matthiuskoenig3378swords were always a secondary weapon, thus the sheath for carrying. some individuals/groups of individuals did excell in sword fighting, but even to the samurai for example being real good with a sword meant that you were a terrible archer.
In the LARP i play at something very similar is happening. Some years ago, we had very little access to good materials and quality weaponcraft, so a big shield with a spear was our answer to everything. Now, some teams are ditching shields or bringing back to relevance the outdated small shields of our early days, because that makes a lot more sense when we have a lot more armor, plus freeing both hands means we can use halberds and stuff.
I would think that as weapons become bigger and badder, the utility of trying to statically block them decreased. The energy of a warhammer would still travel through a shield and probably tear your shoulder muscles, break your forearm, etc. Much better to use a more manueverable shield to deflect attacks rather than block them. In other words, parry king ftw
There's also the consideration of how tough the shield is, by my understanding. Something which will actually stop a warhammer or bullet is too heavy to make in large sizes. At least, that's pretty much what happened to plate: think of Napoleonic cuirasiers only armouring the vitals.
@@collaboration3511 Viking shields are big because they want you to him them, so the shitty planks they make them out of BREAK and your weapon gets caught in the HOLE in the shield you just made and you get hit in the mouth with an axe before you can pull it out
Armor and Polearms with professional armies absolutely were the reason. Even cloth armor is surpsingly effective. Let alone one with mail. Then plate is just ridiculous. People have troubles damaging plate when the target is a static dummy, while a person would move with a blow. (Well ideally).
@@CountKibblesNBits Big shields didn't go away* It's false that large shields disappear in the medieval period. Shields just as large as those from the early medieval period are still relatively common even at the end of the middle ages
also whatever you were trying to block was getting bigger and scarier, which meant you’d need a heavy iron shield to stop it (eg. crossbows/muskets) contemporary art shows that when walking under fire knights would turn their faces away and cover them with the shield, since the visor would be the weakest part of their armor.
Another side of that is as weapons got bigger, they required the use of two hands to wield effectively. Kind of hard to do that with a shield in hand, especially once main armor made them all but obsolete.
Swords also weren't nearly as popular as media depicts them. They weren't really even used much in combat, outside of more dagger-like side-weapons like the roman gladius. Polearms were really the most popular weapons on the battlefield, along with ranged weaponry, since being far from your enemy is better than not.
@larion2336 that's fairly inaccurate. HEMA advanced and adapted it's arts and styles. Polearms did see a lot of use, but they were used in tandem with swords as battlefield combat did not allow you the space to have an army of polearm wielders and archers. In close quarters both of those weapons were useless, and no army had the wealth to arm all of it's troops with plate armor, as well as archers were a skilled position requiring training and thus greater cost. The knights and cavalry wore the heavy armor, which the polearm wielders would have been the counter to. Other weapons became more popular for cavalry as armor improved to more blunt force weapons such as maces and warhammers, which weren't the hulking things depicted in games and movies. Oftentimes each side of the hammer had a different head: a blunt end for plate and a spike for chain mail. However, they still carried a sword as a sidearm for once they reached the lightly armored standard troops. The sword remained long after as a sidearm even after muskets and rifles became prevalent. What Hollywood and games get wrong the most is the weight and what sword combat actually looked like.
@king_z0g I can tell by your question you failed to read the entirety of the comment. I know I wrote a lot, but you probably should finish it before continuing.
@@jamesmerkel1932 I did read all of it, and while towards the end you suggested that swords were only sidearms, at the beginning you used terms like "in tandem with" and "polearm wielders were a counter to plate armour", which made me question your statement. I notice discussion on warhammers, and I wonder if you're saying that they were used by or against cavalry. Essentially, I'm asking you to either directly tell me what you mean or otherwise restate your point.
Tactics also have something to do with it. When units used the shield wall, the shields had to be large enough to basically interlock.The Greeks had shields large enough to carry their men home on it. By the high middle ages, the sheild wall was no longer useful because it could not stand up against the Frankish charge. Therefore, shields did not have to be large enough to interlock.
It's also important to note that one of the largest reasons large shields were used in ancient times. All the way through the middle ages is because while fighting in a formation, you could better defend against arrow volleys. As armor became more able to defend against arrows, large shields lost one of their main advantages.
Also, kite shields were used by infantry, as well as cavalry, as seen on Bayeux Tapestry. And later it has evolved into heater shield used by cavalry, while infantry used whatever shield they had.
Dark Souls taught me that with the invention of the 100% block, big wooden shields became obsolete. Until the discovery of the guard counter where big wooden shields became good again
Also you can make a shield thicker for better protection instead of wider/ longer. The Scottish Targe was small but a very thick sheild so thick it could deflect musket balls.
Military campaigns are more about lugging your stuff around day after day on crappy roads in terrible weather. Carrying a big shield sucks. At least armor is evenly distributed over your body. Smaller shields are about efficiency and economy of energy, especially as armor got better and as techniques and training improved, a man could do more with less shield. Another thing to consider - a sword and shield cannot occupy the same space at the same time, a larger shield impedes the movement of your sword. Cut lines and thrusts go faster without a big shield to aim around.
