maybe have Multi functional Paveses have exist what could be used Standing on the ground against Arrows and Bolts and be used half way descent in Hand to hand combat .
You never know when ninjas might be around. Better be safe and hold your shield behind you just in case, that way you can die from the honorable battleaxe in front of you than the risk of a surprise ninja from behind...... Or they just may be hot and want to die in the shade....
Yeah, getting even a fraction of an army's worth of men who can draw a 100+lb bow, or the industry to manufacture a several hundred pound crossbow was an accomplishment rarely done in mass. Plus, getting stabbed in the arm still has a higher survival rate than the torso, even with infections.
Great historical example comes from the "The history of the wars" or "the wars" by Procopius (somewhere around the 6th century, but obviously you find free translations online just as easy). In book I, at some point he compares Eastern Roman and Persian archery and their equipment: "...especially among the Persians they were falling by the arrows in great numbers. For while their missiles were incomparably more frequent, since the Persians are almost all bowmen and they learn to make their shots much more rapidly than any other men, still the bows which sent the arrows were weak and not very tightly strung, so that their missiles, hitting a corselet, perhaps, or helmet or shield of a[n Eastern] Roman warrior, were broken off and had no power to hurt the man who was hit. The Roman bowmen are always slower indeed, but inasmuch as their bows are extremely stiff and very tightly strung, and one might add that they are handled by stronger men, they easily slay much greater numbers of those they hit than do the Persians, for no armour proves an obstacle to the force of their arrows."
@@louisvictor3473 Anna Comnemna says a similar thing about the Seljuk Turks with their horse archers with composite bows and the Crusaders with crossbows during the 1st Crusade. She described knights absolutely covered in arrows stuck in shields and mail that failed to penetrate while finding the penetration power of crossbows shocking.
Interesting fact I came across recently is that Byzantine military manuals recommended that horse archers should NOT be armed with very heavy bows, that speed of shooting (and therefore volume of arrow fire) is a preferable trait on the battlefield to the greater range etc of more powerful bows.
Especially given what we've learned about the protective value of common textile armors; that itself isn't taking into acount rigid, or semi-rigid, metallic armors worn over the textile armor.
I think it is important to account for what the shield is used with. For example, even if the shield can't stop a longbow arrow, the mail can't stop it and the padded jacket can't stop it, but all three combined just might. Layers of protection.
@Projected Senator Raymond Foster Depends on the shield. Typically the larger a shield became, the thinner it had to be to avoid becoming too heavy. The Roman scutum for example was made from very thin plywood. It would have offered minimal protection from longbows and crossbows, especially at close range. Luckily for the Romans, bows of their time period were much weaker.
Its all about layers, even if the missile goes through the shield it'll have lost a signifiant portion of its kinetic energy. Now the missile has to penetrate the body armour (if used) and even the under layer of garments or gambison with less energy. What could've been a major wound could be reduced to a minor wound or even totally negated.
Not only the speed of the projectile will be reduced when going through each layer, the tip can also be blunted/deformed, and the angle of the projectile can change too... IMO this can make all the difference in many cases, ie needle arrow VS mail shirt. And finally of course, a shield would be useful in hand to hand fight, especially against people that might use anti-armor weapons.
My thoughts as well. I understood shields to be generally to be a less weighty form of protection (like armour) with the draw back of having to actively use it. On the battle field, it is equivalent to having more armour against one direction (i.e. towards the missiles) without having to sacrifice too much mobility (since you can also discard it once it is too damaged/weighed down as opposed to stuff strapped to you).
I was going to write the same, until I saw your comment. In addition, I suspect importantly, if the shield was ruined, had spears and arrows stuck in it, or otherwise became cumbersome, it was easily discarded. Even if a spear or arrow penetrated the shield and armor, and even if it caused a non-lethal wound, ditching the shield would remove the spear. Meanwhile, ditching body armor really wasn't an option. Just not having to spend the battle with a bunch of arrows and spears stuck to your armor would be more than worth it. For support, while I'm sure shields were retrieved and repaired after battle, it's clear that the Vikings treated shields as partly disposable, as warrior graves usually contain several shields. It's easy to forget that warriors and soldiers of past times were rational professionals, whose lives depended on their equipment. They knew that even slight benefits added up, and carefully weight the cost/benefit of every piece. If a shield improved their chances by 10%, while not causing any significant disadvantage, they'd use a shield.
Don't forget, also, that for the most part, fighters holding shields weren't just hiding behind them standing still waiting for something to puncture their shields. Shields would have been in constant motion and the odds of a sword or arrow striking one from straight-on perpendicular are very small. The shield would most likely have been struck a glancing blow. Let us not forget that the shield was a hugely useful attack weapon that could be used to leverage your close combat foe off balance or even used as a blunt weapon to dispatch a downed foe. The usefulness of shields is woefully understimated.
But you can view your heroes & examine their equiptment, video cuts to a barely dressed young lady with no armour, few weapons, but quite impressive equiptment.
It's like modern body armor. Yes there are rounds that will penetrate body armor depending on the level you're wearing but it doesn't mean it isn't worth wearing.
Modern body armour works great, as long as the other person shoots it. There are plenty of areas left uncovered that if hit there, you’re going to be out of action. Not saying it’s not worth having, just that you’d better keep your first aid skills sharp as well. I’m of the better to have and not need camp, but every time it goes on it shines a light on how relatively unfit I am nowadays. Body armours’ primary function, as far as I’m concerned, is to help you survive on your way to cover.
@Kshitij Raj a properly fitted plate/carrier should cover from clavicle to belly button, and from nipple to nipple on the front. On the back it should be 2” down from your most prominent vertebrae (look down, and starting from the base of your skull feel downward. It’s the one that sticks out most) to just above the small of your back. Since most people buy the same size plate front and back, the back plates upper location is the important one. This is more that half of your torso, if you’re facing perpendicular to the target. It’s also the reason modern shooting stances are how they are. If a person is going to wear plates, they should be wearing side plates as well. m.ua-cam.com/video/PO_8GGluIOM/v-deo.html That’s a good resource for this kind of talk.
@Kshitij Raj the point of either armours is to keep you alive. Getting a wound in the olde tymes was much more likely to go septic. They needed more coverage to help keep that from happening. Getting shot in the arm/legs is survivable, with medical attention. The neck/face/head is a small fast moving target. A spear or a sword leaves a much bigger wound, typically, but is also much easier to protect against. Look at the weight of a full plate harness (the best protection before firearms) vs what the average US infantryman is required to carry. Believe it or not, the plate weighs less, depending on SOP. That’s one of the reasons you see the folks that have more freedom of choice in their loadout choose to forego the flak aspect. Of course if you have an MRAP, your armour is something that a knight could only dream of having. Heck even 20th century soldiers would be envious.
@@nathanielkidd2840 It covers the most vital areas. Most people aim for center mass also. Just like medieval armor, it doesn't cover everything but it improves your odds. Naturally mobility is important as well but a well fit , quality piece of modern rifle plates should have minimal impact on mobility.
Consider modern body armor. Most police in the U.S. wear class 3A armor which isn't proofed against rifle rounds but is against handgun and shot gun rounds. Why? Rifle rated armor is heavy and bulky and likely unneeded in civilian shootings
@@yoursexualizedgrandparents6929 Put your skills into riding and horse archery. It's better than using polearms from horseback when you're up against a larger and tougher army.
Have you considered strapping bucklers to each of your forearms as well? Since according to early DnD that was technically an option, since apparently that's how you use bucklers according to TSR.
Also, often ignored, center grip shields give into impact quite a bit when hit anywhere with a bit distance from the boss, which messes with the penetration quite a bit. Tests often do not simulate this, I believe yours did not as well, and show rather results of strap wielded shields which are more fixed in this regard.
@@holyknightthatpwns it might be very slight, I would have to do some calculations, but the arrow’s point being shoved out of line with the direction of the force of the following arrow and its momentum would change the amount of force the arrowhead exerts perpendicular to the shield, lowering the penetration. I imagine it would indeed be slight, even when considering the bending of the arrow that would occur as the arrow attempts to maintain its straight path.
@@AHagridLookalike Oh, that's a good point. I hadn't thought about the lateral motion helping to deflect the arrow. In general I think there should also be more tests against an angled shield, as I doubt projectiles regularly hit them head on
@@Riceball01 why yes, you can definitely slide around on top of bodies as well since they are basically frozen during winter: especially in colder climates.
A shield won't always be struck by a perpendicular projectile. Having a shield angled would probably deflect quite a few projectiles and still cover the body quite well.
Most of the tests I have seen involve a missile fired/thrown at a static shield from exactly in front. In reality, a shield was not just a passive barrier. It could be turned to an angle to deflect missiles or blows, and it could be moved up down or sideways to parry. A blow from a weapon hitting the shield edge on woudl react differently from one hitting the shield face on. Also, it obscures the target that the enemy is aiming for, and it can hide the position of the sword hand the person using the shield. Think about most shields as dynamic objects used actively to close one line, deflect or parry attacks, and conceal the weapon hand, and they make more sense.
It's a point. We're so used to firearms, where the missile kind of instantly arrives at the target and you never see its flight, that we forget things like javelins, and even arrows, move slowly enough that you can see and maybe react while they're in flight. Although on a battlefield I reckon chances are you're going to be so busy, a lot of the stuff you won't see coming.
