Thanks for the video response - it seems that on most points we're in agreement. I guess rather that focusing on the theory of cavalry shield use we could just say this: Most cultures in the middle ages that produced outstanding cavalry used medium-sized shields, often round in shape. Whether a commander intends for his cavalry to get into a melee or not, it happened often, and I believe that in a cavalry skirmish (and remember that skirmishing actions were vastly more common than pitched battles), I believe a smaller shield to be more functional than a long one on horseback. I have always found the leg-defence point on horseback a rather silly point, considering that the horse is really the cavalryman's legs and there is nothing protecting the horse!
scholagladiatoria Matt! mate its awesome to know that you came by to my humble little channel. Thanks heaps for your comment. Your point about the silly focus on defending your own leg when your horse's leg is still vulnerable is most definitely an excellent one, still I'd rather my horse lose a leg than my own, which would lead to a rather messy dismount resulting in my own likely death as I would be getting attacked while I try and stand ^_^ I think it's clear that the extended base of the Kite was more intended to benefit on-foot combat, which is where I really believe the kite shield shines, ua-cam.com/video/LU_i0O9zcP8/v-deo.html Thanks again Matt. Cheers.
scholagladiatoria I wonder Matt if you are not losing the distinction between heavy and light cavalry. Light cavalry did certainly function more as pickets and skirmishers. But in Northern and Western Europe, beginning sometime in the 10th century, cavalry gets heavier and heavier. Cavalry horses get bigger and bigger and capable of supporting more weight. In Europe, there seems to have been a marked preference for heavy armored cavalry using the couched lance, and depending primarily on heavy impact in the charge to break enemy formations. And of course, the charges would have been by formations of knights. Other cavalry around the world, that continued using smaller shields, were mostly not heavy cavalry like this and not used in this way. Of course it wouldn't make sense for a horse archer, who depends on mobility to strike and move away, using the range of his bow to his advantage and using it and his horse's speed to stay out of the enemy's reach, to have a big, heavy, immobile shield. But it might make all the sense in the world for a heavy armored horsemen charging other heavy horse, or heavy infantry, in a fairly close packed formation. As you say, context is important.
Darren O'Connor There's a difference between skirmishing before a battle, Arsuf-style, and general skirmishes, when you send off smaller units of your army to either scout the terrain or gather food. The former was done pretty much exclusively with light cav, mostly because you held heavies in reserve. The latter, however, was done with heavy cavalry, or rather with mixed units. There aren't many medieval works telling us how cavalry worked, but one of the few, Templar rule, does indeed mention scouting group of (IIRC) 12 people, which means about 3 full knights. To find accounts of these fights, you need to go way down the rabbit hole, because they weren't glamorous, so few sources mention them. The one I know personally is battle of Rozhanovce/Rozgony which had a prelude of pretty heavy pillaging, in a situation where one side was focused on conquest! Plundering raids, which were rather common, would see even more of this small-scale action. In short, even heavy cavalry shields needed to be good at skirmishes, because they got into a lot of them. Kite shield isn't great at them, but still good, and is very useful if the knight decides to dismount, which he very well might, especially if fighting in a village or other obstructive terrain.
Darren O'Connor I understand the reason behind making the distinction between light and heavy cavalry but you have to keep in mind that even what we could call heavy cavalry was not meant to stay in a prolonged engagement. "The heavy impact in the charge.." as you describe it is intended to be a short but devastating moment and a large static shield adds relatively little protection -- in my opinion -- in a manoeuvre where your primary objective is to slam in and wheel around. A horse gets all its power from its momentum, and once brought to a standstill all that is left is a large hoofed target that can be overpowered with relative ease (I believe scholagladiatoria also mentioned cavalry and the importance of momentum at some point, albeit in another video) and frankly, no size or shape of shield is going to help at that moment.
Glenn de Moor Then you are left to explain why, if the kite shield was a poor one for horsemen, horsemen certainly DID use it. As I said, you see it on the Bayeux Tapestry used by mounted Norman knights, as well as the Anglo-Saxon foot soldiers. I submit that it was not, in fact, a poor choice, for if it had been, then knights whose very lives depended on the efficacy of their equipment would have preferred the round shield in its stead if the round shield were, in fact, superior for their application. We are speculating about what was best, they knew what worked best for them, and they chose the kite shield. I think it's rather presumption for armchair quarterbacks a millennium later to be certain that the professional warriors who knew their business were doing it wrong.
I fought full contact ancient Martial Arts. Over a 25 year period fighting every week and at hundreds of tourneys, melee, war, etc. (Markland, SCA, Dagohir, Renn Faire, WHRC live steel.). I used kite, round, hoplite, "H", Figure eight, oval , scutum, heater, etc. I love kite above all others. Point on horse you don't move your shield, you move your HORSE. Jeez!
Great series of videos! With regards to mounted use of the kite shield the Bayeux Tapestry does show the shields frequently being held back "horizontally" with the bottom edge over the horse's left flank thus leaving the leg unprotected when charging into battle.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but I think that there could be the option of strapping the shield down so that its length protects your off hand leg, thereby allowing one to use two handed weapons with greater effect.
All great points regarding its usage on horseback, nevertheless in any situation on horseback, it would be more preferrable to turn a horse, or navigate it away from danger, than try to get into awkward position to place the shield to his off side and twist the body in a saddle. At least considering riders position on a horse, I dont find it practical to put great emphasis on it. Even in melee, while surrounded riders best bet to stay alive and more or less in one piece is to have a horse attack violently in all directions while never staying still, either moving forward, or in semicircular motion, while rider tryes to parry attacks directed towards him and a horse the best he can. Having basically whole side of his body protected by shield means he can direct most of his attention towards the other side. I dont think the ability to put the shield to the other side of his body would matter that much to the propability of his survival. On the other hand, as was pointed out, most combat would ideally be in the form of predictable and relatively safe moves, like riding to the enemy at an angle, try to throw a weapon, thrust, or cut at opportune target and get away with side turned towards the enemy fully protected, so no need to turn. One situation, where turning shield might be good is while being pursued by another horseman, that gains my off side, or in very crammed cavalry melee, where horses all around dont permit my horse to move around and Im obliged to fight it out stationary. if it was absolutely nessesary, what about not going with only simple movement to the side? What about twisting shield 90 degrees, or even more and basically turn it on its head in emergency situation, when it is needed there? Sure it wont cover whole body, but could offer at least some protection from strikes directed straight against rider head and torso and maybe even horses head. (Havent really tryed so, so I cant say if it would be possible to bring it into position, where narrow part can partially guard a horse) One more thing about kite shield from my perspective - why not using it as a weapon? Ramming its tip into someones face from a galloping horse might have the effect of its own on his well being. Or using it to limited degree to parry incomming blows if it is needed, rather than just rely on its passive protection. (But I havent handled proper replicas so I cant say, if the shield would survive such an abuse, so its rather speculation.)
Jaroslav Kravčák Hey mate thanks for all the GREAT input, I particularly liked your point of the horse always staying in motion. I agree that one of the easiest ways to kill a rider on a horse is when they're standing still.
I love the discussion between the two of you about this question. Your analysis suggests the kite shield was useable by *skirmish* cavalry who didn't break formation so we're able to control which side of the horse was facing the enemy. (I believe the Norman Knights at Hastings were skirmish cavalry who charged into range to through their spears/javelins before retreating so the kite shield would've been ideal for them, especially as they were facing a static Saxon shield wall.) Matt's analysis suggests the kite shield would not be a versatile as the more manoeuvrable round shield for *melee* or *shock* cavalry because these were specifcally designed to BREAK enemy formations which (if successful) would inevitably result in enemy on either side of the horse. An outstanding question, which Matt raised but you still haven't addressed is why kite shields weren't more widely adopted by cavalry throughout history if they really were more effective, in general. However, if they're only more effective in a certain CONTEXT (see skirmishing example above) then this might explain why they only saw limited/specialised usage by certain types of cavalry.
There is protection for the other side of your body who says u cannot turn your shield upside down so that the smaller end of the shield is top or at least aside so you can protect the other side with that shield as well.
Many of the kite shields in the Bayeux Tapestry have the arm strapped diagonally or vertically in which case it is easy to turn the shield sideways so you could get the shield to the to the right side of your horse without the horses neck getting in the way as the tip of your shield will just be pointing out to the left or even upwards. And there are indeed some riders in the tapestry holding there shields horizontally instead of vertically. We must also remember that the tapestry has been restored several times not all the stitches are original (It has been proved that a certain famous arrow holding figure is just another spear holding figure, with stitch holes extending out from the fletches to a spearhead) so I suspect a lot of those strapped kite shields in the tapestry where originally centre gripped like yours. Such early artwork cannot be relied on for accurate size, scale, and form either, made by monks or women rather than the martially adept, try getting someone who is not mechanically minded or to draw a bicycle for example, and you can be surprised by the results even though it is a very familiar object, women often do particularly poorly and alas tapestries where made by women.
MrMonkeybat Yeah it's very important to know that medieval artwork cannot be relied on as definitive evidence, though still a decent guide. Thanks for sharing man, you've made some great points.