You meant like a Pavise? I think it's more like a anti-archer/crossbow bias. During the time Kite Shield were used it was used by Cavalryman and Infantry who have the means to afford it, Archers and Crossbowmen on the other hand are usually poorer people or hunters who need to skirmish or don't have the money to buy a Kite Shield.
And to be a portable cover, a pavise has to be tall enough to cover someone to at least waist-high, so you can actually crouch down behind it. That shit's heavy, even without the stand and mechanisms. That, and you have to pick it up every time you need to move, which means relocating and even rotating formations become slow as hell. So you can imagine it being mostly useful besieging en enemy fortification, when the target is less likely to keep moving around your portable cover.
If memory serves the kite shield was primarily a used by the Norman knights in France and England. The logic of it being thinner at the bottom was because it only had to cover the leg facing to the enemy with the horse covering the other leg. They were sometimes used dismounted but only in a battle line for melee combat.
Sorry for the long reply. Kite Shield was great for horseback, as you could kinda sling it over your back and ride off when someone is loosing arrows at you. The kite shape is to cover your leg as you ride off. When knights are dismounted, it still has to be light enough that you could keep moving. After all, the whole weight of it is on one arm, the other arm is going to have your pointy stick in it. If that's lost you pull out your sword, but you gotta keep moving. Now, the Pavise is mostly associated with the Genoese Crossbowmen but then the idea got copied by others. It's heavy as childhood trauma, and in battle or whatever they're carried on the crossbowmen's back. You order them to a position, they run up, take off the shield, stand it up and duck behind it. Then they load their heavy crossbows and take the opportunity to fire. Considering that a lot of battles were essentially sieges, it could be a long wait till you got the chance to hit someone. So once you post them up, they're good for hours and you weren't expected to march very long distances with the damn thing on your back. The key part is the Pavise was heavy, as they were waist high and kinda looked like a small door. At Crecy, the crossbowmen had left their heavy shields in the baggage train and were on foot, armed with their basic kit. When the French spotted the English they ordered the crossbowmen to give battle anyway. Crossbowmen got slaughtered, because the Welsh Longbow (used by the English) had a higher rate of fire. So by the time the crossbowmen gets one bolt ready, there was already an arrow in his arse. When they tried to run, the French Knights being arseholes cut them down. All of this could be avoided if they'd just waited for them to get a hold of their shields or walked with the shields on their back. But then again Pavise were heavy.
@@silverjohn6037 A kite like shield was also used in Byzantium by infantry I'm fairly certain. The thin bottom works on foot (pun unintended) quite well considering that you'd have one foot forward in a battle stance.
Big shields were basically a simple stopgap for little to no effective armor. So when armor got better and heavier, it just didnt make sense to lug around the extra weight. Experienced soldiers will look for every opportunity to shed excess weight from their kit on a long march, and the big shields just had to go.
I don't know how good the historic evidence is for this, but the bigger a shield is, the thinner it needs to be to still be maneuverable. Conversely, the smaller a shield is, the more sturdily it can be built. The extreme of this is the buckler which were typically all metal and nearly indestructible because of that whereas a thin wooden kite shield isn't going to hold up well to a late medieval polearm (much less a late-period couched lance).
More to the point is that ALL shields serve the purpose of deflecting and/or ablating weapon strikes: ~ heavier weapons are slower but a shield needs more mass/inertia to ablate the force of the weapon's impact ~ lighter weapons are faster but a shield needs less mass/inertia to be more maneuverable and better intercept the attack
its always interesting to see, the people of bygone eras were not dumb. Ingenuity and innovation happens in all eras. They were confronted with a problem, examined the problem, tested the solution, implemented the solution. They were not dumb, only limited to the technology of the time
Traditionally large shields were most valuable for blocking arrows. Even when the bows were powerful enough to penetrate the shield they could only get a few inches through before the friction on the arrow shaft bled off the last bit of energy. Because you could hold the shield away from the body those arrow heads ended in open air rather than in the body as when they penetrated armor. As guns became more common on the battlefield larger shields were no longer as useful but smaller ones could still be used for melee fighting enemies with spears and swords.
Idea! Spiked circular shields. And i mean like not on the front i mean the edges. Add two spikes on each edge and effectively turn the shield into a Katar Like Weapon that can block
I also like to add, a smaller shield would likely have a easier time deflecting vs a more "traditional" shield which blocks, a example being bucklers or buckler style shields. As weapons bigger and badder, a deflect becomes more desirable.
They also became thicker. As armor increased in effectiveness, crossbows were developed that could punch with more power. Thus, a thicker shield was needed. But, a thicker shield is heavier, so it became smaller to compensate.
In the Dominions games you get the same dynamic over the ages. As armour gets better, massed archers become less powerful and troops with shields become much less of a priority to avoid attrition.