Another thing worth mentioning is that all these tests include a shield that is fixed steady onto a holding device, meaning it can’t move as an arm would when absorbing the force of the blow. When a human holding a shield gets struck on the shield it folds in that direction, because it’s impossible to hold it steady, which also means all the force can’t go directly at the attacked point. It will be absorbed and lessened.
Shields do work. At Poitiers for example the French men at arms were imperivous to the English arrows because they were "well pavised". As you said shields come in a variety of constructions. Some are just wood boards and covedred in painted linen, yes, but a lot, and I mean a lot, of surviving originals are covered in rawhide, often both inside and outside, which increase massively their stopping power. Some even in their gesso cover have crushed iron ore or glass, put over the rawhide, which would make them even sturdier. And these are hand held shields, not siege stuff like the large pavises. They seem to be far more common at least in survivals, than the ones that are just poplar boards and painted linen. It seems that the norm, for hand held shields, be it infantry, cavalry, siege, is that they are covered in some rawhide and then covered in gesso, and maybe the gesso itself is "reinforced" by hardening mediums such as iron ore or glass. Those are the kind of shieds that we should be testing, really :D.
Thanks and yes I totally agree. I feel like medieval shields are not being tested fairly. However I don't think Roman era shields are being treated particularly unfairly, just that the pilum is a very specialised weapon explicitly for penetrating shields (and therefore implying that normal javelins would not).
Viking Weapons and Combat Techniques, by William R. Short, does touch somewhat on the performance in practical tests of various "facing layers" on the round shield popular in Scandinavia at the time, although the commentary is focused primarily on the effect of the blow on the shield itself, rather than the effect of the shield on the blow (if that distinction makes sense). It's been a few years since I read it, but the results stuck with me. Apparently, even a single layer of linen glued to the face can significantly extend the useful life of a shield in combat, and a leather facing (although much heavier and cumbersome) increases durability to the extent that a shield can remain usable to at least some extent after many repeated blows from heavy axes that would render an un-faced shield nearly useless with two good blows. (Edited for more precise word choice.)
The pilium is a form of javelin intended to be thrown. The design has two functions...to weight down a shield bearer load if in that kind of use, and to damage the weapon in event that someone were to toss it back at the original owner.@@scholagladiatoria
Reminds me of flak jacket I saw in an army surplus store once, that had the interesting message printed on the inside: "This armor *might* save your life!" (emphasis mine)
Battle of Hastings didn't turn in the Normans favor until the Shield Wall broke, then the Bretons were able to loosen their arrows at better angles. So I think Shields do the job in shield walls, I also think with the Battle of Thermopylae the Persians would have just used their archers to pick off the Spartans instead of wasting three days. So I imagine Hoplite Shields work.
Much depends on what kind of bows were being used and at what range. At Hastings at least it was likely the European short bow, not a terribly strong bow. Welsh longbow or Saracen composite bow at close range? Different problem altogether.
Keep in mind that earlier period shields (scutums or Gallic shields) may not have been designed with arrows particularly in mind at first: slings were very prevalent in warfare in the days of both the Greek and Roman Empires, especially when you take Carthage's Balearic slinger mercenaries into account. Just an interesting thought.
I highly agree here. We tend to think only in terms of javelins and arrows ve shields (if not just arrows) and too often forget about other ranged weapons
@@ameritus9041 This thought actually arose because I recently watched another video (by Invicta, ua-cam.com/video/3uDtrwNY0Zk/v-deo.html) that highlighted the Balearic Slingers and their effectiveness. It was surprising in many ways to have the effectiveness and lethality of slings brought back into my attention.
A good validation is found in Homer's Iliad, which isn't necessarily a 100% historical source, but it does indicate how people at the time described the use of arms and armor. Word-search for shield indicates numerous references to characters being struck near/over/under/around the rim of the shield. Also Ulysses is struck through the shield by a spear, but it misses a fatal blow, so spear through shield happens. And in numerous cases of a character fending off a blow or missile it refers to it striking the middle of the shield specifically, indicating the understanding that the reinforced center and the boss specifically are the strong point, where you'd want to receive the blow.
There's more than one type of shield described in Homer's Iliad. Most of them seem to be the 'figure 8' Mycenean-type ox hide shields. Those are well-represented in the artistic record, and don't seem to have metal bosses, but do have a reinforced wooden bar down the centre line. That's probably what they mean by 'the middle'. There's every reason to trust these descriptions, as other elements of contemporary arms and armour described in the same passages, such as 'boars tusk helmets' have been confirmed by the archaeological record from Mycenean Greece. More difficult is the lengthy passage describing the shield made for Achilles by Hephaestus. It is depicted as round and embellished with metal, with decorations depicting country life that are described in detail. Its not entirely clear that all of the Iliad was actually composed by the same person, at the same time, so its possible that differing descriptions of material culture are artefacts of different periods in the poem's evolution. The shield of Achilles may therefore represent another type of early shield, a later type of shield, or just a fantastical, magical shield made by a god for a demigod.
Didn't the Iliad also sometimes talk about layered shields, and even about spears penetrating this layer and the other layer but being stopped by the fourth or fifth layer in?
not into games myself but “I enjoy just ehh checking out their equipment” while looking at a perfectly rounded computer animated butt was quite fun! Great channel though, really enjoying it!
I would speculate that the shield gives you an initial boost to moral and a sense of durability. Using a shield with a spear makes me a feel less vulnerable than just brandishing the spear alone; an issue that I believe would count for something in a battle situation.
Shield tests are not accurate at all, surviving shields are much more durable and strong than the "shields" being tested. According to sources arrows did not pierce them at all
@@alexmag342 What sources? Whether they were pierced or not depends on the type of shield, angle of attack and weapon used. Tod Cutler has a good series on shield penetration.
I love how they decribed the shields in the iliad XD. Have you ever red the parcival Epos of Wolfram von Eschenbach? The he he writes quiet pictureful how whole forests were cut down to fill the need for the lances of one duel alone XD.
1. They will stop and protect against *random* attacks and small scale shrapnel. Basically acting like modern PPE. 2. They will give the combatants more confidence and more options in melee. Having a shield to hide behind may allow a soldier to hold his position on the line. 3. They are a big board of wood that blocks the view of the enemy of where the attack against them is coming from and where the body is that they are attacking. It is hard for the enemy to follow the movement of the weapons used against them if the shield is in the way. This is especially true if the combatants are close to each other.
One way a shield perhaps might be tactically important even though an arrow with a flat trajectory can pass through it is that it protects against longer-ranged lobbed arrows as well as slings and other lighter ranged weapons that skirmishers might use.
Can you do tests on wicker shields? How much less effective is it over wooden plank shields? The thracians used wicker shields, how good were their shields?
I used to run a tabletop rpg system called True20, where I made it so large shields provided more defense against ranged attacks and smaller shields were better for melee, but D&D 5e doesn't have a great way to represent that without getting too fiddly.
this made me really extra understand the buckler much more. I sooorta knew it, but put two and two together from this and a video where I realised how important the boss of a viking shield / round shield is against arrows.
a thing to keep in mind is that testing the shield against the english longbow or the roman pilum is that those weapons were generally considered the best in the class for availability for the period so while they would have a higher chance of penetrating a shield more, there were quite a few other groups around that didn't have weapons as capable to that degree- which would mean that shields would still increase in effectiveness against weapons that had less penetrative power when used against these other groups.
This is isn't a criticism of yours or tod's tests, but I think it's important to note that there are a few extra things to be considered. With boss gripped shields as opposed to strapped shields, not only would they be thicker, more protective at the center and have a steel boss as you point out, but the sides would be protected by the fact that the shield has a lot of give and wobbles quite a lot when struck at the sides so that would probably reduce the force of the arrow, therefore affecting penetration significantly. Also, just because a gambeson, mail or a shield doesn't stop an arrow by itself, having a gambeson and a shield or the 3 together probably would. The shield potentially reduces the force of the arrow and slows it down so( I would imagine) that reduces the chances of it going through the person underneath, perhaps turning a lethal or debilitating wound into a minor one. While you pilum tests are most likely accurate for the Roman scutum( at which time they were using weaker bows and cross bows compared to the late medieval battlefield) and Tod's testing and mindset are excellent, I don't think Tod's shields are precisely accurate enough analogues for medieval shields, consider .In Ian Mortimer's book, The Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England, it is noted that in late 14th century London, a decent sword would cost 2s and a cheap sword 6d, but a shield would cost 18s. To me, this means that they were a lot more complex than just 15mm wood with something over the top, and had more layers, rawhide and glue, along with something like powdered iron or glass. Consequently , they would be a lot more protective than we seem to think.
Shields were also used for displaying heraldic devices, painting various symbols (Medusa, Lambda, Legion name), conspicuous consumption (Sutton Hoo Shield).
Takes me back to middle school stick fights. We made armor out of cardboard, chicken wire and paperback books. Plastic snow saucer shields were semi effective. Bamboo garden stakes for arrows
Another thing to keep in mind is that these tests tend to be about hitting the shield straight on. Whereas in combat, many times we might see a somewhat oblique hit. An oblique hit to flesh will still cause a wound, but an oblique hit to a shield might deflect even if a straight shot would not
This is really awesome for writing and RPGs because it adds trade offs to shields. So a super thick buckler has an advantage over a massive shield. I never thought of it that way. Brilliant!
