Are Historians WRONG about NORMAN CAVALRY SHIELDS?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 вер 2024
- I have long argued that 'Norman' kite shields, as shown on Bayeux Tapestry, were more infantry than cavalry shields, but is THIS the final proof?
▼3 extra EXCLUSIVE videos each month on PATREON, which make this channel possible:
/ scholagladiatoria
▼Facebook & Twitter updates, info, memes and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
▼Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfight...
▼Matt Easton's website & Pinterest:
www.matt-easto...
www.pinterest....
▼Easton Antique Arms - antique swords for sale:
www.antique-sw...
Of course we want a video about shield straps ! What a strange question to ask
We may, in fact, wish to see several videos about shield straps.
I'm thrilled! I've been dreaming about shield straps for days now...
In my experience the tail part doesn't cause issues with controlling the horse at all, especially if you're sufficiently skilled at riding. The tail does smash onto your knee though, even through maille, and after an hour or so at Senlac field (reenactment!), really causes big bruising.
I was thinking the same. If you ride well the Shield should not bounce that much. After having tried some mounted sparring with padded clubs, I actually found the Shield to be quite useful as it covered my "weak" left side.
Could it be because on a horse you can go a lot faster and therefore airflow will bring the shield automatically in this position? Also the way the straps are placed on the shield holding the reins with the hand that holds the shield will bring it in this position.
Great discussion. As an ex-horseman, I really appreciate the references to horses and cavalry. I think it is correct about a flopping shield giving false signals, and I agree the evidence is clear as well. BTW, I find this kind of shield to be very aesthetic. Cheers!
All of a sudden, the adoptation of heater shield starts to make sense. If knights are increasingly becoming mounted shock troops and less time dismounted, a teardrop shield is just going to get in the way.
The development of teardrop shields into heater shields was influenced by the development of better leg armour, not the transition of knights from functioning as both cavalry and mounted infantry to functioning mostly as cavalry and less as mounted infantry, because the latter did not happen before knights were made obsolete by the advancement of firearms.
I was arguing that kite shields were initially infantry shields for years!
Byzantine chronicler Leo the Deacon writes about medieval Rus' warriors of the second half of the 10th century: "their shields are strong and reach their legs for greater safety" and "the Tauro-Scythians (=Rus') left the city and lined up on the plain, protected by chain mail and shields that reached to their very feet". Those warriors were predominantly/mostly infantrymen who fought on foot (although there are some descriptions of Rus' horsemen during this period of time as well). And their "long shields" seem to be either kite shields or maybe some sort of proto-kite oblong shields.
But I think that kite shield also had some uses in cavalry as well. At least Ioannos Kinnamos stated in his "Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenos" that, before the reforms of Manuel I Komnenos in the middle of the 12th century most of Byzantine cavalrymen used round shields, and Manuel’s reforms included the adoption (or readoption?) of longer kite shields reaching the feet of the horseman. So there were some reasons for cavalrymen to use kite shields instead of round shields.
I beleive most likely Manuel I Komenenos did the Readoption of teardrop shield but on biger norman style size, the byzantines used prior to that a native version of teardrop shield that was smaller than the now known kite shield. also in modern history books they refer the Rus shields on Tzimiskes expedition as rectangular and not teardrop, i wonder if they used also kite style shields?
@@petros311 As far as I know, there are no sources for rectangular shields used by Rus' warriors (or by any warriors during that time period). On the other hand, kite shields were pretty popular in the lands of Rus' during later time period and stayed in use there longer than in Western Europe. So it seems reasonable to assume that those "long shields" mentioned by Leo the Deacon were similar to kite shields.
Only one shield used by Rus' warriors of that time is found archaeologically, and it is round, and that option clearly contradicts the description of "long shields reaching to their feet".
@@user-yy5xs6xj7rThey could have been narrow oval shields, like the Trondheim shields, which date to the 11th century but which may represent an older style that co-existed with kite shields for a while - there's an oval shield in the Bayeux Tapestry, for instance, and a few 11th or early 12th century manuscripts show some oval shields mixed in with the kite shields.
@@Cahirable Yeah, oval shields are a possibility. But Rus' was trading, fighting and providing mercenaries for Byzantium for more than a century by that time, so if kite shields were used by Byzantines in the 9th and 10th centuries, it is quite possible that Rus' would adopt those as well. Although in this case it is strange that Leo the Deacon didn't say that Rus' warriors were using the same type of shields as the Byzantines - it seem that the shields of those Rus' warriors were bigger|/longer than the Byzantine shields of that period.