This also could possibly be attributed to tactics as well. The Roman’s fought in well organized blocks while during the high Middle Ages that unit cohesion fell off a lot
I think my favourite is that weird period of time where sword breaker shields were a thing, basically shields covered with studs to catch swords when swung at them
Been playing Elden ring recently and the shields actually show this off perfectly, if you wanna parry an enemy attack a smaller shield actually makes it way easier to do vs a medium sized shield or tower shield which can’t use the parry maneuver normally
I think the huge shields were a product of Roman style warfare and were important in dealing with arrows from city walls but over time warfare became much more chaotic and city walls became a thing of the past. It’s cool to think about how knights had to deal with things like cannons in the late medieval period.
As a jogger and Rome Total War fan, I always think of how tiring it must be carrying those large shields when you need them on certain flanks, plus your armor your sword on full sprint. Damn that must be tiring.
Also, thickness. If you're wearing plate, your biggest threat is big smashy things and mounted attacks. To block those effectively, you need a thicker shield; and a small, thick shield can weigh as much as a larger, thinner shield.
Different shields also served different purposes on the battlefield, depending on what your role was. The kite shield for instance was developed for cavalry, specifically lancers, where the elongated tail of the shield would protect the (typically) left leg of the rider (since that was the side that would be exposed during a charge. This however wasn't well suited for dismounted combat, so when knights became more prevalent as "mounted infantry", rather than just shock cavalry, whereby they charged into battle on horseback, then dismounted to actually fight, their kite shields (which were strapped to their left arms) would largely hinder their (already limited) movement. This led to the development of the heater shield, which was much lighter, cheaper to produce, and most importantly - not strapped to their arm, but rather held in the hand similar to a buckler, with a sling which helped hold it in place while on horseback. This allowed heavily armoured troops to easily drop their shields when needed, freeing both their hands and making them much more manoeuvrable.
In the LARP (Swordcraft) that I do, a big shield is actually better than more armour! But that’s because you don’t take any damage from a hit to your shield, but you do take damage from a hit to your body even if you’re wearing armour
Also, as armour got bigger polearms and blunt weapons became more common. So you needed a thicker shield to be able to protect you against these weapons, and thicker means heavier so they had to be made smaller
I think it's also a thing that with time weapons and it's use changed more to thrusts rather than slashes or cuts, so you needed to protect smaller area
As most folks said, the usefulness of straight up blocking hits and weaponry decreased, while the ability of deflection and need to maintain mobility increased.
There's treatises of a round, forearm length shield paired with rapiers and other dueling sword, after the 15th centure. Purpleheart Armory sells a version of it.
Tactics also changed. Skirmishing, guerilla warfare, heavy calvary blitzes, etc. Many new tactics or older ones reinvisioned were developed and deployed.
Up to a point, if you had a bunch of armor, you had less and less need for a shield. Though a shield is still good simply because it provides that extra layer. But it did restrict your movement, which could have been more of a hindrance than a benefit at some point.
As armor started covering the most essential use of big shields (blocking arrows), which was relatively close to when heavy hitting polearms became increasingly prevalent, shields needed to be thicker and didn't need as much surface area, allowing both better shock absorption (due to a thicker layer of wood) and better maneuverability to hopefully deflect part of the impact and alignment of the blows.
Shields was, AFAIK, still effective tool for blocking attacks and can even prevent most projectiles(a sufficiently heavy sling stones can still give major head concussion). What killed shields for heavy infantry is the need to polearms that can't be wielded one-hand like a spear. Since their enemies are armored enough to require the likes of pollaxes and halberds.
My idea was that people used bigger shields because there was no armor, That piece of wood and metal was the only thing that stood between you and being impaled by a sword. Therefore, as their only line of defense, it was a NEED to have a large shield. Then, as armor became more prevalent, they finally started getting more insurance policy, and with that large kit of armor and shield, their mobility started being affected. So they had options now, and most chose better mobility as they finally had something else that would stop a sword rather than a shield.
It also depended what you were defending against. If the biggest threat is going to be volleys of arrows, you want a bigger shield to protect yourself more effectively. If your main threat is from cavalry or infantry with swords/spears/billhooks etc, then a smaller shield gives you much better manoeuvrability. If you’re fighting in a built up area, a massive rectangular shield is more likely to be a liability than an asset.
Eventually it would become more for deflecting. In theory if armor ever out scale weapons, you would have dropped the shield completely, and would start grabbing. So you could easily attack in the gaps
You also omitted the fact that a heater shield was much thicker than earlier kite Shields. As armor got stronger, only the heaviest of blows needed a shield. So play medieval shields were just as heavy, but they were more concentrated because it had to protect against crossbows and lances. You simply couldn't have a kite shield or a tower shield that thick
Robinswords has a short about the effectiveness of the buckler. It's size and weight allows you to block and parry from a greater distance than a kite shield.
some ppl argue why a someone in full plate needs a shield....the reality is ..even tho you have a full face armet or barbut. you still dont want to tank a mace/hammer hit onto your face or arms. hence a nice heater shield and warhammer combo is good to have
If you want to fight with me using weapons and armor I am participating in a larp event in South Carolina February 23-25. I am one of the neutral barons, Marmaduke Le scrope. You can fight under me as I need me. At arms and knights
What if you just want to be a spectator?