I cant remember the documentaries name, but they reconstructed a migration aera shield there wich was quiet thin and light, but flexible. When they shot at it or hacked At it with an axe, it deformed but went back to shape at once. It was not brocken. But i cant say the drawweight/ arrow weight/ distance nor the type of arrowtip. The suprising thing for me was just the flexibility. I made a Kalkan shield wich is till now, the most resistant shield i tested my bow on. My guess that compound materials that amlow flexibility work best for most sorts if impact. Pretty sure a bigger bow would shot right through it.
In a battlefield context victory is mostly about averages...if you can increase the average output and survivability of your side then you win. More soldiers nullify the 'lucky strike' effect.
It would be particularly interesting (and semi-easy to structure) a comparison between the shields and the weapons that they would normally face in a stereotypical battle line, for e.g. phalanx-era Greeks or something. So, essentially considering skirmishers, left flank, right flank, and maybe center separately from each other.
I think the angle the shield is struck at plays a big role and perhaps has been overlooked in terms of medieval knightly shields. As far as I am aware medieval shields were not held straight on. Deflecting an arrow or spear is much easier and doesn't require as thick a shield then when trying to stop one head on.
You would have to be superconfident on your ability to deflect an arrow sent at you to try deflecting it off at an angle, that's some John Wick level shit - also, you are presuming one arrow sent at you by one antagonist. In a battlefield situation you would likely have numerous people firing at you. I think most people would just try to hide behind the shield when they see an incoming arrow
So the obvious question is: is there much in historical post-battle reports (or archeological data looking at bone injuries) to suggest there were a lot of arm or hand injuries among people using shields? Unfortunately, the absence of anything in the written record might not be a good indicator, as it may have been so understood and accepted as an inevitable consequence of battle that nobody wasted ink reporting it, but archeological evidence seems like it could be a good indicator.
I loved this video. Thank you, Matt! You did the topic a lot of justice. With information, passion, and CONTEXT. As someone who loves shields, I was not disappointed in the least. I think you should do a long-form video on pavises! Appearances in art, their different forms, geographical spread, etc. The information on them isn't very accessible!
One fact seems relevant to me about the degree of protection a shield provides against projectiles and this fact is that most of the tests carried out to test this protection are done by placing the shield facing the projectile; now for example the armor of tanks, or, more precisely as regards the subject, the breastplate of a knight, the angle in which the protection is positioned is largely likely to increase the deflection capacity of this one . A fighter who charges a shooter will have all the more tendency to present his shield at an angle as he will not move completely in front or in profile, but rather three-quarter, a walking posture in which he will be able to move forward quickly while by ensuring its steps when the irregularities of the ground and in which it seems to me very easy and natural to protect its body with the three-quarter shield on its front flank. In this case a relatively flat shield would be notably an advantage and in formations as long as the man on the right is a little advanced, the deflection of a projectile towards his left will not risk injuring his colleague on the left. could the shield also be held at an angle towards the sky so as to deflect the projectile upwards? These are some of my thoughts on the subject. Hope this helps solve this mystery ! ;)
I guess we tend to focus on the very powerful late medieval longbows, but remember not all bows or crossbows are that powerful, i guess thats why the welsh and english became famous archers and mercenaries, for example in muslim accounts of fighting the crusaders its said that the Franks"crusaders" were covered in arrows like pincushions but it seemed as it didnt bother them at all, so when you combine armor and the fact that not all shields are the same thickness and not all bows are heavy longbows it gives you a good conclusion i think
Maybe another aspect of shields is the psychological factor. I can very well imagine having a large shield in front of you makes it easier to stand in line and receive missiles or a charge. I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to remember some ancient or medieval source mentioning the courage that armour or shields provide. Not the protection, but the courage.
Think one of the things to keep in mind is that when you guys test these shields v. arrows n' bolts we are talking straight hits, imagine a slight off angle and all the suddenly i am not so certain that the shield wont play a large role combined with chainmail and what have you..
A thought about pila and Roman warfare: I wonder if the pila getting stuck in shields was less of a big deal for the Romans, because of their skill at switching people between the front line and the second or third lines? They tended to move people around anyway, so perhaps if someone gets a pilum through their shield, and even maybe gets a minor wound, if they would just have quickly been rotated out anyway without much disruption. In this way, as long as the shield would minimize fatal or disabling wounds, it would have done a fairly successful job.
Another note about arrows/spears/etc piercing shields: angle and distance matters too. Sure straight on at 10m a longbow will go through a shield, but what about falling from above from 50m where it hits at an angle?
unfortunately the bosses on scuta make them stick and not slide as easily as hoped. Yes I have tried on steep grassy banks, still waiting for enough snow to try it on.
I imagine back in the day, you would have knights and/or smiths arguing over beers about what's more important: a big heavy shield that gives a lot of coverage, or a smaller one that you can move properly. You get the predecessor of internet arguments: "I heard Philippe of Anjou came out of that battle with twenty arrows stuck in his shield and not a scratch on him." "Well Henri du Beaumont died of a single arrow through the eye because he stuck his head over the shield to see..."
One function of shields that wasn't covered here and a function that I think is actually really important and perhaps even one of the key reasons they were used is the psychological function of shields. So the idea that people carrying shields feel more protected (whether this is entirely true in practice or not) and because they feel more protected their morale is increased and they are less likely to lose heart and run in combat. And given that particularly in ancient and medieval times the army that broke first psychologically was usually the one that lost, things that boost the staying power of your army can be extremely valuable. So I think the morale boosting/psychological reinforcing effect of carrying a shield could be one of its most important features/benefits. I realize that when testing shields for effectiveness today its hard to measure this aspect or perhaps even for it to come to mind b/c you have to be standing there on the field facing death and dealing with that fear for this morale support to come into play. And obviously that's not something that people shooting arrows and bolts at shields are going to come across and it would be hard to measure objectively anyway - beyond looking at historical battles and perhaps seeing if there was any correlation to armies that carried shields regularly into battle and how they performed from a morale perspective. But even then there are so many variables it would be hard to know. But I was just thinking about it while watching the video and it seems logical to me that the above would be a thing, though again I don't know how it would be tested or confirmed. Moving beyond this comment - great and informative video! Keep up the good work and cheers.
One fact is that shields have been used throughout history, which means that they worked. The consequence I see is that for their users of the time, "working" did not necessarily mean "being allproof". In fact, I think this is pretty much a case of "good enough": yes, six arrows went through your shield during that battle, but most likely it slowed them enough for your armor to absorb the remaining energy with ease. Unlike that other arrow that clocked you right on the chest, went through the joupon, the breastplate (curse the smith who made it...) and was thankfully stopped by the gambeson but still left you gagging for breath for a good ten seconds.
something else to note, is that with arrows, the range they are shot at has a role in how much they can penetrate. Sure a shield might not protect you as much point blank, but at larger ranges it would.
I'm convinced the main purpose of the pilum is to deprive the enemy of their shields, to reduce their effectiveness. Any actual direct damage to the enemy is just a bonus.
clearly they re for weight training and disciplinary meassures, if the knave spills drink on the knight, he ll carry all the shields back home, both ways, uphill, in the snow
id love to see a test against the shield with even just a basic gambeson or leather jack behind it see if even basic foot soldier armour would work with a shield.
As others have more or less said, it reduces the trauma by one or more steps. Kill to severe wound, severe wound to minor wound, minor wound to no wound. Obviously you could break it down more than that but you get the idea. Great vid. I especially liked the revelation...at least to me on smaller shields being more resistant to damage and thus in some ways offering better protection. :)
@scholagladiatoria please try some tests against shields layered over each other like a shield wall, I'd imagine the dual layers will be much more effective in stopping missile penetration than a single lone shield, even wicker shields layered in close overlapping formations like roofing shingles might offer superior protection, or at least make lethal arrows slow down enough to become non-lethal.
That steel buckler you are holding is just a "traveler's" frying pan. The tedious thing about them is that you have to remove the handle and the padding when you want to cook something. The great thing about these frying pan is that you can also use them as a shield.
It's always cool to remember when a channel had absolutely ZERO production value vs what they can do if they manage to reach 1, 2, 5 years old.... I remember at one point you could hear Matt turning off the camera the end of each video. Still the best intro in youtube history btw :-P
Soldiers rarely take to the field naked, with just a shield for defence. Even if it doesn't stop an arrow, pillum, or whatever, it might slow them down enough that your gambison, mail, and other protective clothing will stop them.
Before the video starts, my take is always this: Simulations and tests where shields break or weapons go through them are always ideal situations. A real target is moving around and holding the shield at different angles etc. Shooting a full power arrow at a static shield portrays the ideal conditions that would be hard to find on a battlefield.
I heard somewhere that quenching the fire of a flaming arrow (as well as breaking the momentum somewhat if not completely) was an important reason for making shields out of or layering leather on top of Greek-era shields. I wonder if this has any historical basis. If I wore a mix of flammable cloth and fat-smeared leather underneath my metal armour, I would prefer it if my shield at least put the fire arrow out even if it still penetrates.