It would be interesting to just recreate the situation on the tapestry. Sit on an actual horse with an accurate size and strapped shield and see how it feels to hold the shield as they are depicted. In my head it seems a rather unnatural position to have the shields tail painted back as they do,which tells me they were very intentionally doing it for a reason more important than comfort or even protection. Likely as Zach says, interference with inputs to the horse; and as Matt says, the better horseman beats the superior swordsman.
Anyway lovely video Matt, good to see the spears and swords are coming in nicely in your garden!
Done it many times and both positions work fine.
Well, we know from recounts of the battle at Hastings that Norman knights dismounted and fought on foot with the same gear they had with them when needed or when their horses were injured. Their wargear needed to ba able to be used on foot. On horseback they were fast so they had some protection from that alone, arrows and thrown weapons were a danger when approaching enemy formations so they propably approached shieldside somewhat diagonally if moving slow and when closer charged a formation and then retreating being pursued downhill then turning and killing the ones chasing them out of formation. In the charge spears were a danger and heavvy axes killing horses I would think the point of the shield held like that also protected the horse and rider when wheeled about and retreating down hill just a tad bit harder to strike them in the back when they did that move if they turned to wheelabout clockwise. I would think they were propably well trained horsemen and on fast horses more agile than later knights using heavvier horses and more protection.
I could see a rider holding the shield horizontally during maneuvers, but with the option to switch to a vertical hold in close combat.
When he shows the tapestry I noticed that the long line of horsemen riding up all have the shields pointed backwards, but at 12:53 I see the horseman at the front of the line who's actually exchanging blows is holding it vertically. This made me think that they would hold the shields back when just riding, and only deploy it fully when needed. However, I also note that slightly to the right, the 'front line' cavalryman approaching from the other side is exchanging blows while holding the shield back, so it's not clear cut.
@@kevinlorimer horses for courses! As the shield is on the off side to the weapon, i'd assume it didn't get much use whilst mounted, whilst fighting an opponent who's in front or to the right, but is protecting from attack from the left and rear. A knight would automatically try to keep an opponent in that zone. just like a horseback archer can most effectively shoot to the left.
When the straps are placed In the historical correct way holding the reins with the hand that holds the shield will bring it in this position.
Huh, I actually didn't realize people believed that kite shields were primarily cavalry shields. I've always thought they were meant to be used both on foot and on horseback, and that cavalry would often use them on foot when they fought dismounted. I don't think I've ever read or watched anything where they really talked about the kite shield as a cavalry shield vs. an infantry shield, though, I just made the assumption that they were meant to be used both mounted and on foot based on what I've seen on the Bayeux Tapestry. I never really gave it much thought beyond that.
It used to be conventional wisdom online that the Norman teardrop was an evolution of the late Roman Scutums, which would be much harder to use on horseback.
First time I saw the tapestry as a kid I thought the horsemen were just keeping their shields out of the way because they were too big.
Until youtube suggested this channel to me one day, I had no idea how fascinating medieval weapons and armour are.
until this channel i thought a i know a lot about the those, but then i realized how wrong was i'm. My knowledge was so lacking
The cavalry not only hold the shield pointing backwards, they also hold it much higher than how Mat demonstrated - in the tapestry it looks like the cavalry are leaning the shield over the shoulder. Maybe it was more stabilizing to hold the shield agaist the left shoulder while riding. Another guess is that holding the shield close to the body, high, and horizontally gives you much more coverage to the back, so your entire left side is covered against arrows in a wide arch almost 180 degrees.
I think it would have been easier to hold the shield the way they seem to be doing in the tapestry for long periods, holding it close and slightly over the shoulder, and I think you are right about it giving coverage to the rider's back as well as their flank. I think the cavalry were stabbing and throwing their spears at the Saxons (shown on the tapestry) and then making a right turn to go back down the hill, using the length of the shield to minimise the exposure of the rider's head and back to missiles as they turned away from the Saxons.
Interesting idea.
Also: IIRC a lot of US Cavalry actually fought their battles mostly on foot, even after the introduction of cartridge-using breech-loading weapons (like the Springfield Rifles, starting in 1865). The horse was more of a means of fast travel for them.