Can I bring a rifle?
If i lived near you, i’d be a knight and stay by your side in victory, or defeat. ❤❤❤ 😉 😜 😘
what about shield walls?, also common soldiers wouldn't be able to afford metal armor
I unfortunately do not have the money to participate.
Yep. People forget that during the age of big shields, most armor barely covered the arms, neck and thighs.
Didn't chainmail cover the arms and neck during the crusades though?
@@senseishu937they had small shields then
@@Mobius_Finch Except they didn't. Kite shields were used very prominently during the crusades.
@@senseishu937Excellent points. He is wearing chainmail and holding a kite shield. This video explains why shields got smaller in the Middle Ages: armor got better. But, as you know, it wasn't any less extensive in the year 1100 than it was in the year 1350.
@@Mobius_Finch Chainmail + kite shields during the crusades. Plate armor + smaller heater shields during the late medieval period
It's fun how Italians invented both the biggest shield- the Pavise, which you post up and hide behind,
And the smallest one - the buckler. A steel dinner plate with a handle.
The pavise was also used as a portable reloading fortification for crossbowmen.
Hadn't the buckler been around (in various forms) for thousands of years by that point?
The buckler isn't the smallest shield. I would like to introduce the dueling shield: a tea saucer with a handle 😂 It even had a specific style used with it that was highly effective and energy efficient.
Where canI find more information about this shield (maybe even images)? When I looked it up I only found shields which were definitely bigger than bucklers.
@@jamesmerkel1932 did they also invent Brass Knuckles? Because I think that would be the next step.
The whole sword and buckler /dueling shield combo did make quite a racket though and gave us Swashbucklers.
There are few things more intimidating than a guy who walks into battle with nothing but a shield bigger than himself
Except the guy kittet out in so much armor, he doesn't need a shield and has a giant sword 😅
At least that's my opinion.
They both would scare me.
Fuch that i hate riot shield users
A Pavise?
One of my favorite RPG video game builds (provided the game allows it) is one or two large shields that I smack monsters and the like with.
History proves that no matter if is small, is how you use it that it counts.
Thanks I needed that. Unfortunately I can’t wield my short sword particularly proficiently either 😂
@@sidvyas8549 i feel ya brother!😅
Big shields always get the shield maidens
@@qseit5140 short sword solidarity 🤣🤣✊
@laymanlinguist lmfaoooo
I love how he's clearly trying not to smile while doing this. It's obvious he loves sharing his interests and im here for it
The basic/minimal protection for warriors from the Classical ages to the Middle ages are basically Helmet and Shield, Body Armor is often for a assurance if an attack got pass the shield.
Even then, some -unfortunate infantry- light infantry would go to battle without either, since they'd be using a two-handed weapon (read: a pike) but not have access to anything beyond that, and also because a poorly armoured soldier is usually preferable to a missing soldier.
I like your Steam graphical mods BTW.
@@spaceracer6861 The term Light Infantry is often stereotyped as poorly armed Infantry, though it can mostly be true there are a lot of Light Infantry that is used for specialized purpose, from the Roman Antesignani, Greek Peltast, Macedonian Agrianians and Iberian Almoghavars.
for warriors yes, for knights no. A full suit of battle ready plate armor is expensive as shit, knights trained their whole lives and either were rich nobles or were sponsored/hired by one. The average soldier in europe never had as good of equipment because they werent as good of soldiers.
@@atheonbanan1518
Source?, There are no such thing as Battle Ready Plate armor as far as I know, the most expensive armor are "Fitted Armor" where it's Tailor made for the user, where a Chainmail shirt has nor one less or more Iron ring.
The Average Soldier in Europe really depend on the time period as in the early periods most of them would be freemen who would provide their own equipment which is mostly Gambesons but as the time goes on the average soldier would be able to afford munition armor like Brigandines which was once available for the Man-at-arms retinues.
yeah.. but we arent talking about classical to middle ages are we?
smaller shields are late middle ages to modern.
Could it also be that armour specifically got better at defending against *arrows?* When armour wasn't full coverage and an arrow (or javelin) volley could cut down a formation, having a shield big enough to duck under and protect completely behind would be a tactical necessity.
While the total lack of armour is a massive inaccuracy in the film *300,* the "We will fight in the shade" scene does show the utility of a shield that you can hide your entire body behind.
Now, if you had full plate armour, the arrows would not be a serious threat.
....Okay, maybe cover your visor with your gauntleted hand or use the small shield you still carry.
Exactly my thoughts
Armour gets enough to defend against ranged.
Plus weapons changed.
Infantry stopped being sword and board, and went to Pikes.
If you ditch the shield, you can have a longer pockey stick, and if you're sticks longer. They can't poke you.