Isn't there also a slowing effect on a spear that goes through a shield? So, would my mediocer armor be more likely to save me from the spear if that spear first went through a shield?
that's also what I thought, any projectile going through a shield would lose at least some of its energy, therefore delivering less into anything behind that shield, so it might not go through the armor or the padding or through the flesh. also I think the amount of deflected projectiles might be higher than we usually think
Even a light shield forces the opponent to use heavier and/or slower firing ranged weapons to be effective. By making things like slings or lighter hunting bows ineffective you force the use of either very heavy bows which require specialized conditioning or crossbows which are considerably slower firing, expensive, and quite bulky to boot. IIRC that is one of the evolutions we see between the Roman and Medieval periods - ranged weapons get considerably more substantial and sophisticated. Side note on artillery, even the Romans had torsion artillery that could throw fist sized stones. That machine won’t be particularly picky if it’s one big fist sized stone or a dozen smaller ones; it’s always going to be advantageous to use more of the smallest projectile that’s effective (considering range, protection, etc.) for the sheer volume of fire.
Ancient Greek shields were both large and thick. Some were even covered in bronze, although I think it was usually quite a thin layer from the examples I've seen in museums. There's a surviving bronze shield cover in the Agora museum in Athens which has been inscribed to say it was taken from the Spartans at Pylos, so is presumably representative of the type carried by at least some Greek soldiers of the classical era.
Well, bear in mind that competent archers were incredibly rare and incredibly valuable. There was a fascinating quote from a Byzantine/Eastern Roman general quoted in one of John Keegan's books on ancient warfare stating that out of 500 archers, 50 would be good (e.g. about 10%). This would be especially the case with a longbow or an equivalent composite bow because of the draw weight required of a typical warbow. The English were unique in that they required all able-bodies males to partake in mandatory archery practice. And even despite this practice, they never could quite total victory during the Hundred Years War after numerous spectacular victories. The French would eventually recover, whereas the English army was unable to recover after Patay, after the loss of so many skilled archers. You can give anyone a longbow, they will not be a longbowman of the caliber of the soldiers at Agincourt or Crecy. Similarly, the inexorable dominance of the central Asian warriors (Turks, Mongolians) was borne of people who lived a lifestyle devoted to hunting and archery. It would not be an exaggeration to state that a large force of competent archers, however dominant, would have been as exceedingly rare as it was terrifying, at least among sedentary agrarian societies of western Europe. And on foot, they were as easy to rout as any other foot soldiers to a well timed cavalry charge. I think this rarity alone would make shields much more appealing. You can't assume that because bodkins and longbow existed that they were hiding under every bush in the 13th century. There was a reason that forces widely and rapidly adopted the arquebus and the musket despite an inferior range and rate of fire to the longbow - it was principally easier to use for the common soldier and didn't require such specialized upper-body strength.
one (I think) important note to add: Even if an object(arrow/spear...) penetrates the shield, that act of penetration takes away kinetic energy and the guy behind the shield is usually armored as well. Meaning that additional barrier even when broken through can make the difference for the armor to absorb the impact or not.
(you might have covered this in your pilum video, cant remember) Re: The roman heavy pilum I believe they were primarily intended to disable the shield it struck since they could not be removed unassisted without dropping the shield and would dig into the ground if left in place. Makes a lot of sense since romans favoured pushing into the enemy with their tight and wellshielded wedge formation and keep pushing so the enemy had nowhere to move as they were being stabbed.
I'd venture to guess that having a shield that was effective against anything but a perfectly aligned thrust or missile weapon more than served its purpose in the majority of cases. Modern armor takes the same approach and parries and blocks in striking arts follow the same idea.
Sometimes I think history (and thinking about it) has shown shields can be completely ineffective in terms of defence but can instill a confidence and improve morale and fighting effectiveness.
I'm so proud of you for getting such a sponsor, not sure if you have in previous video, been short on time to watch your stuff. But I Raid: Shadow Legends pays a good amount of money for one.
I wonder; when did the Romans decide to reinforce the center length of the Scutum? I'm reminded of the Battle of Carrhae-- where the Parthians were able to easily defeat the Romans due to their mounted archers being equipped with barbed arrows (according to Plutarch). Perhaps the defeat of Crassus inspired a modification? I remember reading somewhere that the amount of arm injuries suffered were... tremendous, to say the least. The Parthians had talented archers being readily supplied with what must've seemed like an infiinite amount of arrows. They would've known precisely where to aim. It'd be cool if you could test the affect of different arrows on the center of the Scutum-- one reinforced and one "standard."
I think another thing to consider is range - while arrows, javelins etc. may be able to pierce some shields at short range, this doesn't apply at longer ranges. Take two groups of soldiers, one with and one without shields, and send them against archers - obviously, archers will be much more lethal against both groups at short range, compared to long range. However, at long range the group with shields would be nearly invulnerable to arrows, due to their decreased velocity at that range. Probably not worth even shooting at, since archers would only be wasting ammo and energy. However, the group without shields could be vulnerable enough to make long range volleys viable against them.
Install Raid for Free ✅ IOS/ANDROID/PC: clcr.me/gPamXq and get a special starter pack💥 Available only for the next 30 days
I would definitely hype Raid for $10,000, too.
@@Oxnate Whatever keeps this channel going. Reviewing new arms and armor can get expensive and time consuming.
maybe have Multi functional Paveses have exist what could be used Standing on the ground against Arrows and Bolts and be used half way descent in Hand to hand combat .
I mean as a Compromise for Crossbow Men .
@@Intranetusa there's better ways to do it. Raid also like using lawyers. Karl at InRangeTV had an interesting interaction with them.
Obviously the shields were to display the logos of your sponsors.
I'm going to make a mercenary company off of that for D&D now.
This raid is sponsored by Shadow Legends!
With heraldry this was often literally true.
I'll rather have youtubers to anounce their sponsors like that. Because at least they are skippable. Or so far they've been...
@@stevenmcclary534 underrated comment"! 😂🤣😂🤣
If Game of Thrones taught me anything, shields are intended to be swung behind your body as a counterweight while you strike
You never know when ninjas might be around. Better be safe and hold your shield behind you just in case, that way you can die from the honorable battleaxe in front of you than the risk of a surprise ninja from behind...... Or they just may be hot and want to die in the shade....
I have tested this manouvre. Lets me trust through plate armor like butter. I can't believe people don't do this more often.
Don't forget to ditch your helmet for that +2 plot armor! Never accept a helmet that covers your face! Gives -5 red shirt malus!
The only scene i can remember that featured a shield was ua-cam.com/video/XTi-Y9KNNqk/v-deo.html
Pretend to be a ninja turtle.
"Checking out their... Equipment." *rotates screen on scantily clad champion* Sneaky Matt
"Handling the butt" finally snaps into place!
Yes, many champions in that game are quite equipped!
I saw what he did there
Also worth noting that most historical bows were not 160 pound longbows or 1000 pound crossbows nor most javelins pila.
Absolutely, yes. True.
Yeah, getting even a fraction of an army's worth of men who can draw a 100+lb bow, or the industry to manufacture a several hundred pound crossbow was an accomplishment rarely done in mass. Plus, getting stabbed in the arm still has a higher survival rate than the torso, even with infections.
Great historical example comes from the "The history of the wars" or "the wars" by Procopius (somewhere around the 6th century, but obviously you find free translations online just as easy). In book I, at some point he compares Eastern Roman and Persian archery and their equipment:
"...especially among the Persians they were falling by the arrows in great numbers. For while their missiles were incomparably more frequent, since the Persians are almost all bowmen and they learn to make their shots much more rapidly than any other men, still the bows which sent the arrows were weak and not very tightly strung, so that their missiles, hitting a corselet, perhaps, or helmet or shield of a[n Eastern] Roman warrior, were broken off and had no power to hurt the man who was hit. The Roman bowmen are always slower indeed, but inasmuch as their bows are extremely stiff and very tightly strung, and one might add that they are handled by stronger men, they easily slay much greater numbers of those they hit than do the Persians, for no armour proves an obstacle to the force of their arrows."
@@louisvictor3473 Anna Comnemna says a similar thing about the Seljuk Turks with their horse archers with composite bows and the Crusaders with crossbows during the 1st Crusade. She described knights absolutely covered in arrows stuck in shields and mail that failed to penetrate while finding the penetration power of crossbows shocking.
Interesting fact I came across recently is that Byzantine military manuals recommended that horse archers should NOT be armed with very heavy bows, that speed of shooting (and therefore volume of arrow fire) is a preferable trait on the battlefield to the greater range etc of more powerful bows.
Even when the shield is pierced, it's going to slow down the missile signiffenely. It might not be lethal anymore by the time it went through
Especially given what we've learned about the protective value of common textile armors; that itself isn't taking into acount rigid, or semi-rigid, metallic armors worn over the textile armor.
@Projected Senator Raymond Foster i'd say it's pretty likely
I think it is important to account for what the shield is used with. For example, even if the shield can't stop a longbow arrow, the mail can't stop it and the padded jacket can't stop it, but all three combined just might. Layers of protection.
@Projected Senator Raymond Foster Depends on the shield. Typically the larger a shield became, the thinner it had to be to avoid becoming too heavy. The Roman scutum for example was made from very thin plywood. It would have offered minimal protection from longbows and crossbows, especially at close range. Luckily for the Romans, bows of their time period were much weaker.