Mounted infantry ftw
makes sense. Also i suppose if the straps are horizontal, if youre trying to control the horse with its reins in your left hand, it'll naturally angle the shield like that in the first place because your arm will be pointing at the back of the horses head.
You've demonstrated that the kite shield would be used by men on foot, and the Tapestry actually shows this.
I'm just speculating here, but one reason to carry the shield with the tail facing backwards could be to prevent it from banging against the horse's flank.
OTOH, armies which fought primarily or exclusively on foot , like the Greeks, Romans, Vikings, or Zulus, didn't generally use kite shields; they might be round or oblong but they usually weren't kite-shaped. What distinguishes the Normans from those others is that Normans fought both on foot and on horseback.
Speculating further, another thing that might be relevant is weight. A round or oblong shield which provided the same coverage as a kite shape might weigh more, which is significant if you're carrying the entire weight on one arm. An infantryman might be able (I don't really know this) to shift some of the weight onto the shoulder more easily than a horseman could.
Just looking at it, it makes no sense to me as a primarily cavalry weapon. It doesn't cover an exceptional amount of anything on horseback compared to other shield shapes. Ok maybe it protects one leg but... while on foot it's the optimal shape to cover as much of one's body as possible without being oversized.
That's an interesting point about distractions to the horse.
you only need to protect one leg on horseback- the one on the side that's facing the enemy. the horse will hide the other leg. i think there's more likely to be an issue between how long the elongation is on the shield if you're going to be riding horseback as you are usually more in a crouched than standing position- whihc i think would favor kite shields more than the norman teardrop shield. Don't know for sure tho as i haven't really seen anyone riding around with a norman teardrop shield in a ready or fighting position. (have seen it with a kite shield tho- and was very impressed that all I could see of the person's body was just one foot+just a bit of the lower leg, the head, and the hand that was using the reigns).
I think the "dragoon"-idea is solid. You are cavalry when there's horses available and the tactical situation requires it if not you are infantry. Lugging two kits sucks so you bring one you can use for both roles.
Yes and you may do both jobs at the same time as well. Especially when it's not unlikely your un or lightly armoured horse will be killed under you and now you're on foot. Of course during the interim the horse could use the protection.
@@MrBottlecapBill Exactly, I don't remember for sure but I think it was William Marshal who got five horses killed underneath him in a single battle. Fairly safe to assume many a cavalry charge ended with an infantry melee...
Well prior to the American Civil War the US had three types of mounted units. 2 Regiments of Dragoons 2 Regiments of Light Cavalry and 1 Regiment of mounted rifles. So seems the idea carried over.
I’m interested in the strap discussion. It seems a very specific detail and understanding how we know the “correct” strap arrangement would be very interesting to me.
The teardrop shield cavalry appear to be charging in a group, and are sensibly keeping their shield tails back, clearing their horse. But what if enemy infantry got within striking distance on the left flank? Then the cavalry might bring their shield tail around to protect their left leg, and to protect the horse's flank. Once you are in combat, the danger posed by enemy weapons is much greater than the danger of slightly bumping your horse with your shield. And using their shield-tail defensively entails intercepting attacks by holding the shield away from your leg, body, and horse, (thus avoiding constant bumps to the horse).
I should point out that holding the shield on an angle would also protect the lightly armoured horse a bit while riding.
The artists of olde wouldn't depict the long, boring parts of warfare. The moment of contact, the engagement of enemy... That makes for good interest. Paintings and tapestries weren't about to be wasted effort. They would depict the most dramatic moment. The clash. And, yes. Better Infantry shield than Cavalry.
Given that cavalry would normally be in close formation, the riders' legs would be protected to some extent by the horses on either side, reducing the need for a shield to extend down to protect them.
Also in Trondheim (Norway), a place famous for its warriors where cavalry basically wasn't a thing, archeologists found oblong shields that they nicknamed "proto kiteshields"
Seems like those did not evolve with cavalry in mind.
Maybe shields pointing backwards were the medieval artistic equivalent of go-faster stripes.
I think that is an interesting point, that it is an artistic choice to show dynamic action. Or maybe it’s the artist explicitly showing the tear drop shape of the shield even when the rider is viewed from the right hand side.
The earliest evidence of these shields comes from the David Casket, dated to 900, and a Byzantine illustration of the Iliad, which is dated to 900-1000. Both depictions are of infantry (or at least men on foot).