Lots of strap detail in this panel: lostdelights.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/kiteshield3back.png A shoulder strap and 4 wrist straps in a square so it looks like you can put your arm through either horizontally or vertically they are quite close together and look quite a bit like Dhal strap which are pulled together to make a centergrip s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d6/c6/41/d6c641aa07377b13c23ff5c94c324002.jpg The also a lot of other shields that look like plain centergrips to me lostdelights.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/kiteshield4back.png
MrMonkeybat Medieval art is a good source of information if you understand its limitations. The ratios and proportions are often off, because they pictured a "meaning" and recognizable elements rather than a photographically correct picture. They are to be taken as some sort of relatively detailed diagrams. Considering the Bayeux tapestry in particular: indeed it was probably loomed and stitched by women, but it was (as far as we know) ordered by Guillaume's half-brother Odon, who fought in this war. It probably was incredibly expensive to have this made, and it was probably exhibited in a room where it would have been shown to visitors. It had to be realtively accurate, unlike the fancy miniatures in some manuscripts that won't leave the monastery they were written and illustrated in. The fact the enarms are consistenly represented the same way (and this way of arranging enarmes makes perfect sense) is a strong evidence it probably was this way. Also, there is nothing complex to understand when you see enarms, unlike a mechanism. It is just as straight forward as a hammer or knife: once you see someone grabbing the handle and using the head to punch or blade to cut, you get it. And seeing men at arms was probably relatively common, as they basically were bodyguards in "time of peace", and followed their leader/employer in every trip, even for just a few miles. There also were men at arms at tax collection (so at least once a year), and probably many other occasions. Seeing a kite shield being worn and maybe used was then probably pretty common. So IMO, the representation of enamrs in a square to put your arm either vertically or horizontally is accurate, and that's the best depiction we have. What's interesting is your last image, with what seems to be a center gripped shield. But unlike Shad's shield, which has the handle about 1/3 from top and 2/3 from tip, this one has the grip "perfectly" in the middle of the shield "height" (well: longer dimension). Just like a scutum, which makes much more sense to me. The fact this is represented although "99%" of the shields backs depicted have the square arranged enarms means something, IMO.. Is some stitcher decided to stitch the shield that way, it probably just didn't come from her/his imagination. The fact it's coherent with the way scuti were made is an evidence in favor of the existence, maybe even just marginally, of this kind of grip.
I would not say enarmes are consistently depicted that way far from it there is only one other example like that outside that panel. Here I created an album with every single shield back in the tapestry: imgur.com/a/faUKF The 1st image is fairly typical the riders on the left have there hands showing so are presumably using shoulder straps the riders on the right have their hands in the middle with a wavy brown line going across 73 out of 79 shield backs are depicted this way, open to interpretation could be a plank that forms a horizontal center grip but they tend to be a bit wavy so maybe its the shoulder strap folded up, and griped in the hands with a centergrip, or maybe the artists are too lazy to show all the grips and straps most of the time. More of the same until the 4th image which is the one with all the straps. The guy on the left seems to be holding his shield at the edge or wearing it as a hat, but I think that maybe wonky drawing. The guy in the middle seems to have his shoulder strap around some kind of hook or tie at the bottom which he is using as a second handle. The 5th image is interesting the guy on the left has 2 straps clenched in his fist like a dhal but also with 2 wrist straps on his forearm, the guy next to him also has 2 wrist straps but in his hand he has the wavy brown line that is likely the shoulder strap are all the other just missing these wrist straps or where they unusual or stitched in later. IMG 6 also has some unusual arms hauling equipment. IMG 7 has a funny lookin bull and a guy with a fishbowl on his head, what. IMG 8 has shield being used as plates. IMG 11 is the rider pointing with his shield. IMG 10,12,13,15,16,20 William seems to carry a club. IMG 18,23, and 24 show Huscarls with round domed shields. IMG 24 show a huscarl with a Dane axe and a oval shield on his back. A lot of th hauberks have squares on the chest that I interpret as open chin flaps which tie onto the helmet or hood when closed
MrMonkeybat A quick thing to mention is that a lot of noble warriors of this period who survived often finished their days as monks so we may need to take manuscripts slightly more seriously than you suggest.
I think you shouldn't rule out center-grip rounds (even small ones) from your analysis. Don't forget that your horse is a target too, and you can protect much more of your horse with a center-grip round than you can with any strapped shield (for a historical example the Byzantines used center-grip rounds for their calvary and kites for their infantry) Also, strapped kites can be great on foot since it gives you much better leverage to move the point of the kite around to protect your legs, hips, and back. It's also easier to carry a heavier shield.
DynamicWorlds Hey man you've made some excellent points. Thanks heaps for sharing them. I might emphasis center grip on foot a little too much due to my personal preference to that style ^_^ But yes, you're absolutely right that strapped shields on foot offer significant yet different advantages over center grip.
kite shields were popular for cavalry for about one century. Round shields have been used by dozens of cultures during two milenium. There must be some reason for that.
Hi, thanks for the video. I feel like a very important point was left unaddressed in the analysis of the norman kite shield. Basically, it is very hard to defend yourself on your sword side from projectiles...I didn´t hear that in this video at all. Thanks again for the analysis.
Tomás Newland You're very correct, your left side would be much more vulnerable to arrow fire. Though it is possible to get a kite on that side, just much more difficult than a smaller shield. You would lift the kite horizontal over your head, turn, and then bring it down on the other side.
Also, if you must take the reins instead of using leg queues, you will either need to drop your shield or drop your sword in order to really wheel your horse by bit if it does become overwhelmed and you have to really give it strong head guidence while reining.
Militari horses, were trained extension of the mounted warrior The Spanish for example used them as a compliment aka moving with the mounted in fashion as to ease movements ( all movements including non imposed input from the mounted )
Good video, and many good points! I haven't heard that armies fled after about 10% of the line, and I would love to get more information on that (sources being a big one, but also what counted as 10%? Just the main battle-line or did the skirmishers and such that rushed ahead count towards those figures?)
Arthurian Historian Interestingly enough I got this information from a New York Times best selling author who writes big epics with large scale battles and is know for doing accurate research. Unfortunately I'm lacking in the finer details of this fact such as if it was 10% overall or 10% of localized pockets within the line though I suspect this depends on the size of the army. When I learn more about this I'll certainly be putting up more videos.
I think it is a question of time and region, the kite shiels was used by knights and rus in the early middle ages, but i think it was a smaller version with a boss on it, and the larger version like Shad's was used by the footmen. Then late knights adopted the smaller ojival shaped shields.
Cavalery which used that type of a shield, used triangle formation, where knights on the left side, carried their shields on their left hand and knights on right side in right one(or simply on right side with left hand).
On leg defense for horsemen-very few shield would be effective for that. Quite simply, horse's are barrel shaped (very roughly), so there is no case (when astride a horse) where your knees are shoulder width apart. typically its more, some times a lot more on large horses (aka battle horses used by cavalry). this means that your shield could lie on a diagonal line from elbow to knee, but would protrude out diagonally from the knee, offering some, but not much cover for the lower leg. You could theoretically hold your shield forward, parallel to your shin, but it will probably get bashed back against you or knocked around causing you to drop it or hurt your arm (for strapped on types). In any case, I argue no horseman would bother to guard his weapon side with his shield. It just wouldn't be quick enough, no matter the shield. Also, it'd be like leaning into the back seat while driving a car- you'll cause your horse to veer off, since when you turn, you'll use you legs to hold on (assuming you let go of the reins so they don't turn the horse). Considering the motion of the horse at speed, the space you have, the time you have, and that you have to keep going straight, it would be ill advised to try. Sure, between be sliced open and moving the shield, move the shield. But my guess is that you'd train to defend with the weapon on that side as much as possible. final thought: To move the shield, you'd have to pay close attention to it to avoid hitting or snagging on the horse, his harness, or anything else. which means you are no longer watching for threats, offending the enemy, and defending yourself, all the while guiding a horse at 30 odd miles per hour. Overall, I just think that the environment of cavalry combat would be too chaotic for such a move to be useful.
hi great video, but if I could ask you something what type of shield would you segest a polearm welding poor foot soilders from the late 14th to early 15 century? the reason I ask is that I am writing a story and I have found very little information.
(I know this is a late answer) To simplify it, usage of shields in pike or spear formations mostly died out towards the Renaissance; as casual polearms became longer and formations became stiffer, casual infantrymen had to free the additional hand -which would've been used to carry a shield- in order to operate their weapons to the fullest.