Then when Guns came around. Armour was ditched entirely
@@kharnthebetrayer8251 It took a while for armor to be ditched entirely, as the very early firearms were not able to pierce through plate reliably, but the better the guns became, the less armor was worn, up until WW1, where armor was reintroduced, mostly with helmets.
@@kharnthebetrayer8251 infantry was never sword and board, thats a game/movie invention. it was spear and shield. even the romans considered the pilum the primary weapon that broke the enemy formation (ie they were throwing spearmen, rather than thrust spearmen).
shields also dropped out of popularity before pikes. two handed polearms predate widespread use of pikes.
also as said above, firearms did not cause the ditching of armour entirely. infact plate armour became more common during the rise of firearms. a cuirass went from the armour of a rich man to munitions grade armour. it was long after firearms were dominant that armour began to be reduced and even longer before it became a rarity.
And once full plate armour comes around. Shields become more unneccesary....... as then you have development of artillery and gunpowder weapons....
@@matthiuskoenig3378swords were always a secondary weapon, thus the sheath for carrying. some individuals/groups of individuals did excell in sword fighting, but even to the samurai for example being real good with a sword meant that you were a terrible archer.
In the LARP i play at something very similar is happening. Some years ago, we had very little access to good materials and quality weaponcraft, so a big shield with a spear was our answer to everything. Now, some teams are ditching shields or bringing back to relevance the outdated small shields of our early days, because that makes a lot more sense when we have a lot more armor, plus freeing both hands means we can use halberds and stuff.
I would think that as weapons become bigger and badder, the utility of trying to statically block them decreased. The energy of a warhammer would still travel through a shield and probably tear your shoulder muscles, break your forearm, etc. Much better to use a more manueverable shield to deflect attacks rather than block them.
In other words, parry king ftw
Viking shields were quite large and very dynamic in a period where mostly smaller weapons were used
You are correct in this assessment, For the most part.
There's also the consideration of how tough the shield is, by my understanding. Something which will actually stop a warhammer or bullet is too heavy to make in large sizes. At least, that's pretty much what happened to plate: think of Napoleonic cuirasiers only armouring the vitals.
Small? Dane Axe says hi
@@collaboration3511 Viking shields are big because they want you to him them, so the shitty planks they make them out of BREAK and your weapon gets caught in the HOLE in the shield you just made and you get hit in the mouth with an axe before you can pull it out
Larger shields would also get in the way of carrying polearms. Depending on the shield and how it was carried even small shields could get in the way.
Armor and Polearms with professional armies absolutely were the reason.
Even cloth armor is surpsingly effective. Let alone one with mail. Then plate is just ridiculous. People have troubles damaging plate when the target is a static dummy, while a person would move with a blow. (Well ideally).
@@dianapennepacker6854You generally don't even attempt to get through plate.
You grapple, or you bonk their noggin.
Shields don't go away until well after the medieval period. This video is nonsense
@@atom8248 someone didn't pay attention to the video.
@@CountKibblesNBits Big shields didn't go away*
It's false that large shields disappear in the medieval period. Shields just as large as those from the early medieval period are still relatively common even at the end of the middle ages
also whatever you were trying to block was getting bigger and scarier, which meant you’d need a heavy iron shield to stop it (eg. crossbows/muskets)
contemporary art shows that when walking under fire knights would turn their faces away and cover them with the shield, since the visor would be the weakest part of their armor.
Another side of that is as weapons got bigger, they required the use of two hands to wield effectively. Kind of hard to do that with a shield in hand, especially once main armor made them all but obsolete.
Swords also weren't nearly as popular as media depicts them. They weren't really even used much in combat, outside of more dagger-like side-weapons like the roman gladius. Polearms were really the most popular weapons on the battlefield, along with ranged weaponry, since being far from your enemy is better than not.
@larion2336 that's fairly inaccurate. HEMA advanced and adapted it's arts and styles. Polearms did see a lot of use, but they were used in tandem with swords as battlefield combat did not allow you the space to have an army of polearm wielders and archers. In close quarters both of those weapons were useless, and no army had the wealth to arm all of it's troops with plate armor, as well as archers were a skilled position requiring training and thus greater cost. The knights and cavalry wore the heavy armor, which the polearm wielders would have been the counter to. Other weapons became more popular for cavalry as armor improved to more blunt force weapons such as maces and warhammers, which weren't the hulking things depicted in games and movies. Oftentimes each side of the hammer had a different head: a blunt end for plate and a spike for chain mail. However, they still carried a sword as a sidearm for once they reached the lightly armored standard troops. The sword remained long after as a sidearm even after muskets and rifles became prevalent.
What Hollywood and games get wrong the most is the weight and what sword combat actually looked like.
@@jamesmerkel1932 I'm very late to this, but are you suggesting that swords were equally as popular as polearms in large-scale battles?
@king_z0g I can tell by your question you failed to read the entirety of the comment. I know I wrote a lot, but you probably should finish it before continuing.