Signiffenely
Its all about layers, even if the missile goes through the shield it'll have lost a signifiant portion of its kinetic energy. Now the missile has to penetrate the body armour (if used) and even the under layer of garments or gambison with less energy. What could've been a major wound could be reduced to a minor wound or even totally negated.
Not only the speed of the projectile will be reduced when going through each layer, the tip can also be blunted/deformed, and the angle of the projectile can change too... IMO this can make all the difference in many cases, ie needle arrow VS mail shirt. And finally of course, a shield would be useful in hand to hand fight, especially against people that might use anti-armor weapons.
My thoughts as well. I understood shields to be generally to be a less weighty form of protection (like armour) with the draw back of having to actively use it. On the battle field, it is equivalent to having more armour against one direction (i.e. towards the missiles) without having to sacrifice too much mobility (since you can also discard it once it is too damaged/weighed down as opposed to stuff strapped to you).
I was going to write the same, until I saw your comment.
In addition, I suspect importantly, if the shield was ruined, had spears and arrows stuck in it, or otherwise became cumbersome, it was easily discarded. Even if a spear or arrow penetrated the shield and armor, and even if it caused a non-lethal wound, ditching the shield would remove the spear. Meanwhile, ditching body armor really wasn't an option. Just not having to spend the battle with a bunch of arrows and spears stuck to your armor would be more than worth it. For support, while I'm sure shields were retrieved and repaired after battle, it's clear that the Vikings treated shields as partly disposable, as warrior graves usually contain several shields.
It's easy to forget that warriors and soldiers of past times were rational professionals, whose lives depended on their equipment. They knew that even slight benefits added up, and carefully weight the cost/benefit of every piece. If a shield improved their chances by 10%, while not causing any significant disadvantage, they'd use a shield.
Don't forget, also, that for the most part, fighters holding shields weren't just hiding behind them standing still waiting for something to puncture their shields. Shields would have been in constant motion and the odds of a sword or arrow striking one from straight-on perpendicular are very small. The shield would most likely have been struck a glancing blow.
Let us not forget that the shield was a hugely useful attack weapon that could be used to leverage your close combat foe off balance or even used as a blunt weapon to dispatch a downed foe. The usefulness of shields is woefully understimated.
came here to say this
They obviously don't protect you against Shadow Legends..
Yeah they’re really bad. They collect user data to sell and get more access than they should to other information.
@@seanmarkham6965 I wish there was an easier way for small channels to make money. Forcing ads is like the only way to make money on UA-cam.
@Ian Terry Roy MacLeod lmao, that advert is shocking tho that's bad enough
@Ian Terry Roy MacLeod Why not a front for Ohrana instead?
But you can view your heroes & examine their equiptment, video cuts to a barely dressed young lady with no armour, few weapons, but quite impressive equiptment.
To be carried home on?
For protecting your black soup.
as a counterweight when sprinting
Thank you for a genuine laugh out loud.
2:26 "Sometimes it's fun to just look at your champions, and eh.... You know... Check out their equipment." 😂
Notice he had a warmaiden up when doing that.... doubt it would be the same if he had a deathknight up!
It's like modern body armor. Yes there are rounds that will penetrate body armor depending on the level you're wearing but it doesn't mean it isn't worth wearing.
Modern body armour works great, as long as the other person shoots it. There are plenty of areas left uncovered that if hit there, you’re going to be out of action. Not saying it’s not worth having, just that you’d better keep your first aid skills sharp as well.
I’m of the better to have and not need camp, but every time it goes on it shines a light on how relatively unfit I am nowadays.
Body armours’ primary function, as far as I’m concerned, is to help you survive on your way to cover.
@Kshitij Raj a properly fitted plate/carrier should cover from clavicle to belly button, and from nipple to nipple on the front. On the back it should be 2” down from your most prominent vertebrae (look down, and starting from the base of your skull feel downward. It’s the one that sticks out most) to just above the small of your back. Since most people buy the same size plate front and back, the back plates upper location is the important one. This is more that half of your torso, if you’re facing perpendicular to the target. It’s also the reason modern shooting stances are how they are.
If a person is going to wear plates, they should be wearing side plates as well.
m.ua-cam.com/video/PO_8GGluIOM/v-deo.html
That’s a good resource for this kind of talk.
@Kshitij Raj the point of either armours is to keep you alive. Getting a wound in the olde tymes was much more likely to go septic. They needed more coverage to help keep that from happening.
Getting shot in the arm/legs is survivable, with medical attention. The neck/face/head is a small fast moving target.
A spear or a sword leaves a much bigger wound, typically, but is also much easier to protect against. Look at the weight of a full plate harness (the best protection before firearms) vs what the average US infantryman is required to carry. Believe it or not, the plate weighs less, depending on SOP. That’s one of the reasons you see the folks that have more freedom of choice in their loadout choose to forego the flak aspect.
Of course if you have an MRAP, your armour is something that a knight could only dream of having. Heck even 20th century soldiers would be envious.
@@nathanielkidd2840 It covers the most vital areas. Most people aim for center mass also. Just like medieval armor, it doesn't cover everything but it improves your odds. Naturally mobility is important as well but a well fit , quality piece of modern rifle plates should have minimal impact on mobility.
@Velsen Fest that’s what the flak is for. The plates are for bullets aimed at you.
They were obviously for putting on your back to make duel wielding pole-arms more effective on horseback.
GRRRRRRRRR
@@scholagladiatoria See, he's angry because he knows I'm right.
Consider modern body armor. Most police in the U.S. wear class 3A armor which isn't proofed against rifle rounds but is against handgun and shot gun rounds. Why? Rifle rated armor is heavy and bulky and likely unneeded in civilian shootings
@@yoursexualizedgrandparents6929 Put your skills into riding and horse archery. It's better than using polearms from horseback when you're up against a larger and tougher army.
Have you considered strapping bucklers to each of your forearms as well? Since according to early DnD that was technically an option, since apparently that's how you use bucklers according to TSR.
Also, often ignored, center grip shields give into impact quite a bit when hit anywhere with a bit distance from the boss, which messes with the penetration quite a bit.
Tests often do not simulate this, I believe yours did not as well, and show rather results of strap wielded shields which are more fixed in this regard.
Also haven’t seen test with a moving target which will drastically change results.
@@Drahko12 besides the thrower missing more often, how do you expect a moving target would effect the penetration?
@@holyknightthatpwns it might be very slight, I would have to do some calculations, but the arrow’s point being shoved out of line with the direction of the force of the following arrow and its momentum would change the amount of force the arrowhead exerts perpendicular to the shield, lowering the penetration. I imagine it would indeed be slight, even when considering the bending of the arrow that would occur as the arrow attempts to maintain its straight path.
@@AHagridLookalike Oh, that's a good point. I hadn't thought about the lateral motion helping to deflect the arrow.
In general I think there should also be more tests against an angled shield, as I doubt projectiles regularly hit them head on
@@holyknightthatpwns agreed, friend!
Shields are for protecting you against Raid Shadow legends.
Shields make good sleds for dragging equipment & corpses I'm told.
Not to mention sledding in the snow.
@@Riceball01 why yes, you can definitely slide around on top of bodies as well since they are basically frozen during winter: especially in colder climates.
Why do that when you can summon Tenser’s Floating Disc?
Wait what were we talking about... ?
@@shoeberrypie I think we were supposed to be wargaming. 🤔
"sometimes it's just fun to look at your champions and look at their equipment"
.....or lack thereof?
i'd wanna see my champions without their.. equipment ;) jkjk... unless 👀👀
@@xirensixseo the 34th Rule of the Internet is a pathway to many abilities some would consider to be... unnatural
“What were shields actually for?”
Answer: Depends on the context.
Thanks, now I don't have to watch the video! :D
To stop pommels
Wall hangers....
Serving food on.
It's always this reason in his video
Arrows can go through shields but generally speaking you are safer with a shield
Question: what were shields actually for?"
Answer: "Onions..."
Onions? Shields taste better if they are carmelized?
A shield won't always be struck by a perpendicular projectile. Having a shield angled would probably deflect quite a few projectiles and still cover the body quite well.
Most of the tests I have seen involve a missile fired/thrown at a static shield from exactly in front. In reality, a shield was not just a passive barrier. It could be turned to an angle to deflect missiles or blows, and it could be moved up down or sideways to parry. A blow from a weapon hitting the shield edge on woudl react differently from one hitting the shield face on. Also, it obscures the target that the enemy is aiming for, and it can hide the position of the sword hand the person using the shield. Think about most shields as dynamic objects used actively to close one line, deflect or parry attacks, and conceal the weapon hand, and they make more sense.
Also some warriors had 'Shield Bearers" to protect them
It's a point. We're so used to firearms, where the missile kind of instantly arrives at the target and you never see its flight, that we forget things like javelins, and even arrows, move slowly enough that you can see and maybe react while they're in flight. Although on a battlefield I reckon chances are you're going to be so busy, a lot of the stuff you won't see coming.
Another thing worth mentioning is that all these tests include a shield that is fixed steady onto a holding device, meaning it can’t move as an arm would when absorbing the force of the blow.
When a human holding a shield gets struck on the shield it folds in that direction, because it’s impossible to hold it steady, which also means all the force can’t go directly at the attacked point. It will be absorbed and lessened.