I think looking at La Escuela De Alta and the principle uses thereof, I would have to argue that the risk of being surrounded by footmen was a very present element in the minds of cavalry commanders in the middle ages. There are references in breeding books to horses being bred specifically for their abilities in these types of maneuvers (not necessarily called by the names we now know, i.e. "Capriole" etc.) dating back to the 13th century. These were specifically necessary when dealing either with head on confrontations or with being surrounded. The very existence of these techniques indicates that cavalry use was more sophisticated than simple hit and run tactics. Yes, the lance charge was the major element, but breaking lines was also a significant usage and that puts your cavalry on the other side of the enemy lines, which means they need versatility as well as power. Just my thoughts from an equestrian standpoint. I also feel that leg coverage is of minimal concern. A good rider can wheel his leg out of reach with little need and you would want your horse to be constantly moving (indeed, even a well trained charger would likely not stand still for a ceowd of men to pome at it with spears) and I think their would be more concern about protecting one's torso and head from spears and pole arms than one's legs.
I was a bit confused by your kite shield, since i usually see kite shields being strapped to your arm, like a heater shield is. But i guess you can have a center-grip kite shield. And i would say that that is a good thing, since i feel like it is easier to guard your right side, whether on foot or on horseback, with a center-grip shield than with a strapped shield.
+Ryan Cauffman It's a more unknown fact that kite shields could be center grip, which is a little disappointing because I feel that a horizontal center grip is the best grip for this type of shield, it offers so much versatility.
+I am Shad Agreed. I've been watching some of your other videos over the course of the day, and I would say you've convinced me of the kite shield's effectiveness, provided it is a center-grip version.
Mounted warriors rarely charged the center. The chaos from the impact would cause their own forces to be trampled. You want to charge a flank if possible and then retreat in an orderly manner, rinse and repeat until the flank weakens.... then get the hell out of the way so the infantry can move in and finish collapsing the enemy line. If the situation called for it the cavalry would dismount and form a battle line for a melee. Of course you wouldn't do that if they were routing, you would pursue on horse and run them down. But its important to remember that a horse only has enough stamina for 1 or maybe 2 charges. After that your horse is too tired to move effectively and gets cut down from under you. With your leg trapped under a dead horse its more a liability than a help. Massive misconceptions about mounted combat. So SHADS analysis is very spot on. You would want your kite shield for your retreat to protect your exposed side and then also for when you eventually dismount
my big question is between strapped and center grip. how much time does it take to strap the shield on. can you do it in an instant during a surprise attack? or is that where the center grip is better? and my last question, has there ever been the case of having a hybrid? both centre grip with strapping?
There are a lot of variables to your question which make it hard to answer directly, but I will try without turning this into a lecture. I think the best way to explain it succinctly is to tell you that mostly you don't have to strap a shield to your arm every time you use it. Rather you can adjust the straps to what fits best and then you just slip your arm in as-needed. So, really, the time difference in grabbing a center-grip shield or strapped shield could be negligible. As far as the hybrid question, I don't *know* for a fact this is the case, but I would imagine very probably not. Basically the two types are at such cross purposes, a hybrid doesn't make any sense to me. You would lose all the benefit of using a center-grip shield due to the straps and... hmm... I guess if you had one strap and an off-center grip it would be fine, but I wouldn't consider that a "hybrid"; just a type of strapped shield.
hmmm, I have a question, both you and scholagladiatoria mention reins and the shields getting in the way. I seem to remember reading somewhere (although it may have been a "historical"/fantasy novel) that warhorses, being highly trained (and thus, very expensive) were guided by the knees of the rider, so both hands were free. I am almost sure this was the case for mounted archers. Can anybody tell me if this was the case for norman knights, or later knights?
Samuel Mellars I very important question, so important in fact that I've just uploaded a whole new video talking about it, ua-cam.com/video/zXUlfxuXdM4/v-deo.html
I am Shad An interesting video, thank you! Here's a thought I came up with though, regarding switching shield side - at about 2:34 in this video, you are carrying your shield almost upside-down. Maybe it is possible to rotate (so to speak) your shield across the neck of the horse, so the tip points upward - this would only be possible with a vertical grip though, which could interfere with reins, unless you dropped them in combat. the shield would sort-of go 0 to (> to /\ as it rotated. (not a very good representation though) \/ 0
First a couple of points. If a cav soldier was using a round shield on horse back I'm sure it would be much smaller than yours. Second, the entire time you were saying how hard it was to maneuver the kite shield to the right side on a horse, yet even as your talking about it on foot, a simple rotation of your arm you brought the back of the shield up and rotated it easily to your right side. This could easily be done on a horse as well. Also, don't forget, that you don't actually have to "block" with the shield for it to be effective, but it's just as effective, and arguably in some cases, even preferable, to 'parry' the blow with the edge of the shield. Now, for the main point I wish to make. From what I first understood of the kite shield, it was predominantly a cav shield about the time of the Norman invasion of England, PRIOR to the rise of the lance, or impact cavalry warfare in general. Both you and Matt from scholagladiatoria have proven that wrong and that it was at least if not more popular with infantry for the reasons you've stated. However, it's use by cav units I believe was prior to impact warfare and it's use was when cav's function was to attack infantry by throwing their spears. Mike Loades did a series for, iirc, BBC called Weapons That Made Britian, and one episode was dedicated to the shield. Now I understand that television is a VERY poor place to get historical research, but Mike is an active HEMA instructor and does study Medieval weapons and armor from a historical perspective, so take it with a grain of salt. In this video he actually explains and shows the method of using the shield by cav who's method of attack was simply to ride up and throw their spear into the mass of infantry then retreating. Here's a link to the video the relevant part starts at 31:57. ua-cam.com/video/O03o7ZTDE2w/v-deo.html
um in a general melee wouldn't switching your shield from one side to the other leave the other side open (outside of worn armor)? Likewise moving the shield from one side to the other would be awkward at best and wouldn't it open up more weaker areas in the armor (shield arm under arm)?
I am not sure if these questions have been asked yet. 1. Would the tail of the kite shield been used to bash or slice at opponents while charging? 2. Could the tail of the kite shield also been used to spur their horse on such as a horse whip or spurs?
DPNSCounselor I'm not sure you could use the tail to hit people as you don't really have the leverage and most likely the shield will be wrenched backwards, though I guess it could spur the horse.
Shad, I'm going to raise the same point in response to you that I raised in response to Matt's video. You're not holding the shield the same way horsemen were depicted in medieval tapestries were holding them. The very same tapestry that Matt cited in his video shows the point of the kite shield extending BEHIND the rider rather than extending downward. Held in that manner, the kite shield could be maneuvered in the saddle with the same utility as a round shield.
Probably a stupid question, couldn't you just turn the kite-shield horizontal and use the top of the shield to protect the right side of the body when needed?
only thing that seemed off to me is i dont believe your supposed to strap a round shield. Could be wrong but i thought there was just a handle in the boss?
ahhh yer completely right should have clarified i meant the viking style of the round shield specifically Just seems weird to have a shield with a boss then to use a strap system instead
I'm trying to get through this video even though you make it very hard due to your rambling.You never mentioned arrows which would probably be the main use of a shield while on horse back, you have leg defenses without a shield, you are completely ignoring the ergonomics of horse riding, and I feel that your perception of horse back fighting(based on what you are saying) is that a horse would stand right next to 3-5 enemies become surrounded and fight while on top of the horse.
Will nonya That's a great question, I hope someone who's actually tried it can tell us. But if these shields were indeed typically used with a vertical grip by horsemen, maybe that has something to do with the ability to raise the kite's tail and bring the shield-bearing arm further to the other side. Still, I expect that, in a charge, there's not so much need for maneuverability. But I'd really love some input for this from somebody who rides.
Will nonya Exactly. Your rein hand can't move far from the center position without the horse thinking you are trying to tell them something. Especially since the bits typically used in this period (as far as I know) are curb type bits which don't 'steer' the horses head at all. Pulling one rein on one side with a curb bit doesn't really work well and that is not how they are used. In general, with a curb bit you only move your rein hand a few inches either side to communicate what you want to the horse. Moving your shield to the other side of the horse is highly impractical without simply dropping the reins which while possible is probably not ideal.
Will nonya In some paintings, the tip is up or to the right side and in either position, the whole shield is above the horse. Another trick is that a horse will follow another horse.
I know that it's a rather old video, but I think part of the answer comes from what kind of enemy that your cavalrymen are most likely to encounter on the battlefield. Although by the early Middle Ages, heavy cavalry had imposed itself as the decisive force on western battlefields, we know they were rarely numerous in actual absolute and relative numbers. Equiping and training knights is expensive and although the early Middle Ages was as impoverished as it often thought, trade and cities had shrunk because the weakening of the central states had made the roads dangerous. The raids by people such as the Magyars and the Avars had forced the local autorities to take defense in their own hands leading to feudalism and many of these feudal nobles were waging war against each others and many robbed the countryside creating enormous amount instability (the various early Capetian kings of France struggled to simply control the Île-de-France, their own country where Paris is until well into the 11th century). Therefore, most of the armies of the time period were infantrymen, some limited numbers well trained and equiped as castle garrisons or town militias, others being untrained and dreadfully equiped peasant leavies. So, it's very likely that opposing enemy cavalry would be driven away relatively quickly allowing your own cavalry to charge enemy infantry formations in the angle they wanted, disengage without being pursued too closely and charge again. In these circumstances, kite shields are excellent as you can always turn the right side toward the less mobile foot soldiers. However, in the richer Middle East, cavalrymen were fielded in much larger numbers. The Eastern Roman Empire had a powerful standing army with a long tradition of fielding heavily armored cataphracts (much heavier than contemporary knights) and lighter cavalrymen. Similarly, Persians had an even longer history of fielding cataphracts and light cavalry and the Turks were ex steppes nomads fielding both heavy and light cavalry. Arabs weren't very different in that regard. Although they all fielded large numbers of infantry, if your cavalry clash with cavalry, chances are that the melee will last quite a bit. Since both are numerous and both are swift, once you clashed it's hard to disengage and you also absolutely have to defeat them so you can hit the infantry and win the battle. So, having a smaller more manoeuvrable shield is much more important because your enemies have the same ability to manoeuver and attack on your right where wouldn't be able to defend yourself if you were wearing a large kite shield. On top of that, if you are an heavily armored cataphract wearing a long coat of scale armor or mail hauberk under a coat of lamellar armor while your arms and legs are protected by laminar armor, chances are that you don't need to cover your legs with a shield all that much. Also, you're pretty well protected against arrows and your horse as well thanks to the scale or lamellar bard it wears. So, different cavalry shields for different foes and different needs.