@@jamesmerkel1932 I did read all of it, and while towards the end you suggested that swords were only sidearms, at the beginning you used terms like "in tandem with" and "polearm wielders were a counter to plate armour", which made me question your statement. I notice discussion on warhammers, and I wonder if you're saying that they were used by or against cavalry. Essentially, I'm asking you to either directly tell me what you mean or otherwise restate your point.
I love that Games like DarkSouls teach you this without even trying to
Tactics also have something to do with it. When units used the shield wall, the shields had to be large enough to basically interlock.The Greeks had shields large enough to carry their men home on it. By the high middle ages, the sheild wall was no longer useful because it could not stand up against the Frankish charge. Therefore, shields did not have to be large enough to interlock.
This kind of content is all I've ever wanted
So the paladin can smite properly
I'd love to hear you talk about how practical Captain America's shield would actually be during different places and points in history.
That kite shield is a beauty
I am absolutely stealing that kite shield design for my dnd character that is sick
It’s like saying Who needs a tank when you can become the tank
First you needed a shield, then you became *THE SHIELD*
The kite shield is my favorite, aesthetically.
It's also important to note that one of the largest reasons large shields were used in ancient times. All the way through the middle ages is because while fighting in a formation, you could better defend against arrow volleys. As armor became more able to defend against arrows, large shields lost one of their main advantages.
Also, kite shields were used by infantry, as well as cavalry, as seen on Bayeux Tapestry. And later it has evolved into heater shield used by cavalry, while infantry used whatever shield they had.
Warhammer/Maces: "And I took that personally"
Dark Souls taught me that with the invention of the 100% block, big wooden shields became obsolete.
Until the discovery of the guard counter where big wooden shields became good again
Also you can make a shield thicker for better protection instead of wider/ longer. The Scottish Targe was small but a very thick sheild so thick it could deflect musket balls.
I love medieval but thank god i born 1500 years later
"Why did shield get smaller over time?"
Riot Police: "shield get what?"
Military campaigns are more about lugging your stuff around day after day on crappy roads in terrible weather. Carrying a big shield sucks. At least armor is evenly distributed over your body. Smaller shields are about efficiency and economy of energy, especially as armor got better and as techniques and training improved, a man could do more with less shield.
Another thing to consider - a sword and shield cannot occupy the same space at the same time, a larger shield impedes the movement of your sword. Cut lines and thrusts go faster without a big shield to aim around.
It's like how Octopuses lost their shell
I love shields They are so maleficent❤
Real dumb question, why didn't kite sheilds have a kick stand?
Slam it into the ground, kickstand to keep it in place, shoot arrows from behind
You meant like a Pavise?
I think it's more like a anti-archer/crossbow bias.
During the time Kite Shield were used it was used by Cavalryman and Infantry who have the means to afford it, Archers and Crossbowmen on the other hand are usually poorer people or hunters who need to skirmish or don't have the money to buy a Kite Shield.
And to be a portable cover, a pavise has to be tall enough to cover someone to at least waist-high, so you can actually crouch down behind it.
That shit's heavy, even without the stand and mechanisms. That, and you have to pick it up every time you need to move, which means relocating and even rotating formations become slow as hell.
So you can imagine it being mostly useful besieging en enemy fortification, when the target is less likely to keep moving around your portable cover.
If memory serves the kite shield was primarily a used by the Norman knights in France and England. The logic of it being thinner at the bottom was because it only had to cover the leg facing to the enemy with the horse covering the other leg. They were sometimes used dismounted but only in a battle line for melee combat.
Sorry for the long reply.
Kite Shield was great for horseback, as you could kinda sling it over your back and ride off when someone is loosing arrows at you. The kite shape is to cover your leg as you ride off.
When knights are dismounted, it still has to be light enough that you could keep moving. After all, the whole weight of it is on one arm, the other arm is going to have your pointy stick in it. If that's lost you pull out your sword, but you gotta keep moving.
Now, the Pavise is mostly associated with the Genoese Crossbowmen but then the idea got copied by others.
It's heavy as childhood trauma, and in battle or whatever they're carried on the crossbowmen's back. You order them to a position, they run up, take off the shield, stand it up and duck behind it. Then they load their heavy crossbows and take the opportunity to fire. Considering that a lot of battles were essentially sieges, it could be a long wait till you got the chance to hit someone. So once you post them up, they're good for hours and you weren't expected to march very long distances with the damn thing on your back.
The key part is the Pavise was heavy, as they were waist high and kinda looked like a small door.
At Crecy, the crossbowmen had left their heavy shields in the baggage train and were on foot, armed with their basic kit. When the French spotted the English they ordered the crossbowmen to give battle anyway. Crossbowmen got slaughtered, because the Welsh Longbow (used by the English) had a higher rate of fire. So by the time the crossbowmen gets one bolt ready, there was already an arrow in his arse. When they tried to run, the French Knights being arseholes cut them down. All of this could be avoided if they'd just waited for them to get a hold of their shields or walked with the shields on their back. But then again Pavise were heavy.