2:27 Actually had me rolling
LOL, I had skipped the ad, but I shouldn't have.
Ya ... "just looking .... at your champions.. and checking out the equipment... "🤫😇
Equipment ... right .. nice save/avoiding moderate 😏👍
@@jasondoe2596 - Scholaembeddedadvertisia
He's cleverly looking for ways to get you to actually watch the commercials!
Protection from sling stones? Seems to me that was enough reason to carry a shield in battle for most of history.
Sling stones are just as crap-your-pants terrifying as bullets so I don’t blame them 😭
Shields do work.
At Poitiers for example the French men at arms were imperivous to the English arrows because they were "well pavised". As you said shields come in a variety of constructions.
Some are just wood boards and covedred in painted linen, yes, but a lot, and I mean a lot, of surviving originals are covered in rawhide, often both inside and outside, which increase massively their stopping power. Some even in their gesso cover have crushed iron ore or glass, put over the rawhide, which would make them even sturdier.
And these are hand held shields, not siege stuff like the large pavises.
They seem to be far more common at least in survivals, than the ones that are just poplar boards and painted linen. It seems that the norm, for hand held shields, be it infantry, cavalry, siege, is that they are covered in some rawhide and then covered in gesso, and maybe the gesso itself is "reinforced" by hardening mediums such as iron ore or glass.
Those are the kind of shieds that we should be testing, really :D.
Thanks and yes I totally agree. I feel like medieval shields are not being tested fairly. However I don't think Roman era shields are being treated particularly unfairly, just that the pilum is a very specialised weapon explicitly for penetrating shields (and therefore implying that normal javelins would not).
Untill they got flanked by Oxford.
@@scholagladiatoria Agreed. Shields are a hugely understudied subject which deserve muuuuuch more attention. More than armour, actually.
Viking Weapons and Combat Techniques, by William R. Short, does touch somewhat on the performance in practical tests of various "facing layers" on the round shield popular in Scandinavia at the time, although the commentary is focused primarily on the effect of the blow on the shield itself, rather than the effect of the shield on the blow (if that distinction makes sense). It's been a few years since I read it, but the results stuck with me.
Apparently, even a single layer of linen glued to the face can significantly extend the useful life of a shield in combat, and a leather facing (although much heavier and cumbersome) increases durability to the extent that a shield can remain usable to at least some extent after many repeated blows from heavy axes that would render an un-faced shield nearly useless with two good blows.
(Edited for more precise word choice.)
The pilium is a form of javelin intended to be thrown. The design has two functions...to weight down a shield bearer load if in that kind of use, and to damage the weapon in event that someone were to toss it back at the original owner.@@scholagladiatoria
protected =/= immune, hardly difficult to grasp
Its all about penetration and context.....
@@Colonel_Overkill It's important to test if greased shaft really penetrates deeper.
also resistant =/= -proof
Non-immune =/= un-protected.
Reminds me of flak jacket I saw in an army surplus store once, that had the interesting message printed on the inside: "This armor *might* save your life!" (emphasis mine)
Battle of Hastings didn't turn in the Normans favor until the Shield Wall broke, then the Bretons were able to loosen their arrows at better angles. So I think Shields do the job in shield walls, I also think with the Battle of Thermopylae the Persians would have just used their archers to pick off the Spartans instead of wasting three days. So I imagine Hoplite Shields work.
Much depends on what kind of bows were being used and at what range. At Hastings at least it was likely the European short bow, not a terribly strong bow. Welsh longbow or Saracen composite bow at close range? Different problem altogether.
@@oldschooljeremy8124 "European short bow" is not a thing. There is just an assumption that non-Welsh bows were weak, without much to back that up.
Yes, good point, that's why we have all of that art depicting not-things and assumptions rather than actual weapons.
Some aspis were kinda op for their time, having a sheet of bronze on top of the wood.
@@MinSredMash “without anything to back it up.” Anything non-welsh is weak. QED.
Keep in mind that earlier period shields (scutums or Gallic shields) may not have been designed with arrows particularly in mind at first: slings were very prevalent in warfare in the days of both the Greek and Roman Empires, especially when you take Carthage's Balearic slinger mercenaries into account. Just an interesting thought.
I highly agree here. We tend to think only in terms of javelins and arrows ve shields (if not just arrows) and too often forget about other ranged weapons
@@ameritus9041 This thought actually arose because I recently watched another video (by Invicta, ua-cam.com/video/3uDtrwNY0Zk/v-deo.html) that highlighted the Balearic Slingers and their effectiveness. It was surprising in many ways to have the effectiveness and lethality of slings brought back into my attention.
@@thomasjackson8737 sounds interesting
@@ameritus9041 I found the vid and added the link to the other reply
2:28 I like checking out the ‘equipment’ too... 😂
A good validation is found in Homer's Iliad, which isn't necessarily a 100% historical source, but it does indicate how people at the time described the use of arms and armor. Word-search for shield indicates numerous references to characters being struck near/over/under/around the rim of the shield. Also Ulysses is struck through the shield by a spear, but it misses a fatal blow, so spear through shield happens. And in numerous cases of a character fending off a blow or missile it refers to it striking the middle of the shield specifically, indicating the understanding that the reinforced center and the boss specifically are the strong point, where you'd want to receive the blow.
There's more than one type of shield described in Homer's Iliad. Most of them seem to be the 'figure 8' Mycenean-type ox hide shields. Those are well-represented in the artistic record, and don't seem to have metal bosses, but do have a reinforced wooden bar down the centre line. That's probably what they mean by 'the middle'. There's every reason to trust these descriptions, as other elements of contemporary arms and armour described in the same passages, such as 'boars tusk helmets' have been confirmed by the archaeological record from Mycenean Greece. More difficult is the lengthy passage describing the shield made for Achilles by Hephaestus. It is depicted as round and embellished with metal, with decorations depicting country life that are described in detail. Its not entirely clear that all of the Iliad was actually composed by the same person, at the same time, so its possible that differing descriptions of material culture are artefacts of different periods in the poem's evolution. The shield of Achilles may therefore represent another type of early shield, a later type of shield, or just a fantastical, magical shield made by a god for a demigod.
Didn't the Iliad also sometimes talk about layered shields, and even about spears penetrating this layer and the other layer but being stopped by the fourth or fifth layer in?
All I've got to say is that there is no armor as good as plot armor.
I feel a lot of plot armor is simply a lack of understanding/respect for qualified stage fighters & laziness
not into games myself but “I enjoy just ehh checking out their equipment” while looking at a perfectly rounded computer animated butt was quite fun! Great channel though, really enjoying it!
I would speculate that the shield gives you an initial boost to moral and a sense of durability. Using a shield with a spear makes me a feel less vulnerable than just brandishing the spear alone; an issue that I believe would count for something in a battle situation.
Better the shield gets penetrated or smashed than the one holding it.
Shield tests are not accurate at all, surviving shields are much more durable and strong than the "shields" being tested.
According to sources arrows did not pierce them at all
@@alexmag342 What sources? Whether they were pierced or not depends on the type of shield, angle of attack and weapon used. Tod Cutler has a good series on shield penetration.
oh my god... not even matt easton managed to escape from RAID SHADOW LEGENDS
Ehh, Matt's been into silly legends for a few months now, if I remember correctly.
the cash is good for bending the knee.
brandon hererra bought the materials for his firearm buisness with raid. kinda wild
Like in the Iliad, a spear stopped by a shield 9 oxen hides thicc (aka special. Why els write about it?)
I love how they decribed the shields in the iliad XD. Have you ever red the parcival Epos of Wolfram von Eschenbach?
The he he writes quiet pictureful how whole forests were cut down to fill the need for the lances of one duel alone XD.
1. They will stop and protect against *random* attacks and small scale shrapnel. Basically acting like modern PPE.
2. They will give the combatants more confidence and more options in melee. Having a shield to hide behind may allow a soldier to hold his position on the line.
3. They are a big board of wood that blocks the view of the enemy of where the attack against them is coming from and where the body is that they are attacking. It is hard for the enemy to follow the movement of the weapons used against them if the shield is in the way. This is especially true if the combatants are close to each other.
One way a shield perhaps might be tactically important even though an arrow with a flat trajectory can pass through it is that it protects against longer-ranged lobbed arrows as well as slings and other lighter ranged weapons that skirmishers might use.
"Not always the case" is far preferable to "being stuck like a pig"
Raid ad ends at 3:50
ty
Wow this was a long ad.
@@simonreichel7296 More money most likely.
Making history videos aren't cheap I guess.
Thank you. Most obnoxious supporter of channels, by far.
I'd sell out for $10,000, too.
What were shields made for? For stopping pommels obviously. Being ended rightfully must be quite embarrassing.
I doubt that. Everyone knew that pommels could not be stopped by anything before they tasted flesh.
@@louisvictor3473 What about MACHICOLATIONS?
@@aratus1622 Those are literally holes :v
Can you do tests on wicker shields? How much less effective is it over wooden plank shields? The thracians used wicker shields, how good were their shields?
I for one would be very interested in learning more about the performance of wicker in this regard.
me three
The D&D dwarf Bruenor Battlehammer reaches inside the back of his magical roundshield for neverending pints of whatever makes ye happy!
I used to run a tabletop rpg system called True20, where I made it so large shields provided more defense against ranged attacks and smaller shields were better for melee, but D&D 5e doesn't have a great way to represent that without getting too fiddly.