That section of the David Casket is unfortunately a later recarving. See "An Imperial Byzantine Casket and Its Fate at a Humanist's Hands"
@@Cahirable Is it? That's unfortunate, but even still, the Iliad illustration pre-dates the Bayeux tapestry.
@@MisterKisk I don't disagree! The Syrianus Magister dates to the 9th century and mentions a long shield that can only be an oval or kite shield, and by the mid-10th century they're the standard shield in military manuals.
Holding the shield horizontally would also give the rider the ability to easily swing the shield across the back of the horse, to deal with threats from the other side.
I would suggest that the teardrop shield *is* designed for use on horseback, but not in the way normally understood. The shields it replaced weren't small round shields which were then extended to a longer teardrop shape but either elongated full length ovals or very large round ones. What the teardrop shape does is make the shield smaller and handier and so easier to use on horseback, because the pointed end can be held backwards horizontally out of the way, while still retaining a decent amount of leg protection when used on foot held vertically.
Interesting theory and very possibly right.
One consideration not mentioned though is that a cavalryman might lower the kite shield to protect his leg when engaging in melee or coming close to other combatants.
Makes sense to me. Throughout history, lots of calvary has functioned as "dragoons" or mounted warriors who sometimes dismount for combat. Even if the teardrop shape had no advantages on horseback, it would still make sense to incorporate it to make the riders better fighters if and when they dismount.
I would love a video exploring the possibility of use of shields with two handed weapons like billhooks. Were shields with straps ever used with these weapons as I have seen some depictions in period art of their use but nobody talks about it.
I think definitely this kind of shield wasn't designed, at least primarily, to be used with cavalry. There are plenty of similar shields preceding this that look similar while being used by infantry.
Now, I think the shield can still be used by cavalry effectively. When it comes to protection and how it was depicted in the artwork, I think the reason for the horsemen to keep the point towards the back is because of two reasons.
One is for the point of the shield not to keep hitting the horse and the knight's leg as they move forwards. Another reason I think it is to protect the back of the horseman. I think when it comes to a cavalry charge, most likely troops on the ground won't aim for the legs alongside of the horse. This is because the horse would be running on a charge and all the situation will take place very fast so it is much easier for a ground troop to spot the silhouette of the horseman on top at first glance than a leg all blended in with the horse's body. So, since horses aren't that fast, it can happen still that a troop that just has been passed by could try to hit the back and side of the horseman. In that sense, perhaps this is why they kept the point of the shield horizontal stretching all the way to make up for a larger area of protection. It could have been tough that those cavalryman could even swing their shields depending on the situation as they go through.
Your reasoning makes a good case for the Kite shield. One reading of the history of the 11th century and shortly thereafter suggested that armed conflict took place on foot. The size and strength of horses used for combat developed later on it was supposed. Was carvery used mostly for transport? One account of the Saxon arrival in 1066 stated that the horses were moved to the rear before forming a shield wall. Historical guess?
Our first piece of evidence is the bayeux tapestry. Our second piece of evedence is... also the bayeux tapestry!
(If only those who made it knew how thorougly it would be examined.)
I can’t believe we get to watch videos of this quality and all it costs us is Big Tech stealing our data while we do.
One wants the biggest yet lightest and easy to carry and use shield. Removing unneeded surface is a practical a foot or horse back. Having every other man, invert his shield, would also create an anti arrow wall? Also, most knights spent much of their days training and working their horses, most had good control of their mounts regardless of the battlefield.
Looking at those images, 12:30 and 13:07 it looks like they rode into battle with both spear and sword and shield, protecting themselves with the shields, threw the spears at close range and then closed in to fight with swords.... it is one possibility ...
Designed for infantry but used universally.
I had always thot the horsemans shield was the shorter bottom pointed one I've always called a heater shield. These never really made sense to me until il you just showed us with spear on foot. But the shorter one wouldn't do much to protect the leg; was there to defend and deflect attacks on the body while plate covered the legs(IMO). Strapping it vertically would really make it more maneuverable to defend the legs, but why would someone want it canted as you have it?
Great vid! Thanks!
Not all soldiers on horseback are cavalry. Maybe they're mounted to get from one place to another then jumping off to use their shields vertically.