My understanding of one way the Kite Shield was used, particularly at the battle of Hastings was to protect the rider's back as they retreated from the shield wall after riding forward to throw spears or javelins. The Norman's used their horses to harass the front line and try to provoke the shield wall to advance. From this I assume they were kite shields with a strap so it could be worn at the front and then moved to the back. That said I have kind of forgotten how highly developed impact warfare was at that point. Were they using massed lance charges into massed infantry with lances at this point? I know the lances where simple light lances (long spears) in the Norman period.
hegelbot According to my understanding, lanced (or speared) charges were certainly used in the early medieval period but as to what type of formation I haven't found anything definitive as to say, in a whole lined rank or single file, one after the other, or simply whenever the rider saw an opening in the enemy ranks.
the main disadvantage to not being able to use the kite shield on your right side would be against arrows and crossbow bolts coming at you from that side.
***** Horsemen were flankers, at least in the later history. You put them on the right and left side of your troops and attack at the left and right ends or even behind the enemy troops. If you are doing it right, the projectiles should only come from one direction and I don't mean the pop group.
The problem with your points is that in limiting your angle of defense means in some angles you have weak points. The ones who can challenge cavalry would most likely be other cavalry and bowmen which is precisely the ones who can exploit those weak points the most. A round shield will provide protection regardless of angle of engagement and from what direction arrows are raining. All those penalties for minimal protection to legs. Since a light cavalry mission isn't to charge the ranks that protection isn't even needed.
adrixshadow Not really. There seems to be three ways to hold a kite shield according to the paintings and those are tip up, tip sideways (facing right) and tip down. You ride into combat holding onto the reigns with tip up or sideways and then you use the tip down and expose the shielded side to the enemy and move the lance over to the left, go tip down and charge forward with your lance to attack guys with swords or hold the shield sideways if you want some left, center and right protection. I can't say if that's how it was really done due to the propagandist nature of military paintings of the time. I mean the knights could be doing mop up duty, but that doesn't look good in a painting.
Ifyou reach over your right arm to protect it with your round shield with your left arm to ward off a left side attacker, it woud seem you are interfering with the right arm weapon arm with your shield.Wouldn't a good horseman simply rotate his mount to the right to present his shield arm to an attacker from the right, unless he simply struck out at the attacker with his right arm as the presenter states?
I think the real reason the kite shield was used in that time period has to do with STIRRUPS! So in general I agree the kite shield is good in early cavaliere up until the stirrups were invented then all of the sudden a rider could actually fight on horse back for more then a few min. (think you have hold urself while clamping legs around horse) any blow can knock u off so u can only fight as long as u have the strength to grip the horse with more or less all the force your legs can muster. Therefore horse fighting were mostly javelin archery driven, lances .. well u can but wow it would be hard. With stirrups moving the defensive guard would all of a sudden become far more important.
For one, the purpose of cavalry is to break up enemy formations by plowing through them. You dont want to stop in front of or in the middle of, to engage or you will get swamped and drug down by enemy troops. You have to keep going. Run them over, per say. Cavalry are shock troops and great for flanking and busting up formations. Although you dont want to charge into a spear wall, that being the exception. As far as the Kite Shield goes, I dont see why you couldn't roll the shield over your stead and defend either side. Just roll it over, inverted on your sword side. Seems easy enough to me, though you wont have any more protection on that side than you would with a round shield, cause the bottom of you shield is now inverted. The only way to be for sure, though, is for people to actually try it. Just my two cents.
As I see the shield hanging on the wall I can see that the tear drop shape would make it much easier for a man to move forward without his shield getting in his way. And still afford much more protection.
HeavensTroll BladeMaster Hey thanks mate, I made it myself though unfortunately I didn't think to film the process. Oh well, I might have to make another one down the track.
i am rather surprised two people who are able to think of such good points on this kind of shield (yourself & matt) have missed that if the shield is strapped with your hand vertical or horizontal when you move it past the centre of your body your arm has to turn horizontal & hence so dose the shield meaning that the bottom of the shield is out to your left side & away from the horse allowing you to move the shield just as far to your right as a strapped round shield, the only downside to this would be when doing so on foot your feet would be exposed.
I don't see someone attacking an opponent from horseback whilst wielding a Kite Shield and then slip it on his back while he retreats. Wouldn't it be easier and more preferable to use a smaller size shield to properly wield your weapon? Also, isn't it more hindering than helpful to charge an enemy and attack with your left hand side wielding a huge shield that gets in the way of your every blow? No. What seems more logical is to use a smaller shield, and charge in a way that you can use your shield for either side, and ride on an enemy so he is on your right side, giving you full use of your weapon, with minimum shield interference/chances to get stuck or fumble your weapon.
Actually the reverse. Just look at jousting. Knights close left to left, so their shield side faces the enemy, and bring the lance across the horse's shoulders. Quite simply, a lot more is happening when fighting on horseback (horse control, also dealing with/ accounting for the horse's motion) than on foot, so you don't have the luxury of complicated combat motions. Besides, if you stop, you're dead. You want to cut and stab as you rip through the enemy line and out the other side (unless you skirmished and fell back to your own lines, but then too no stopping), then turn around an do it again. Cavalry don't spar-that is, if you trade more than maybe 1 blow a piece in quick succession something has gone wrong, since if you were moving at speed you wouldn't have the time. What ever the case is, you then want to keep the enemy to your more defensible side (shield if you have it, weapon side if you don't), and try to disengage or disable your opponent. The big risk is if you stop, then some infantry guys will wander over and butcher you with pole arms. Infantry has the edge if the horse isn't moving (that's why knights get off their horses after unhorsing their opponent and draw their sword (better still, pick up a pole weapon)). The general them is this- horseback combat is a quick, running affair that's less refined (if one may say so) than infantry combat. there no time for fancy moves, just slash stab and run like hell the whole time. Anyone who's done advanced horsemanship (jumping, hunter jumping, dressage, barrel racing, etc) know there is a whole lot going on even without enemies and a weapon and shield to deal with. Imagine having to do some of all of the disciplines I mentioned as you fight-jump a dead guy, sidestep to avoid a couple of carts, sliding stop, turn, and go straight to a gallop again, more bodies to deal with, jump shield wall, avoid artillery (cannon, catapult or other), plow through archers, jump trench and stakes guarding archer's flank, turn and charge back toward your own ranks. Now remember your fight all the while, and a whole lot of other guys are also charging and rampaging through enemy lines. It'd be chaos.
One big complain, this all problem with difficulty parrying on right side, its do to one thing, you show you shield with hold hand horizontally, but on many art there are some nail that indicate vertical position of hand, or diagonally, and then is it comfortable and natural to rotate shield that tail of shield is directed to side not down, and then there is no problem with parrying on right.
I just want to comment about last part of your material. It's very common misunderstanding about need to hold rein during battle. Technique of horseriding changed drastically. So I dont by this point at all. Still very interesting discussion, but I think Matt makes better points due to his greater fencing eperience while you mainly focus on what if which basicly is not stating general point.
Unless the cavalry was only used for controlled and safe charges, it wouldn't have done much to protect the riders. What about skirmishes, which were much more predominant than big battles. All another cavalryman had to do was maneuver to the other side and any ambush could always strike the exposed leg, not to mention the fact that they were eventually replaced by triangle shields as armour got better whereas round shields were used both in ancient and recent times in far apart places by the cavalry.
That's a nice damascus wood sword you got there :) No really, it is a nice shape and all! Would it survive duelling against another damascus wood sword like it? Or it would chip?
runkurgan Thanks for the compliment mate! Unfortunately it couldn't really be used for sparing, its made out of pine, light, strong for it's weight which is why its used in timber framed houses, but more brittle than other heavier timbers, especially hardwoods.