@@silverjohn6037 A kite like shield was also used in Byzantium by infantry I'm fairly certain. The thin bottom works on foot (pun unintended) quite well considering that you'd have one foot forward in a battle stance.
I didn't know the dude from Clerks had all that knowledge
Big shields were basically a simple stopgap for little to no effective armor. So when armor got better and heavier, it just didnt make sense to lug around the extra weight. Experienced soldiers will look for every opportunity to shed excess weight from their kit on a long march, and the big shields just had to go.
I don't know how good the historic evidence is for this, but the bigger a shield is, the thinner it needs to be to still be maneuverable. Conversely, the smaller a shield is, the more sturdily it can be built. The extreme of this is the buckler which were typically all metal and nearly indestructible because of that whereas a thin wooden kite shield isn't going to hold up well to a late medieval polearm (much less a late-period couched lance).
More to the point is that ALL shields serve the purpose of deflecting and/or ablating weapon strikes:
~ heavier weapons are slower but a shield needs more mass/inertia to ablate the force of the weapon's impact
~ lighter weapons are faster but a shield needs less mass/inertia to be more maneuverable and better intercept the attack
its always interesting to see, the people of bygone eras were not dumb. Ingenuity and innovation happens in all eras. They were confronted with a problem, examined the problem, tested the solution, implemented the solution. They were not dumb, only limited to the technology of the time
Traditionally large shields were most valuable for blocking arrows. Even when the bows were powerful enough to penetrate the shield they could only get a few inches through before the friction on the arrow shaft bled off the last bit of energy. Because you could hold the shield away from the body those arrow heads ended in open air rather than in the body as when they penetrated armor.
As guns became more common on the battlefield larger shields were no longer as useful but smaller ones could still be used for melee fighting enemies with spears and swords.
Shields been REAL quiet since the Warhammer came around.
Idea!
Spiked circular shields.
And i mean like not on the front i mean the edges. Add two spikes on each edge and effectively turn the shield into a Katar Like Weapon that can block
I also like to add, a smaller shield would likely have a easier time deflecting vs a more "traditional" shield which blocks, a example being bucklers or buckler style shields. As weapons bigger and badder, a deflect becomes more desirable.
Here I was thinking that smaller shields were easier to dual shield with.
The hoodie as a gambeson look is oddly satisfying
Phalanxes probably one of the few reasons to use tower shields.
They also became thicker. As armor increased in effectiveness, crossbows were developed that could punch with more power. Thus, a thicker shield was needed. But, a thicker shield is heavier, so it became smaller to compensate.
In the Dominions games you get the same dynamic over the ages. As armour gets better, massed archers become less powerful and troops with shields become much less of a priority to avoid attrition.
This is how I play souls games, start of with the knight, sword, and shield
Then progress to wear the heaviest armor and the largest great sword
Also that kite shield was used by footmen and horsemen alike, so the long tail was useful for protecting the horse partially as well.
This also could possibly be attributed to tactics as well. The Roman’s fought in well organized blocks while during the high Middle Ages that unit cohesion fell off a lot
Always remember, big sword always beats big shield
* roman tower shield * "allow me to introduce myself" (can't wait for him to prove me wrong)
Imagine having a large shield, that you could separate into a smaller one, by releasing a strip or two. Leaving behind some sort of shield frame.
There's also an element of shields replacing coverage with thickness. Same weight, but better concentrated to deal with more powerful weapons.
I’ve heard heater shields were built thicker than most other shield types so that it would have more mass for blocking things like maces.
I think my favourite is that weird period of time where sword breaker shields were a thing, basically shields covered with studs to catch swords when swung at them
Makes sense that after a point, weapons got so good no practical scaled up shield could defend against the.
Been playing Elden ring recently and the shields actually show this off perfectly, if you wanna parry an enemy attack a smaller shield actually makes it way easier to do vs a medium sized shield or tower shield which can’t use the parry maneuver normally
I think the huge shields were a product of Roman style warfare and were important in dealing with arrows from city walls but over time warfare became much more chaotic and city walls became a thing of the past. It’s cool to think about how knights had to deal with things like cannons in the late medieval period.
As a jogger and Rome Total War fan, I always think of how tiring it must be carrying those large shields when you need them on certain flanks, plus your armor your sword on full sprint. Damn that must be tiring.
We now need you to do a CK3 playthough dressed in this.
Early armor was mostly layered clothes or leather. Large Shields were need to stop projectile weapons, arrows, stones.
The blue shield just hit me right in my "Might and magic 6: the mandate of heaven" nostalgia.
"DODGE!!!"
-Piccolo, Dragon Ball Z Abridged
Some serious Newton Heath vibes here
Also, thickness. If you're wearing plate, your biggest threat is big smashy things and mounted attacks. To block those effectively, you need a thicker shield; and a small, thick shield can weigh as much as a larger, thinner shield.
Different shields also served different purposes on the battlefield, depending on what your role was.
The kite shield for instance was developed for cavalry, specifically lancers, where the elongated tail of the shield would protect the (typically) left leg of the rider (since that was the side that would be exposed during a charge.