Matt i'd like to suggest a possible point. One thing i've rarely seen people comment on is how well kite style shields do benefit horse riders- The teardrop style works well because you only need to cover about half to 2/3rds of the body.. the other not covered part is hidden by the horse. ALso the shape of the shield allows you to hug the shield in close to the horse as well while keeping things pretty squared.
my question on the norman shield is why did they go with the elongated teardrop shape over say basically a skinnier (and thinner) pavise/tower sort of shape? If i had to make a guess is that the shape evolved from something that was originally developed to be easier to use on horseback (altho possibly might not have been the primary focus of it at any point of the evolution). I'd also wager that as it got longer it reached a point where it wasn't as useful on horseback as say compared to a more normal kite shield. Or it could be a case of just convergent evolution. Do you have any thoughts on this or any insights on whether this could be a valid case for the design shape?
also I would love to see someone do a comparison video on using the elongated teardrop shield on horseback vs using a kite vs any other type of shield on horseback just to see how practical it would or would not have been.
commenting for more strap videos
If I'm not mistaken, the Byzantine army independently developed the kite shield for themselves and coincidentally created nearly the exact same shield, and their version was also used primarily for their spearmen.
So, in essence, a longer shield protects a foot soldiers legs better than a shorter one? I don't think that really needs arguing. Very very good point about cavalry use though. Tbh, I think we all sometimes forget that arms and armour do have fashions, which sometimes fly in the face of practicality.
Well, the debate is primarily the way norman cavalry using the kite shield. Some people debate that kite shield was a primary cavalry shield for leg protection - and when mail leg armor for cavalry appeared, the kite was not as important anymore and became the heater shield.
Great vid - 100% agree. They carried the shields that were best suited to the majority of fighting they did....and at that time it wasn't cavalry, it was shield walls and spears.
I imagine they used them on horseback more for arrow protection than against foot.
To me this has been 100% obvious from the very first time I've seen different shields. More or less always, infantry shield are bigger than cavalry ones. Same with bows. Because it's unwieldy if they're too large. And that means you fail. With bows, to hit anything. With a shield to avoid getting hit. Both very VERY bad. And have repeatedly proven it to me and others in practice.
Any chance the "tail" was rested on the horses back to eliminate most of the shields weight? Not a raider just a long shot.
Holding the shield sideways on horseback still gives use to the tail, it, especially the further out your arm is, covers your shoulder and back area, around the shoulder blade and back of the neck, which could be very important if you're flanked by archers, for example. I still agree that their primary purpose makes more sense for infantry use, but they're still an improvement over round shields for cavalry use.
It looks as if the cavalry near the front hold their shields lower. I think we need to do a good job factoring in the possibility that holding the shield behind indicates traveling (presumably charging in, in this case), such that, once in the thick of combat, it may be beneficial to reangle the shield in order to guard the leg.
At the time of Hastings they had mounted infantry that could get to an area quickly, dismount and fight as a unit. The later mounted Knights were better geared to fighting from horseback whereas a straight up ordinary spear (rather than specifically designed lances) has more thrusting strength from the ground.
the knight would hold their shield in the way shown whilst riding, the shield on the forearm and reins in hand. During melee combat they would certainly have utilised the tail of the shield defensively. Good video, interesting shield type. Do you know where it is first attested? It seems that kite shields were a recent introduction from the Eastern Roman Empire, possibly popularised by former members of the Varangian Guard.
Yes to a video about shield straps!
They're specified as infantry shields in the Sylloge Taktikon (950s CE) and were probably invented if not in Byzantium then the Caucasus/Pontic region or the Islamic world. They are also specified for cavalry use but they're of different size and for certain cavalry roles.
EDIT: Also chausses were already in use in this period and had existed since at least about 825 CE.
It would be great to have a video about shield straps and ways of carrying them
Thanks for adding the input from Zac!
Im convinced by the horseman arguments though I have no personal experience. When me and my friends began messing around with HEMA swords, I became a shield maker and after some failures (bad materials and methods), got some pretty decent pieces done. The point on leg protection is so true. The viking-style round shields we use are great but defeating them is all about moving them: swipe the leg, feint that to hit the head etc. This becomes quite different with a kite shield, the leg is well protected without much movement - even if they are quite heavy. At least the ones I made are built to stand to alot of abuse so get quite heavy. I need to work on a better strap design though, I just went with centre grip on all of them - it works surprisingly well on kite shields too though it probably works alot better for short sessions of sparring than long battles as it's hard to hold them like that for long.