Davinel Linvega As well as other shields, wooden swords, real swords, superhero posters, oh and I can't forget the holy grail or my portal to dimension X
Sorry to respond so late to this reply, I just finally learned about Shad. In regards to the length of the shields, remember that people were much shorter and stockier back then than they are today. So the shield length would be as Shad is describing in the video covering about 7/8ths of the body. So the sizes are pretty accurate.
Makes me wonder why,when considering their usual,modern ideas,that the Romans never evolved a kite shield? They moved from the huge scutum to oval and round shields,unless you think it could have been a very late "post" Roman invention?
***** Mostly I think it was, though Matt Easton has pointed that there was a culture that used a Kite Shield like shield. I don't feel the Norman period Kite Shield came from this previous one, more like another isolated development in shield tech.
I am Shad My post may have been misleading.I agree the Norman shield was a new form.My point was that it was strange that Rome did not think to try such a shield (unless they had and it was not employed)
Agreed the kite shield is much better. Besides the Normans used a round shield until they upgraded to the kite shield they wouldn't have changed it if it wasn't better and more protective.
You have said some very positive points. You are right that riders would go up to a wall of enemy infantry and poke and throw weapons at the enemy. But you missed a very good point. The infantry have spears. now in a shield wall you have locked shields (wall) and spikes (spears). now horses naturally shy away from spiked objects. Now this was true all the way up to the Napoleonic period and American civil war, when troops formed square with bayonets on. The defence on the left is very true form what you say. Now you missed a good one. With mounted forces you have 3 major advantages. 1 Charging 2 shock 3 maneuverability..Ok with this in mind.1 charging.When a rank 1-2-3 deep of horses with riders lances or swords and kites. charge a unit and intend to charge through the enemy they commit. when they hit the enemy the lance takes down the front and shatters,. from this the rider draws a sword. all the while the rider is travelling through the enemy to reach the other side. The shield on the left protects the rider so he or she can focus on killing on the right. Now the rider to his or her left will also focus on killing on the right and shield protection on the left and this is carried down the line..2 shockHaving 50-200 horses charging at you with riders and full intention of killing you is well scary to say the least. so more often than not when a lord or king goes to war. The infantry is mainly based on peasants and some what trained troops while having full time experienced and trained troops he would pay all year round. and with this in mind the infantry would more often than not break after the first clash with horses that stomped, bit, kicked, pushed and well crushed under hoof the enemy.3 Maneuverability this is married with the first two. The bulls horns, the most basic form of attack strategy.Your foot will engage towards the direct front of the enemy turning everything in to a large rugby scrum.With this in hand the cavalry will pop around the back and charge in scattering the enemy and then withdrawing over and attacking again. over and over until the enemy bold die or surrender. now again all previous points come in to play when they do this. :) this tactic is used by tank divisions the world over and another reason why tank regiments are called cavalry regiments in some cases. :)I do enjoy your vids and look forward to more.
Ó Slatraigh Well yes they could have, and in fact they did, a smaller kite shield is a heater shield, even if it's still got the true kite shield shape.
not too sure if anybody mention it in comments, but what I think it(Kite sheald) might have a realy good aerodinamics. Just imagine - you on the horse - air resistanse - kite sheald good be d as a wing. Easy to carrie, faster reatreat, after you shot an arrow for example. small but atvantage(ofcourse if you riding a horse)
In my opinion, the benefits in terms of aerodynamics would be unnoticeable, if not nonexistent. You have to know that you would not be generally holding your kite shield like a wing. Even if you do, it would have more friction in the air simply because of its curved shape causing it to come into contact with more surface area. Even with that, the shield wouldn't be big enough nor moving fast enough for the air to be a factor at all. Of course, I'm no expert. If you (or anyone) thinks otherwise, I would be happy to know your view and re-evaluate my own opinion.
The truth is alluring; however you must ask yourself what is logical to any given situation. The armor and weapons very between Infintery soldier and Calvary soldier vary widely so it is logical that the shields they used would have been varying as well.
That may be all well and good; however I tend to try and look at the movements that are possible to achieve with such objects. That way I am free to make my own style as apposed to try to extrapolate what they where originally used for. Let me put it this way. Put yourself in the shoes of general. Would it benefit your army to all use the same equipment or is it more logical to use special equipment for special tasks carried out by different parts of your army. I would say to you that you should never be biased in this way. Remember every technique works, not every technique works 100% of the time. That being said I do have a few favorites of my own if truth be told. :)
You seem to be "absorbed " in the kite shield but were they not only used by Normans? Then possibly used as national identity , not because they were the absolute last word in shields. They must not be THE BEST as you say because most armies /tribes did not use them.
i do not know that much about the greater shields but at least the round shield looks rather awkward. first the stainless steel bowl that somehow magically holds on the shield (remember the boss is hollow because the grip is behind it). Why? there are good sources of shield bosses around that look much nicer than that and are not that expensive. Ithink you invested a bit of work to build it - so why ruining the efford by saving at the wrong end? Second: I do not know thats your height (because of size comparision) but i guess the shield is around 80-90 cm in diameter? thats quite huge.the median of found evidences seems to be around 65-70cm.
vlad tepesch Oh yeah my shield is a big one, all intentional, as with the boss. I found it works just as well and was very inexpensive. Overall the only thing I needed to buy to make my shields was the glue. Everything else was found from stock. I'm intending to make more accurate shields in the future but for the purposes of my videos and basic sparing these ones serve quite well.
I am Shad You adequately/accurately described Agincourt. Agincourt featured the english choosing the ground which was basically a 'defile' flanked by forest. Archers were arrayed across the defile, and on both flanks where the French Chivalry could not charge. Equally, although not a marsh, the ground was lowlying and waterlogged ... It is argued intensely whether they archers slaughtered the French via arrow strikes , or whether they did so with hammers, axes, and daggers into gaps in armour. Indeed the majority may have been suffocated or drowned. Academic in a way, as however they did it the majority of Henry's army were archers, whom certainly won the day.Crecy , the English fronted on a slope backed by a steeper hill. They had forest to their rear and on both sides, again funneling the French into the chosen killing ground .Again rain served us well as the majority of the French projectile troops were Genoese mercenary crossbowmen. The rain loosened their strings which the could not remove, and thus weakened the effect of their xbows. Crossbows were impossible to unstring easily. The British bowmen had removed their strings with relative ease, replaced them and swiftly cut the crossbowmen to pieces, causing a route. The french chivalry rode them down in disgust which broke formation and laid them exposed to archers volleys whilst erradicating the main advantage of a massed charge of heavies.Again... the churned, muddy, ground served us whilst hugely impeding the French heavies as they were unable to deliver a competent charge due to being already fragmented in formation and horses being winded/blown due to slope and severe mud.The issue of No retreat was less to do with terrain and more to do with a smaller broken army would have been ridden down and slaughtered, in both battles, if they had broken and sought to route. They knew that, and fought accordingly.
Love your channel, but as a fellow antipodean may I commend you to please use the phrase "Bullshit" or even "Bulldust" in place of "Bullcrap". Love your work, cheers mate :)
In the melee the kite shield would still be rubbish even when it protects your whole left side. Your enemy would rarely be so noble not to kill your horse. And if your horse falls amidst your enemies your sure to be dead or captured.
Hi Shad, Kite is a great cavalry shied, protects the riders kegs & the horses flank.The Normans used different strapping types for different application,say infantry.try & try on a good swordsman with a kite on foot,your'e going to have tough time.Cheers
You kinda lost me in 2:31 mate: that's not the handle of a kite shield at all, actually it looks like a Roman scutum handle or something modern faking medieval gear...
Skerdy Yup, Sam The Ram is right. Although not that common, I've seen it some times. There is also some artwork showing it, like www.angelfire.com/wy/svenskildbiter/armsandarmour/etienne.jpg
Marcos Cordeiro To me that Shield looks more like the guy is gripping it by the two strappings instead of strap it to his arm. I have seen such Strap grips by some kind of Arabic or Mongolian horseman shields.
gi70st Actually, I once read somewhere that this may be the reason why the knight moves that way in chess. It is believed chess is inspired by an indian game called Chaturanga, in which the horse moves in an L shape, and warfare in ancient India used a lot of cavalry. Soooo... Yeah, it is possible that it was because the horsemen only tried to expose one side.
I am No expert on the period or shield use... But ... I have to wonder whether the kite shield is indeed a perfect shape for use by those intended to be applied as 'Heavies in a massed charge' as a high impact force. The kite shiled would be perfect shape to occupy the narrow space between close formed cavalry , possibly trained to seek to ride 'knee to knee'. Just as large Roman or greek shileds were used by foot formations to also shield a man on the wielders' flank, the kite would serve a similar role used mounted filling the void and covering two men knee to face, whilst enabling use of a lance/spear/sword etc' , yet retaining an element of 'cover' to both men as a bonus against any braced and grounded pike, spear or mobile shiltron countermeasure.
Steven Swingler Fare question ^_^ My Kite shield is definitely on the larger end of the spectrum when it comes to kite shields and I’ve done that on purpose. One, I like it bigger in terms of functionality and effectiveness. Two, I wanted to show that Kite shields actually did come in this size. Three, that Kite shields can be made big and still be VERY light and effective, just look how easily I’m moving it around. And four, by making mine on the bigger end I hoped to convey that kite shields on average are big shields, not always as big as mine, but big. They’re not heater shields. A shield in the shape of a kite shield but in the size of a heater shield is a heater shield.