Gurps had two hit point values for each type of shield, one for penetration, another for destruction. And those varied based on materiel.
this made me really extra understand the buckler much more. I sooorta knew it, but put two and two together from this and a video where I realised how important the boss of a viking shield / round shield is against arrows.
a thing to keep in mind is that testing the shield against the english longbow or the roman pilum is that those weapons were generally considered the best in the class for availability for the period so while they would have a higher chance of penetrating a shield more, there were quite a few other groups around that didn't have weapons as capable to that degree- which would mean that shields would still increase in effectiveness against weapons that had less penetrative power when used against these other groups.
Shields are like armor. It doesn't protect you from everything.
This is isn't a criticism of yours or tod's tests, but I think it's important to note that there are a few extra things to be considered. With boss gripped shields as opposed to strapped shields, not only would they be thicker, more protective at the center and have a steel boss as you point out, but the sides would be protected by the fact that the shield has a lot of give and wobbles quite a lot when struck at the sides so that would probably reduce the force of the arrow, therefore affecting penetration significantly.
Also, just because a gambeson, mail or a shield doesn't stop an arrow by itself, having a gambeson and a shield or the 3 together probably would.
The shield potentially reduces the force of the arrow and slows it down so( I would imagine) that reduces the chances of it going through the person underneath, perhaps turning a lethal or debilitating wound into a minor one.
While you pilum tests are most likely accurate for the Roman scutum( at which time they were using weaker bows and cross bows compared to the late medieval battlefield) and Tod's testing and mindset are excellent, I don't think Tod's shields are precisely accurate enough analogues for medieval shields, consider .In Ian Mortimer's book, The Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England, it is noted that in late 14th century London, a decent sword would cost 2s and a cheap sword 6d, but a shield would cost 18s. To me, this means that they were a lot more complex than just 15mm wood with something over the top, and had more layers, rawhide and glue, along with something like powdered iron or glass. Consequently , they would be a lot more protective than we seem to think.
Shields were also used for displaying heraldic devices, painting various symbols (Medusa, Lambda, Legion name), conspicuous consumption (Sutton Hoo Shield).
"I've been very lucky many many years ago when I was teaching in Scotland... Was it Scotland? I think it was England..."
You've just made an enemy for life!
Takes me back to middle school stick fights. We made armor out of cardboard, chicken wire and paperback books. Plastic snow saucer shields were semi effective. Bamboo garden stakes for arrows
Another thing to keep in mind is that these tests tend to be about hitting the shield straight on. Whereas in combat, many times we might see a somewhat oblique hit. An oblique hit to flesh will still cause a wound, but an oblique hit to a shield might deflect even if a straight shot would not
"Thanks for sticking with me" - No, Matt, I just skipped through it.
This is really awesome for writing and RPGs because it adds trade offs to shields. So a super thick buckler has an advantage over a massive shield. I never thought of it that way. Brilliant!
You should do some tests with the shields at different angles and see if that causes the projectiles deflect off
I cant remember the documentaries name, but they reconstructed a migration aera shield there wich was quiet thin and light, but flexible. When they shot at it or hacked At it with an axe, it deformed but went back to shape at once. It was not brocken. But i cant say the drawweight/ arrow weight/ distance nor the type of arrowtip. The suprising thing for me was just the flexibility. I made a Kalkan shield wich is till now, the most resistant shield i tested my bow on. My guess that compound materials that amlow flexibility work best for most sorts if impact. Pretty sure a bigger bow would shot right through it.
In a battlefield context victory is mostly about averages...if you can increase the average output and survivability of your side then you win. More soldiers nullify the 'lucky strike' effect.
Or to put it technically, it mitigates the impact of outliers to the average outcome.
It would be particularly interesting (and semi-easy to structure) a comparison between the shields and the weapons that they would normally face in a stereotypical battle line, for e.g. phalanx-era Greeks or something. So, essentially considering skirmishers, left flank, right flank, and maybe center separately from each other.
I think the angle the shield is struck at plays a big role and perhaps has been overlooked in terms of medieval knightly shields. As far as I am aware medieval shields were not held straight on. Deflecting an arrow or spear is much easier and doesn't require as thick a shield then when trying to stop one head on.
You would have to be superconfident on your ability to deflect an arrow sent at you to try deflecting it off at an angle, that's some John Wick level shit - also, you are presuming one arrow sent at you by one antagonist. In a battlefield situation you would likely have numerous people firing at you.
I think most people would just try to hide behind the shield when they see an incoming arrow
@@dzonbrodi514 All you would have to do to deflect an arrow is hold the shield statically at an angle and hide behind it. No John Wicking necessary.
@@flyingfox09 what if they aim for the place where you are not holding the shield?
@@dzonbrodi514 then they should miss since most of your body should be behind your shield in the first place.
So the obvious question is: is there much in historical post-battle reports (or archeological data looking at bone injuries) to suggest there were a lot of arm or hand injuries among people using shields? Unfortunately, the absence of anything in the written record might not be a good indicator, as it may have been so understood and accepted as an inevitable consequence of battle that nobody wasted ink reporting it, but archeological evidence seems like it could be a good indicator.
I loved this video. Thank you, Matt! You did the topic a lot of justice. With information, passion, and CONTEXT. As someone who loves shields, I was not disappointed in the least.
I think you should do a long-form video on pavises! Appearances in art, their different forms, geographical spread, etc. The information on them isn't very accessible!
One fact seems relevant to me about the degree of protection a shield provides against projectiles and this fact is that most of the tests carried out to test this protection are done by placing the shield facing the projectile; now for example the armor of tanks, or, more precisely as regards the subject, the breastplate of a knight, the angle in which the protection is positioned is largely likely to increase the deflection capacity of this one . A fighter who charges a shooter will have all the more tendency to present his shield at an angle as he will not move completely in front or in profile, but rather three-quarter, a walking posture in which he will be able to move forward quickly while by ensuring its steps when the irregularities of the ground and in which it seems to me very easy and natural to protect its body with the three-quarter shield on its front flank. In this case a relatively flat shield would be notably an advantage and in formations as long as the man on the right is a little advanced, the deflection of a projectile towards his left will not risk injuring his colleague on the left. could the shield also be held at an angle towards the sky so as to deflect the projectile upwards? These are some of my thoughts on the subject. Hope this helps solve this mystery ! ;)
I guess we tend to focus on the very powerful late medieval longbows, but remember not all bows or crossbows are that powerful, i guess thats why the welsh and english became famous archers and mercenaries, for example in muslim accounts of fighting the crusaders its said that the Franks"crusaders" were covered in arrows like pincushions but it seemed as it didnt bother them at all, so when you combine armor and the fact that not all shields are the same thickness and not all bows are heavy longbows it gives you a good conclusion i think
Maybe another aspect of shields is the psychological factor. I can very well imagine having a large shield in front of you makes it easier to stand in line and receive missiles or a charge. I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to remember some ancient or medieval source mentioning the courage that armour or shields provide. Not the protection, but the courage.
Think one of the things to keep in mind is that when you guys test these shields v. arrows n' bolts we are talking straight hits, imagine a slight off angle and all the suddenly i am not so certain that the shield wont play a large role combined with chainmail and what have you..
A thought about pila and Roman warfare: I wonder if the pila getting stuck in shields was less of a big deal for the Romans, because of their skill at switching people between the front line and the second or third lines? They tended to move people around anyway, so perhaps if someone gets a pilum through their shield, and even maybe gets a minor wound, if they would just have quickly been rotated out anyway without much disruption. In this way, as long as the shield would minimize fatal or disabling wounds, it would have done a fairly successful job.
Another note about arrows/spears/etc piercing shields: angle and distance matters too. Sure straight on at 10m a longbow will go through a shield, but what about falling from above from 50m where it hits at an angle?
Not addressed here is the use of shields as sleds during combat. This is why having the high ground was so important!
The highest ground gave you the fastest and furthest ride.
unfortunately the bosses on scuta make them stick and not slide as easily as hoped.
Yes I have tried on steep grassy banks, still waiting for enough snow to try it on.
@@adamrudling1339 grab an aspis, that looks like it would slide well
@@adamrudling1339 you must balance on the boss, and spin around like a beyblades. It's the context they were designed for
Well it works in Willow
Shields were invented so that dual-wielding shield spec paladins can exist.
I imagine back in the day, you would have knights and/or smiths arguing over beers about what's more important: a big heavy shield that gives a lot of coverage, or a smaller one that you can move properly. You get the predecessor of internet arguments: "I heard Philippe of Anjou came out of that battle with twenty arrows stuck in his shield and not a scratch on him." "Well Henri du Beaumont died of a single arrow through the eye because he stuck his head over the shield to see..."