This however wasn't well suited for dismounted combat, so when knights became more prevalent as "mounted infantry", rather than just shock cavalry, whereby they charged into battle on horseback, then dismounted to actually fight, their kite shields (which were strapped to their left arms) would largely hinder their (already limited) movement. This led to the development of the heater shield, which was much lighter, cheaper to produce, and most importantly - not strapped to their arm, but rather held in the hand similar to a buckler, with a sling which helped hold it in place while on horseback. This allowed heavily armoured troops to easily drop their shields when needed, freeing both their hands and making them much more manoeuvrable.
In the LARP (Swordcraft) that I do, a big shield is actually better than more armour! But that’s because you don’t take any damage from a hit to your shield, but you do take damage from a hit to your body even if you’re wearing armour
Also, as armour got bigger polearms and blunt weapons became more common. So you needed a thicker shield to be able to protect you against these weapons, and thicker means heavier so they had to be made smaller
I think it's also a thing that with time weapons and it's use changed more to thrusts rather than slashes or cuts, so you needed to protect smaller area
Shields are the poor man's armour
As someone who has worn chainmail, all I could hear was your jingling. Game recognizes game.
I would also add the fact that the smaller shield allowed for better visibility and sword maneuverability in combat
Now I want to see Captain America with a massive sheild.
yea, but at the same time, portable shield walls that crossbowmen used came to be.
As most folks said, the usefulness of straight up blocking hits and weaponry decreased, while the ability of deflection and need to maintain mobility increased.
That one dude who run a small shield first must of had a hard time 😅😂
dark souls 3 dual shield build cosplay:
plot twist it was just easier to fool the enemy when it comes to parrying
There's treatises of a round, forearm length shield paired with rapiers and other dueling sword, after the 15th centure. Purpleheart Armory sells a version of it.
Tactics also changed. Skirmishing, guerilla warfare, heavy calvary blitzes, etc. Many new tactics or older ones reinvisioned were developed and deployed.
Up to a point, if you had a bunch of armor, you had less and less need for a shield. Though a shield is still good simply because it provides that extra layer. But it did restrict your movement, which could have been more of a hindrance than a benefit at some point.
Simply put: you became the shield
I already knew this, I just wanted to tell you, That that is a beautiful shield.
My bro looking like a Dark Souls character doing a shields only challenge
Bro looks like a duel shield build in Elden Ring
*cue the late medieval/early renaissance with bucklers and civilian clothing*
Dual wielding shield is the meta..
As armor started covering the most essential use of big shields (blocking arrows), which was relatively close to when heavy hitting polearms became increasingly prevalent, shields needed to be thicker and didn't need as much surface area, allowing both better shock absorption (due to a thicker layer of wood) and better maneuverability to hopefully deflect part of the impact and alignment of the blows.
Shields was, AFAIK, still effective tool for blocking attacks and can even prevent most projectiles(a sufficiently heavy sling stones can still give major head concussion). What killed shields for heavy infantry is the need to polearms that can't be wielded one-hand like a spear. Since their enemies are armored enough to require the likes of pollaxes and halberds.
It bothers me that you have two shields 😂 i don't even know why but it cracks me up 😂😂😂
My idea was that people used bigger shields because there was no armor, That piece of wood and metal was the only thing that stood between you and being impaled by a sword. Therefore, as their only line of defense, it was a NEED to have a large shield. Then, as armor became more prevalent, they finally started getting more insurance policy, and with that large kit of armor and shield, their mobility started being affected. So they had options now, and most chose better mobility as they finally had something else that would stop a sword rather than a shield.
It also depended what you were defending against. If the biggest threat is going to be volleys of arrows, you want a bigger shield to protect yourself more effectively. If your main threat is from cavalry or infantry with swords/spears/billhooks etc, then a smaller shield gives you much better manoeuvrability. If you’re fighting in a built up area, a massive rectangular shield is more likely to be a liability than an asset.
Sometimes no shield at all is preferable, to maintain high mobility and prevent the shield getting stuck on something.
Eventually it would become more for deflecting. In theory if armor ever out scale weapons, you would have dropped the shield completely, and would start grabbing. So you could easily attack in the gaps
I think it also depends more on the context too. A buckler is best at being a buckler… but it’s not better than the pavise at being a pavise etc
You also omitted the fact that a heater shield was much thicker than earlier kite Shields. As armor got stronger, only the heaviest of blows needed a shield. So play medieval shields were just as heavy, but they were more concentrated because it had to protect against crossbows and lances. You simply couldn't have a kite shield or a tower shield that thick
Robinswords has a short about the effectiveness of the buckler. It's size and weight allows you to block and parry from a greater distance than a kite shield.
some ppl argue why a someone in full plate needs a shield....the reality is ..even tho you have a full face armet or barbut. you still dont want to tank a mace/hammer hit onto your face or arms. hence a nice heater shield and warhammer combo is good to have
Thank you for the information, but also damn dude you look good in that armor. Like wow!