I like Matt Easton's videos because I fight. CACC (folk wrestling) to be exact, like most people my age branching into MMA. That's how I discovered HEMA, by getting some of the medieval grappling sections of the well known treatises. Matt fights, so like all people who fight he understands things like line, tempo and distance. Listening to you its clear that you do not. With the greatest respect, maybe take the role playing tshirt off (seriously, Pathfinder, great game) and take up a combat sport, get an understanding of what people can and can't do. I also don't know where you get this "10%" casualty idea from, disengaging is not always and option the person or people you are fighting allow. I'm not even sure it would hold true assuming you didn't cut off, out flaked or caught on bad ground.
+Cash Steel Listen mate, im sure you had a framed ''certified badass'' certificate hanging in the living room but hear me out, its a proven fact that people fight far more differently when you know that your life is not on the line, people fight far more aggressively when sparring because you know its mostly fun and games. Id imagine that most troops in a medieval fight would more or less want to survive the day, and not much else. Also, in greek warfare, when the phalanx's met they certainly wouldnt fight to the death, the armies would retreat after about 5% casualties.
you bitch about him getting involved out of his expertise, namely fighting, yet you continue to criticise something out of yours, namely historical accuracy... am I Missing something?
Great Video really, but I seriosly dont think Impact warfare was the predominant tactic in the norman period, shield form was identical to infantry shields out of sheer pragmatism. Read pragmatism as as fashion, logistics and other factors of mindset. The grip argument has some merit, but the rank and file argument is anachronistic. And this is my argument a military horse of the frankish period was highly expensive, 12 solidi or cows, so no norman miles would have used his warhorse as a one shot battering ram against a shield wall, so if leg protection would become crucial he had allready made a severe tactical mistake.
Do you not play the Legend of Zelda? The Hylian Shield is a Kite Shield. Just not the Norman Kite Shield. Or is the Hylian Shield a Heater Shield? Because I've gotten information about it from second hand sources, and maybe one or two from the Main source, i.e. Nintendo.
I don't think your kite shield is constructed properly. It should have a hand grip that is vet icle with an arm strap at elbow with a pad to fill the gap between the arm and shield. This would allow better angle and control of it.
ua-cam.com/video/bJNbnJw_eBo/v-deo.html the kite shield was made historically with nearly every kind of handle and strap combination imaginable. there is not really a way to make one improperly in that sense. his kite shield is not 100% historical, but that is for other reasons than the type of handle; it is because of material and construction. additionally, if you watch the video series from shad i linked, you'll see the advantages his set up has over the one you describe. I personally think the horizontal grip is better than the vertical for kite shields. hope this was a helpful response to you. have a good day. edit: I realized you might also be thinking of a heater shield, which is different from a kite shield, shad compares them in the video I linked so you can know the difference. Heaters are shorter, usually thicker, and always have straps.
Lady Melisandre Well I could certainly use mine as a dinner table ^_^ My Kite shield is definitely on the larger end of the spectrum when it comes to kite shields and I’ve done that on purpose. One, I like it bigger in terms of functionality and effectiveness. Two, I wanted to show that Kite shields actually did come in this size. Three, that Kite shields can be made big and still be VERY light and effective, just look how easily I’m moving it around. And four, by making mine on the bigger end I hoped to convey that kite shields on average are big shields, not always as big as mine, but big. They’re not heater shields. A shield in the shape of a kite shield but in the size of a heater shield is a heater shield.
Thanks for the video response - it seems that on most points we're in agreement. I guess rather that focusing on the theory of cavalry shield use we could just say this: Most cultures in the middle ages that produced outstanding cavalry used medium-sized shields, often round in shape. Whether a commander intends for his cavalry to get into a melee or not, it happened often, and I believe that in a cavalry skirmish (and remember that skirmishing actions were vastly more common than pitched battles), I believe a smaller shield to be more functional than a long one on horseback. I have always found the leg-defence point on horseback a rather silly point, considering that the horse is really the cavalryman's legs and there is nothing protecting the horse!
scholagladiatoria Matt! mate its awesome to know that you came by to my humble little channel. Thanks heaps for your comment. Your point about the silly focus on defending your own leg when your horse's leg is still vulnerable is most definitely an excellent one, still I'd rather my horse lose a leg than my own, which would lead to a rather messy dismount resulting in my own likely death as I would be getting attacked while I try and stand ^_^
I think it's clear that the extended base of the Kite was more intended to benefit on-foot combat, which is where I really believe the kite shield shines, ua-cam.com/video/LU_i0O9zcP8/v-deo.html
Thanks again Matt.
Cheers.
scholagladiatoria I wonder Matt if you are not losing the distinction between heavy and light cavalry. Light cavalry did certainly function more as pickets and skirmishers. But in Northern and Western Europe, beginning sometime in the 10th century, cavalry gets heavier and heavier. Cavalry horses get bigger and bigger and capable of supporting more weight. In Europe, there seems to have been a marked preference for heavy armored cavalry using the couched lance, and depending primarily on heavy impact in the charge to break enemy formations. And of course, the charges would have been by formations of knights. Other cavalry around the world, that continued using smaller shields, were mostly not heavy cavalry like this and not used in this way. Of course it wouldn't make sense for a horse archer, who depends on mobility to strike and move away, using the range of his bow to his advantage and using it and his horse's speed to stay out of the enemy's reach, to have a big, heavy, immobile shield. But it might make all the sense in the world for a heavy armored horsemen charging other heavy horse, or heavy infantry, in a fairly close packed formation. As you say, context is important.
Darren O'Connor There's a difference between skirmishing before a battle, Arsuf-style, and general skirmishes, when you send off smaller units of your army to either scout the terrain or gather food. The former was done pretty much exclusively with light cav, mostly because you held heavies in reserve.
The latter, however, was done with heavy cavalry, or rather with mixed units. There aren't many medieval works telling us how cavalry worked, but one of the few, Templar rule, does indeed mention scouting group of (IIRC) 12 people, which means about 3 full knights. To find accounts of these fights, you need to go way down the rabbit hole, because they weren't glamorous, so few sources mention them.
The one I know personally is battle of Rozhanovce/Rozgony which had a prelude of pretty heavy pillaging, in a situation where one side was focused on conquest! Plundering raids, which were rather common, would see even more of this small-scale action.
In short, even heavy cavalry shields needed to be good at skirmishes, because they got into a lot of them. Kite shield isn't great at them, but still good, and is very useful if the knight decides to dismount, which he very well might, especially if fighting in a village or other obstructive terrain.
Darren O'Connor I understand the reason behind making the distinction between light and heavy cavalry but you have to keep in mind that even what we could call heavy cavalry was not meant to stay in a prolonged engagement. "The heavy impact in the charge.." as you describe it is intended to be a short but devastating moment and a large static shield adds relatively little protection -- in my opinion -- in a manoeuvre where your primary objective is to slam in and wheel around.
A horse gets all its power from its momentum, and once brought to a standstill all that is left is a large hoofed target that can be overpowered with relative ease (I believe scholagladiatoria also mentioned cavalry and the importance of momentum at some point, albeit in another video) and frankly, no size or shape of shield is going to help at that moment.
Glenn de Moor
Then you are left to explain why, if the kite shield was a poor one for horsemen, horsemen certainly DID use it. As I said, you see it on the Bayeux Tapestry used by mounted Norman knights, as well as the Anglo-Saxon foot soldiers. I submit that it was not, in fact, a poor choice, for if it had been, then knights whose very lives depended on the efficacy of their equipment would have preferred the round shield in its stead if the round shield were, in fact, superior for their application. We are speculating about what was best, they knew what worked best for them, and they chose the kite shield. I think it's rather presumption for armchair quarterbacks a millennium later to be certain that the professional warriors who knew their business were doing it wrong.
I fought full contact ancient Martial Arts. Over a 25 year period fighting every week and at hundreds of tourneys, melee, war, etc. (Markland, SCA, Dagohir, Renn Faire, WHRC live steel.). I used kite, round, hoplite, "H", Figure eight, oval , scutum, heater, etc. I love kite above all others. Point on horse you don't move your shield, you move your HORSE. Jeez!
why do you prefer the kite over the oval? genuinely curious
Great series of videos! With regards to mounted use of the kite shield the Bayeux Tapestry does show the shields frequently being held back "horizontally" with the bottom edge over the horse's left flank thus leaving the leg unprotected when charging into battle.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but I think that there could be the option of strapping the shield down so that its length protects your off hand leg, thereby allowing one to use two handed weapons with greater effect.
All great points regarding its usage on horseback, nevertheless in any situation on horseback, it would be more preferrable to turn a horse, or navigate it away from danger, than try to get into awkward position to place the shield to his off side and twist the body in a saddle. At least considering riders position on a horse, I dont find it practical to put great emphasis on it.