I hve not seen a kite shield reconstruction that uses the strap arrangement from the Bayeux tapestry. The tapestry shows four straps in a sqare like dhall grip. So they can be griped in the fist as a center grip o put over the forearm either vertically or horizontally qute versatile. Plus a longer shoulder strap attached to the top two attachment points, often folded over the front to keep it out the way.
How much would that giant shield catch the wind while riding at the canter or gallop? Would carrying it tail back, would it be more stable?
Matthew, Excellent video. My question is if the shield wall was an important part of infantry tactics in the early middle ages why don't we see the rectangular Roman shields having a resurgence? Thanks. Dan
I mean, it originated as an infantry shield by the Byzantines, developed some time before the 10th century - the Syrianus Magister is recommended reading according to Constantine VII, and has internal evidence indicating it was written after 790 but before 909 - and near universal in use by the mid-10th (c.f the Praecepta Militaria)
The Eastern Roman phoulkon, infantry formation comes to mind
It does seem worldwide cavalry all used smaller shields designed to protect above the hip.
Maybe it was more cost effective to use one type of shield and deploy it differently depending on what you were doing. If you are planning your battle you may decide a certain amount of people would be primarily on their horse and they would strap it for horizontal and the people on foot would strap it the other way.
I must disagree, just because that shield can protect your leg, doesn't mean it's been specifically designed for use by foot or horse. And i'm looking at the tapestry right now, the footmen don't hold it in front of their legs, their legs are actually exposed, and they are holding them raised, mostly protecting hips, torso and face. If anything if the shield was specifically made for foot, then that shape isn't really good for full protection. If you push it far from you and close the attack angles, yes..... they appear to use them close-bodied. And incidentally, it covers the same area their hauberks do. On top of that, if specifically made for foot, then wouldn't an elongated oval shield or elongated square shape work better? Like the Celtic shields from the classical era or the Roman equivalents? Those shapes not only cover more area, but they also cover it better when held close-bodied and you can for shield formations easier with them. On the other hand, these tear drop kite shields are too narrow for shield walls. And their lower torso and leg protection is subpar when compared to other designs.
So, why would you make such a shield? My proposal is compromise. It would protect better then smaller shields, especially smaller round shields that were used by many cavalry formations in antiquity and medieval ages, but it would lighter and easier to wield and maneuver then fully body covering square or oval shields. Both for infantrymen and cavalrymen. Was it specifically designed for either? It's hard to say. Maybe one started using them first and the other found them suitable to adopt them. Or maybe it was just the first shield flexible and practical enough, to have some use as an infantry shield and dedicated use as a cavalry shield, in a time when cavalry could fight dismounted as well as mounted. I still hold to the opinion that it's a better option for horse then foot, mostly because there are much better option for foot, especially in those days, and if that shape made it hard for the horsemen to control their horses.....well, someone forgot to tell the Normans that.....
But let's be realistic, that's just my opinion........ what is most likely true is that like some many issues we argue about, the sad truth is, it was most likely just a case of fashion on the battlefield. Some noble saw it somewhere worn by someone, maybe something similar, say in the Eastern Roman Empire, and brought the idea in the west. Then the other nobles adopted it, and finally the average infantry, however they came last, and that's why we still see some of them still carrying old shields..... poor sods...
How common was it for a cavalryman to lose their horse? Does the carrying of the shield mean that there was a significant chance ?
Didn't the Normans keep spare horses at the back to put the cavalry back in the saddle?
You make a very compelling argument, great vid!
So what we have here are "mounted infantry". Any possibility that foot fighting tactics were better understood and developed than cavalry tactics, thereby leading to an "if in doubt - dismount" approach?
Guess depends on what phase of the fight you are. When charging the mounting of the shield at the arm makes it pointing backwards. In close combat it may have been used different
they were certainly wrong about the supposed 2 galons of soymilk you drink a day, it's actually 5
Aren't the cavalry-men who place their shields tail backwards in the middle of a charge? You don't think the kite shield placed upright is very "aerodynamic"?
historical strapping? What a strapping idea, YES PLEASE!!
Could the tail not be protective from strikes towards the back? By stretching out the arm, you have some shield to the back and lowering the arm, you could even possibly cover the neck. Having a tail trailing behind you gives you some additional shield especially at a blind side angle farthest from your weapon hand far more so than a round or heater shield ever could.