One function of shields that wasn't covered here and a function that I think is actually really important and perhaps even one of the key reasons they were used is the psychological function of shields. So the idea that people carrying shields feel more protected (whether this is entirely true in practice or not) and because they feel more protected their morale is increased and they are less likely to lose heart and run in combat. And given that particularly in ancient and medieval times the army that broke first psychologically was usually the one that lost, things that boost the staying power of your army can be extremely valuable. So I think the morale boosting/psychological reinforcing effect of carrying a shield could be one of its most important features/benefits. I realize that when testing shields for effectiveness today its hard to measure this aspect or perhaps even for it to come to mind b/c you have to be standing there on the field facing death and dealing with that fear for this morale support to come into play. And obviously that's not something that people shooting arrows and bolts at shields are going to come across and it would be hard to measure objectively anyway - beyond looking at historical battles and perhaps seeing if there was any correlation to armies that carried shields regularly into battle and how they performed from a morale perspective. But even then there are so many variables it would be hard to know. But I was just thinking about it while watching the video and it seems logical to me that the above would be a thing, though again I don't know how it would be tested or confirmed.
Moving beyond this comment - great and informative video! Keep up the good work and cheers.
One fact is that shields have been used throughout history, which means that they worked.
The consequence I see is that for their users of the time, "working" did not necessarily mean "being allproof".
In fact, I think this is pretty much a case of "good enough": yes, six arrows went through your shield during that battle, but most likely it slowed them enough for your armor to absorb the remaining energy with ease. Unlike that other arrow that clocked you right on the chest, went through the joupon, the breastplate (curse the smith who made it...) and was thankfully stopped by the gambeson but still left you gagging for breath for a good ten seconds.
something else to note, is that with arrows, the range they are shot at has a role in how much they can penetrate. Sure a shield might not protect you as much point blank, but at larger ranges it would.
I'm convinced the main purpose of the pilum is to deprive the enemy of their shields, to reduce their effectiveness. Any actual direct damage to the enemy is just a bonus.
Yup it was meant to stick to shields and weigh them down, and break if removed to prevent it being thrown back
@@alexmag342 The pilum was designed to bend/break after impact with anything, really.
Maybe people just gave their troops shields to make convincing them to march towards the enemy easier.
clearly they re for weight training
and disciplinary meassures, if the knave spills drink on the knight, he ll carry all the shields back home, both ways, uphill, in the snow
id love to see a test against the shield with even just a basic gambeson or leather jack behind it see if even basic foot soldier armour would work with a shield.
As others have more or less said, it reduces the trauma by one or more steps. Kill to severe wound, severe wound to minor wound, minor wound to no wound. Obviously you could break it down more than that but you get the idea. Great vid. I especially liked the revelation...at least to me on smaller shields being more resistant to damage and thus in some ways offering better protection. :)
Shields stacking the odds and making you harder to hit/wound/kill?
Sounds good to me, sign me up for carrying a shield.
@scholagladiatoria please try some tests against shields layered over each other like a shield wall, I'd imagine the dual layers will be much more effective in stopping missile penetration than a single lone shield, even wicker shields layered in close overlapping formations like roofing shingles might offer superior protection, or at least make lethal arrows slow down enough to become non-lethal.
That steel buckler you are holding is just a "traveler's" frying pan.
The tedious thing about them is that you have to remove the handle and the padding when you want to cook something. The great thing about these frying pan is that you can also use them as a shield.
Lookah likeah a wok.
I too enjoy checking out my champion's """EQUIPMENT"""
It's always cool to remember when a channel had absolutely ZERO production value vs what they can do if they manage to reach 1, 2, 5 years old....
I remember at one point you could hear Matt turning off the camera the end of each video. Still the best intro in youtube history btw :-P
Soldiers rarely take to the field naked, with just a shield for defence. Even if it doesn't stop an arrow, pillum, or whatever, it might slow them down enough that your gambison, mail, and other protective clothing will stop them.
Before the video starts, my take is always this: Simulations and tests where shields break or weapons go through them are always ideal situations. A real target is moving around and holding the shield at different angles etc. Shooting a full power arrow at a static shield portrays the ideal conditions that would be hard to find on a battlefield.
1:35 .... for all those who came to see Raid Shadow Legends
I heard somewhere that quenching the fire of a flaming arrow (as well as breaking the momentum somewhat if not completely) was an important reason for making shields out of or layering leather on top of Greek-era shields. I wonder if this has any historical basis. If I wore a mix of flammable cloth and fat-smeared leather underneath my metal armour, I would prefer it if my shield at least put the fire arrow out even if it still penetrates.
You should also do infomercials for "head-blade" or the "bald mans hairbrush".
Isn't there also a slowing effect on a spear that goes through a shield? So, would my mediocer armor be more likely to save me from the spear if that spear first went through a shield?
that's also what I thought, any projectile going through a shield would lose at least some of its energy, therefore delivering less into anything behind that shield, so it might not go through the armor or the padding or through the flesh.
also I think the amount of deflected projectiles might be higher than we usually think
Even a light shield forces the opponent to use heavier and/or slower firing ranged weapons to be effective. By making things like slings or lighter hunting bows ineffective you force the use of either very heavy bows which require specialized conditioning or crossbows which are considerably slower firing, expensive, and quite bulky to boot. IIRC that is one of the evolutions we see between the Roman and Medieval periods - ranged weapons get considerably more substantial and sophisticated.
Side note on artillery, even the Romans had torsion artillery that could throw fist sized stones. That machine won’t be particularly picky if it’s one big fist sized stone or a dozen smaller ones; it’s always going to be advantageous to use more of the smallest projectile that’s effective (considering range, protection, etc.) for the sheer volume of fire.
Ancient Greek shields were both large and thick. Some were even covered in bronze, although I think it was usually quite a thin layer from the examples I've seen in museums. There's a surviving bronze shield cover in the Agora museum in Athens which has been inscribed to say it was taken from the Spartans at Pylos, so is presumably representative of the type carried by at least some Greek soldiers of the classical era.
Well, bear in mind that competent archers were incredibly rare and incredibly valuable. There was a fascinating quote from a Byzantine/Eastern Roman general quoted in one of John Keegan's books on ancient warfare stating that out of 500 archers, 50 would be good (e.g. about 10%). This would be especially the case with a longbow or an equivalent composite bow because of the draw weight required of a typical warbow. The English were unique in that they required all able-bodies males to partake in mandatory archery practice. And even despite this practice, they never could quite total victory during the Hundred Years War after numerous spectacular victories. The French would eventually recover, whereas the English army was unable to recover after Patay, after the loss of so many skilled archers. You can give anyone a longbow, they will not be a longbowman of the caliber of the soldiers at Agincourt or Crecy. Similarly, the inexorable dominance of the central Asian warriors (Turks, Mongolians) was borne of people who lived a lifestyle devoted to hunting and archery. It would not be an exaggeration to state that a large force of competent archers, however dominant, would have been as exceedingly rare as it was terrifying, at least among sedentary agrarian societies of western Europe. And on foot, they were as easy to rout as any other foot soldiers to a well timed cavalry charge. I think this rarity alone would make shields much more appealing. You can't assume that because bodkins and longbow existed that they were hiding under every bush in the 13th century. There was a reason that forces widely and rapidly adopted the arquebus and the musket despite an inferior range and rate of fire to the longbow - it was principally easier to use for the common soldier and didn't require such specialized upper-body strength.
one (I think) important note to add: Even if an object(arrow/spear...) penetrates the shield, that act of penetration takes away kinetic energy and the guy behind the shield is usually armored as well. Meaning that additional barrier even when broken through can make the difference for the armor to absorb the impact or not.
People hate on Raid but i like them. I dont play them but I like the fact that they support creators on youtube specially during the pandemic.
I have a 15 inch fluted steel buckler made of 14 gauge steel. Works for my style of sabre fencing, so I'm good.
(you might have covered this in your pilum video, cant remember) Re: The roman heavy pilum I believe they were primarily intended to disable the shield it struck since they could not be removed unassisted without dropping the shield and would dig into the ground if left in place. Makes a lot of sense since romans favoured pushing into the enemy with their tight and wellshielded wedge formation and keep pushing so the enemy had nowhere to move as they were being stabbed.
I'd venture to guess that having a shield that was effective against anything but a perfectly aligned thrust or missile weapon more than served its purpose in the majority of cases. Modern armor takes the same approach and parries and blocks in striking arts follow the same idea.
Sometimes I think history (and thinking about it) has shown shields can be completely ineffective in terms of defence but can instill a confidence and improve morale and fighting effectiveness.
I'm so proud of you for getting such a sponsor, not sure if you have in previous video, been short on time to watch your stuff. But I Raid: Shadow Legends pays a good amount of money for one.
I wonder; when did the Romans decide to reinforce the center length of the Scutum?
I'm reminded of the Battle of Carrhae-- where the Parthians were able to easily defeat the Romans due to their mounted archers being equipped with barbed arrows (according to Plutarch).
Perhaps the defeat of Crassus inspired a modification? I remember reading somewhere that the amount of arm injuries suffered were... tremendous, to say the least. The Parthians had talented archers being readily supplied with what must've seemed like an infiinite amount of arrows. They would've known precisely where to aim.
It'd be cool if you could test the affect of different arrows on the center of the Scutum-- one reinforced and one "standard."
I think another thing to consider is range - while arrows, javelins etc. may be able to pierce some shields at short range, this doesn't apply at longer ranges.
Take two groups of soldiers, one with and one without shields, and send them against archers - obviously, archers will be much more lethal against both groups at short range, compared to long range. However, at long range the group with shields would be nearly invulnerable to arrows, due to their decreased velocity at that range. Probably not worth even shooting at, since archers would only be wasting ammo and energy. However, the group without shields could be vulnerable enough to make long range volleys viable against them.