Even in melee, while surrounded riders best bet to stay alive and more or less in one piece is to have a horse attack violently in all directions while never staying still, either moving forward, or in semicircular motion, while rider tryes to parry attacks directed towards him and a horse the best he can. Having basically whole side of his body protected by shield means he can direct most of his attention towards the other side. I dont think the ability to put the shield to the other side of his body would matter that much to the propability of his survival.
On the other hand, as was pointed out, most combat would ideally be in the form of predictable and relatively safe moves, like riding to the enemy at an angle, try to throw a weapon, thrust, or cut at opportune target and get away with side turned towards the enemy fully protected, so no need to turn.
One situation, where turning shield might be good is while being pursued by another horseman, that gains my off side, or in very crammed cavalry melee, where horses all around dont permit my horse to move around and Im obliged to fight it out stationary. if it was absolutely nessesary, what about not going with only simple movement to the side? What about twisting shield 90 degrees, or even more and basically turn it on its head in emergency situation, when it is needed there? Sure it wont cover whole body, but could offer at least some protection from strikes directed straight against rider head and torso and maybe even horses head. (Havent really tryed so, so I cant say if it would be possible to bring it into position, where narrow part can partially guard a horse)
One more thing about kite shield from my perspective - why not using it as a weapon? Ramming its tip into someones face from a galloping horse might have the effect of its own on his well being. Or using it to limited degree to parry incomming blows if it is needed, rather than just rely on its passive protection. (But I havent handled proper replicas so I cant say, if the shield would survive such an abuse, so its rather speculation.)
Jaroslav Kravčák Hey mate thanks for all the GREAT input, I particularly liked your point of the horse always staying in motion. I agree that one of the easiest ways to kill a rider on a horse is when they're standing still.
I love the discussion between the two of you about this question.
Your analysis suggests the kite shield was useable by *skirmish* cavalry who didn't break formation so we're able to control which side of the horse was facing the enemy.
(I believe the Norman Knights at Hastings were skirmish cavalry who charged into range to through their spears/javelins before retreating so the kite shield would've been ideal for them, especially as they were facing a static Saxon shield wall.)
Matt's analysis suggests the kite shield would not be a versatile as the more manoeuvrable round shield for *melee* or *shock* cavalry because these were specifcally designed to BREAK enemy formations which (if successful) would inevitably result in enemy on either side of the horse.
An outstanding question, which Matt raised but you still haven't addressed is why kite shields weren't more widely adopted by cavalry throughout history if they really were more effective, in general.
However, if they're only more effective in a certain CONTEXT (see skirmishing example above) then this might explain why they only saw limited/specialised usage by certain types of cavalry.
There is protection for the other side of your body who says u cannot turn your shield upside down so that the smaller end of the shield is top or at least aside so you can protect the other side with that shield as well.
I'm one of Matt's regular viewers. Great video mate. Checked out some of your other vids and nerd stuff! Subscribed.
Jesus Christ Well it's an honor to have your subscription. Hope you enjoy.
Many of the kite shields in the Bayeux Tapestry have the arm strapped diagonally or vertically in which case it is easy to turn the shield sideways so you could get the shield to the to the right side of your horse without the horses neck getting in the way as the tip of your shield will just be pointing out to the left or even upwards. And there are indeed some riders in the tapestry holding there shields horizontally instead of vertically. We must also remember that the tapestry has been restored several times not all the stitches are original (It has been proved that a certain famous arrow holding figure is just another spear holding figure, with stitch holes extending out from the fletches to a spearhead) so I suspect a lot of those strapped kite shields in the tapestry where originally centre gripped like yours. Such early artwork cannot be relied on for accurate size, scale, and form either, made by monks or women rather than the martially adept, try getting someone who is not mechanically minded or to draw a bicycle for example, and you can be surprised by the results even though it is a very familiar object, women often do particularly poorly and alas tapestries where made by women.
MrMonkeybat Yeah it's very important to know that medieval artwork cannot be relied on as definitive evidence, though still a decent guide. Thanks for sharing man, you've made some great points.
Lots of strap detail in this panel:
lostdelights.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/kiteshield3back.png
A shoulder strap and 4 wrist straps in a square so it looks like you can put your arm through either horizontally or vertically they are quite close together and look quite a bit like Dhal strap which are pulled together to make a centergrip s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d6/c6/41/d6c641aa07377b13c23ff5c94c324002.jpg The also a lot of other shields that look like plain centergrips to me
lostdelights.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/kiteshield4back.png
MrMonkeybat Medieval art is a good source of information if you understand its limitations. The ratios and proportions are often off, because they pictured a "meaning" and recognizable elements rather than a photographically correct picture. They are to be taken as some sort of relatively detailed diagrams.
Considering the Bayeux tapestry in particular: indeed it was probably loomed and stitched by women, but it was (as far as we know) ordered by Guillaume's half-brother Odon, who fought in this war. It probably was incredibly expensive to have this made, and it was probably exhibited in a room where it would have been shown to visitors. It had to be realtively accurate, unlike the fancy miniatures in some manuscripts that won't leave the monastery they were written and illustrated in. The fact the enarms are consistenly represented the same way (and this way of arranging enarmes makes perfect sense) is a strong evidence it probably was this way.
Also, there is nothing complex to understand when you see enarms, unlike a mechanism. It is just as straight forward as a hammer or knife: once you see someone grabbing the handle and using the head to punch or blade to cut, you get it. And seeing men at arms was probably relatively common, as they basically were bodyguards in "time of peace", and followed their leader/employer in every trip, even for just a few miles. There also were men at arms at tax collection (so at least once a year), and probably many other occasions. Seeing a kite shield being worn and maybe used was then probably pretty common. So IMO, the representation of enamrs in a square to put your arm either vertically or horizontally is accurate, and that's the best depiction we have.
What's interesting is your last image, with what seems to be a center gripped shield. But unlike Shad's shield, which has the handle about 1/3 from top and 2/3 from tip, this one has the grip "perfectly" in the middle of the shield "height" (well: longer dimension). Just like a scutum, which makes much more sense to me. The fact this is represented although "99%" of the shields backs depicted have the square arranged enarms means something, IMO.. Is some stitcher decided to stitch the shield that way, it probably just didn't come from her/his imagination. The fact it's coherent with the way scuti were made is an evidence in favor of the existence, maybe even just marginally, of this kind of grip.
I would not say enarmes are consistently depicted that way far from it there is only one other example like that outside that panel. Here I created an album with every single shield back in the tapestry: imgur.com/a/faUKF The 1st image is fairly typical the riders on the left have there hands showing so are presumably using shoulder straps the riders on the right have their hands in the middle with a wavy brown line going across 73 out of 79 shield backs are depicted this way, open to interpretation could be a plank that forms a horizontal center grip but they tend to be a bit wavy so maybe its the shoulder strap folded up, and griped in the hands with a centergrip, or maybe the artists are too lazy to show all the grips and straps most of the time. More of the same until the 4th image which is the one with all the straps. The guy on the left seems to be holding his shield at the edge or wearing it as a hat, but I think that maybe wonky drawing. The guy in the middle seems to have his shoulder strap around some kind of hook or tie at the bottom which he is using as a second handle. The 5th image is interesting the guy on the left has 2 straps clenched in his fist like a dhal but also with 2 wrist straps on his forearm, the guy next to him also has 2 wrist straps but in his hand he has the wavy brown line that is likely the shoulder strap are all the other just missing these wrist straps or where they unusual or stitched in later. IMG 6 also has some unusual arms hauling equipment. IMG 7 has a funny lookin bull and a guy with a fishbowl on his head, what. IMG 8 has shield being used as plates. IMG 11 is the rider pointing with his shield. IMG 10,12,13,15,16,20 William seems to carry a club. IMG 18,23, and 24 show Huscarls with round domed shields. IMG 24 show a huscarl with a Dane axe and a oval shield on his back. A lot of th hauberks have squares on the chest that I interpret as open chin flaps which tie onto the helmet or hood when closed
MrMonkeybat A quick thing to mention is that a lot of noble warriors of this period who survived often finished their days as monks so we may need to take manuscripts slightly more seriously than you suggest.
I think you shouldn't rule out center-grip rounds (even small ones) from your analysis. Don't forget that your horse is a target too, and you can protect much more of your horse with a center-grip round than you can with any strapped shield (for a historical example the Byzantines used center-grip rounds for their calvary and kites for their infantry)
Also, strapped kites can be great on foot since it gives you much better leverage to move the point of the kite around to protect your legs, hips, and back. It's also easier to carry a heavier shield.
DynamicWorlds Hey man you've made some excellent points. Thanks heaps for sharing them. I might emphasis center grip on foot a little too much due to my personal preference to that style ^_^ But yes, you're absolutely right that strapped shields on foot offer significant yet different advantages over center grip.
kite shields were popular for cavalry for about one century. Round shields have been used by dozens of cultures during two milenium.
There must be some reason for that.
Hi, thanks for the video. I feel like a very important point was left unaddressed in the analysis of the norman kite shield. Basically, it is very hard to defend yourself on your sword side from projectiles...I didn´t hear that in this video at all. Thanks again for the analysis.