Maybe to be covered in your next video but often the illustrations of the straping for a kite shield look quite complex, I wonder if this is to make control of the shield easier depending upon which orienation you are holding the shield, if on horseback you use one set of straps, when you fight on foot use use the others?
Of course it's pointing backwards, they're in the act of charging, they haven't engaged yet.
If you ask me, I'd say go out and try it!
Oddly enough you can still find war horses
It seems to me that most cultural implements have a form dictated partly by utility, but also by tradition and reluctance to innovate. If the kite shield proved useful in combat on foot, I expect that mounted warriors would have used them simply because they thought the shield design had been optimized and it would be dangerous to change it.
Hello hope you all enjoy your day.
I wonder whether the pointy end of this type of shield was used as a secondary bashing weapon when used on horseback. A horseman's weapon (assuming wielded right-handedly) is generally speaking more effective against foes on the horseman's right, due to its greater reach. In a melee, I would think it could be quite handy to be able to whack an opponent approaching from one's left using the end of one's kite shield, while simultaneously swinging a sword. Just a thought.
It looks like the type of shield that would be useful if you are standing guard on top of small fortress, standing behind a wall. The bottom part covered is covered by the wall.. the top part protects against archer attacks from a distance ..
My only criticism is this: for cavalry use, straps are better than bossgrips on a shield; everything else work fine.
This is not new, we've been saying for twenty years that of you turned up at Hastings with a round shield you were from the sticks, a poorer farm or holding, not keeping up with what's happening in the world.
I should have waited. Yes,we've been saying it is used to protect the horses arse as you pass along the face of the enemy shield wall stabbing with your spear when mounted.
I think that's a good point. And I don't really know that protecting your legs when you're on a horse is really a priority. It seems to me soead and maneuverability is more important. Because I don't think you can protect your horse if you can't protect your legs
Thanks for the information in this video personally for me I like a round shield ⚔️
Feet as a target? Feet have many more nerves and gives great pain, more than a leg wound
Not a rider but wouldn't keeping the shield horizontal also give you some protection for your back and blind spot? Not tha tuseful for infantry in formations but for horsemen in a swirling melee it would be hard to keep your back covered at all times.
Yes, more on shield straps
Well done, sir.
Excellent! Loved it. I learned a lot. 😊
I know how I use straps. Let's hear more about how the Norman's use them.
What are your thoughts about the difference in size between, for example, the shield you're in this video and a lot of those shown on the bayeux tapestry?
The famous images you used in this presentation clearly show a lot of shields about 3/4 the size of yours.
... not just Norman wisdom then?
Sorry....
Is the hobbit size central boss just decoration?
Great video
I take umbrage with your helmet. I love it. It should be mine. Then I could be the Super Hero Barry The Bullet!
Didn`t the byzantines also use the kiteshield at some point?
Mounted infantry? Like the Aussies at Beersheba.
Here, I'll give you some umbrage to make up for all those people that took some. Where's the button for that?
Bit like a scutum that way
They were smarter than we are today ..
This video is like a bright star in the UA-cam sky. Simply irresistible!🌷🌷🌷 @ 🐌'
whats your prefered website to view the tapestry?
www.bayeuxmuseum.com/en/the-bayeux-tapestry/discover-the-bayeux-tapestry/
Artwork that corroborate your findings about cavalry and tear shields
Manuscript le Mans BM MS.228 Enarrationes in Psalmos
Manuscript BL Royal 6 C VI Moralia in Job
Art that were in agreement with the status quo:
UBA Cod.I.2.4.15 Pamplona Picture Bible and Lives of Saints
Hi Matt, which historians portrayed this as primarily a cavalry shield? I’ve not come across this mindset, personally. KR, Stephen
You know, I think I've only ever heard it on TV documentaries (with historians) and perhaps in Osprey books. But I must have heard this said in such contexts a couple of dozen times, and every single time it has struck me as an odd conclusion. It is stated explicitly in "Saxon, Viking & Norman" by Wise & Embleton, for example (an Osprey book), "on horseback the unique shape enabled the shield to cover the undefended side down to the ankle".
@@scholagladiatoria cheers Matt. As you know, I came to medieval history relatively late, so may have missed it.
I would be wary of taking details of combat from the Bayeaux tapestry due to it being created by English nuns .