Tomás Newland You're very correct, your left side would be much more vulnerable to arrow fire. Though it is possible to get a kite on that side, just much more difficult than a smaller shield. You would lift the kite horizontal over your head, turn, and then bring it down on the other side.
The logic behind half of a tank welded to half a sedan being significantly more durable than a sedan is valid.
Also, if you must take the reins instead of using leg queues, you will either need to drop your shield or drop your sword in order to really wheel your horse by bit if it does become overwhelmed and you have to really give it strong head guidence while reining.
Militari horses, were trained extension of the mounted warrior The Spanish for example used them as a compliment aka moving with the mounted in fashion as to ease movements ( all movements including non imposed input from the mounted )
Good video, and many good points! I haven't heard that armies fled after about 10% of the line, and I would love to get more information on that (sources being a big one, but also what counted as 10%? Just the main battle-line or did the skirmishers and such that rushed ahead count towards those figures?)
Arthurian Historian Interestingly enough I got this information from a New York Times best selling author who writes big epics with large scale battles and is know for doing accurate research. Unfortunately I'm lacking in the finer details of this fact such as if it was 10% overall or 10% of localized pockets within the line though I suspect this depends on the size of the army. When I learn more about this I'll certainly be putting up more videos.
I am Shad Could you please give the name of this author, perhaps some of his/her works?
Arthurian Historian Brandon Sanderson. He completed the Wheel of time series, author of the Stormlight Archives, Mistborn and many more.
I think it is a question of time and region, the kite shiels was used by knights and rus in the early middle ages, but i think it was a smaller version with a boss on it, and the larger version like Shad's was used by the footmen. Then late knights adopted the smaller ojival shaped shields.
Cavalery which used that type of a shield, used triangle formation, where knights on the left side, carried their shields on their left hand and knights on right side in right one(or simply on right side with left hand).
On leg defense for horsemen-very few shield would be effective for that. Quite simply, horse's are barrel shaped (very roughly), so there is no case (when astride a horse) where your knees are shoulder width apart. typically its more, some times a lot more on large horses (aka battle horses used by cavalry). this means that your shield could lie on a diagonal line from elbow to knee, but would protrude out diagonally from the knee, offering some, but not much cover for the lower leg. You could theoretically hold your shield forward, parallel to your shin, but it will probably get bashed back against you or knocked around causing you to drop it or hurt your arm (for strapped on types).
In any case, I argue no horseman would bother to guard his weapon side with his shield. It just wouldn't be quick enough, no matter the shield. Also, it'd be like leaning into the back seat while driving a car- you'll cause your horse to veer off, since when you turn, you'll use you legs to hold on (assuming you let go of the reins so they don't turn the horse). Considering the motion of the horse at speed, the space you have, the time you have, and that you have to keep going straight, it would be ill advised to try. Sure, between be sliced open and moving the shield, move the shield. But my guess is that you'd train to defend with the weapon on that side as much as possible.
final thought: To move the shield, you'd have to pay close attention to it to avoid hitting or snagging on the horse, his harness, or anything else. which means you are no longer watching for threats, offending the enemy, and defending yourself, all the while guiding a horse at 30 odd miles per hour.
Overall, I just think that the environment of cavalry combat would be too chaotic for such a move to be useful.
hi great video, but if I could ask you something what type of shield would you segest a polearm welding poor foot soilders from the late 14th to early 15 century? the reason I ask is that I am writing a story and I have found very little information.
(I know this is a late answer) To simplify it, usage of shields in pike or spear formations mostly died out towards the Renaissance; as casual polearms became longer and formations became stiffer, casual infantrymen had to free the additional hand -which would've been used to carry a shield- in order to operate their weapons to the fullest.
I think looking at La Escuela De Alta and the principle uses thereof, I would have to argue that the risk of being surrounded by footmen was a very present element in the minds of cavalry commanders in the middle ages. There are references in breeding books to horses being bred specifically for their abilities in these types of maneuvers (not necessarily called by the names we now know, i.e. "Capriole" etc.) dating back to the 13th century. These were specifically necessary when dealing either with head on confrontations or with being surrounded. The very existence of these techniques indicates that cavalry use was more sophisticated than simple hit and run tactics. Yes, the lance charge was the major element, but breaking lines was also a significant usage and that puts your cavalry on the other side of the enemy lines, which means they need versatility as well as power. Just my thoughts from an equestrian standpoint. I also feel that leg coverage is of minimal concern. A good rider can wheel his leg out of reach with little need and you would want your horse to be constantly moving (indeed, even a well trained charger would likely not stand still for a ceowd of men to pome at it with spears) and I think their would be more concern about protecting one's torso and head from spears and pole arms than one's legs.
I was a bit confused by your kite shield, since i usually see kite shields being strapped to your arm, like a heater shield is. But i guess you can have a center-grip kite shield. And i would say that that is a good thing, since i feel like it is easier to guard your right side, whether on foot or on horseback, with a center-grip shield than with a strapped shield.
+Ryan Cauffman It's a more unknown fact that kite shields could be center grip, which is a little disappointing because I feel that a horizontal center grip is the best grip for this type of shield, it offers so much versatility.
+I am Shad Agreed. I've been watching some of your other videos over the course of the day, and I would say you've convinced me of the kite shield's effectiveness, provided it is a center-grip version.
+Ryan Cauffman You honor me sir!
Mounted warriors rarely charged the center. The chaos from the impact would cause their own forces to be trampled. You want to charge a flank if possible and then retreat in an orderly manner, rinse and repeat until the flank weakens.... then get the hell out of the way so the infantry can move in and finish collapsing the enemy line. If the situation called for it the cavalry would dismount and form a battle line for a melee. Of course you wouldn't do that if they were routing, you would pursue on horse and run them down. But its important to remember that a horse only has enough stamina for 1 or maybe 2 charges. After that your horse is too tired to move effectively and gets cut down from under you. With your leg trapped under a dead horse its more a liability than a help. Massive misconceptions about mounted combat. So SHADS analysis is very spot on. You would want your kite shield for your retreat to protect your exposed side and then also for when you eventually dismount
my big question is between strapped and center grip. how much time does it take to strap the shield on. can you do it in an instant during a surprise attack? or is that where the center grip is better? and my last question, has there ever been the case of having a hybrid? both centre grip with strapping?
There are a lot of variables to your question which make it hard to answer directly, but I will try without turning this into a lecture. I think the best way to explain it succinctly is to tell you that mostly you don't have to strap a shield to your arm every time you use it. Rather you can adjust the straps to what fits best and then you just slip your arm in as-needed. So, really, the time difference in grabbing a center-grip shield or strapped shield could be negligible. As far as the hybrid question, I don't *know* for a fact this is the case, but I would imagine very probably not. Basically the two types are at such cross purposes, a hybrid doesn't make any sense to me. You would lose all the benefit of using a center-grip shield due to the straps and... hmm... I guess if you had one strap and an off-center grip it would be fine, but I wouldn't consider that a "hybrid"; just a type of strapped shield.
hmmm, I have a question, both you and scholagladiatoria mention reins and the shields getting in the way. I seem to remember reading somewhere (although it may have been a "historical"/fantasy novel) that warhorses, being highly trained (and thus, very expensive) were guided by the knees of the rider, so both hands were free. I am almost sure this was the case for mounted archers. Can anybody tell me if this was the case for norman knights, or later knights?
Samuel Mellars I very important question, so important in fact that I've just uploaded a whole new video talking about it, ua-cam.com/video/zXUlfxuXdM4/v-deo.html
I am Shad An interesting video, thank you! Here's a thought I came up with though, regarding switching shield side - at about 2:34 in this video, you are carrying your shield almost upside-down. Maybe it is possible to rotate (so to speak) your shield across the neck of the horse, so the tip points upward - this would only be possible with a vertical grip though, which could interfere with reins, unless you dropped them in combat.
the shield would sort-of go
0 to (> to /\ as it rotated. (not a very good representation though)
\/ 0
Samuel Mellars I feel you could do this, as it is possible to get the shield onto the other side of the horse.
First a couple of points. If a cav soldier was using a round shield on horse back I'm sure it would be much smaller than yours. Second, the entire time you were saying how hard it was to maneuver the kite shield to the right side on a horse, yet even as your talking about it on foot, a simple rotation of your arm you brought the back of the shield up and rotated it easily to your right side. This could easily be done on a horse as well. Also, don't forget, that you don't actually have to "block" with the shield for it to be effective, but it's just as effective, and arguably in some cases, even preferable, to 'parry' the blow with the edge of the shield.
Now, for the main point I wish to make. From what I first understood of the kite shield, it was predominantly a cav shield about the time of the Norman invasion of England, PRIOR to the rise of the lance, or impact cavalry warfare in general. Both you and Matt from scholagladiatoria have proven that wrong and that it was at least if not more popular with infantry for the reasons you've stated. However, it's use by cav units I believe was prior to impact warfare and it's use was when cav's function was to attack infantry by throwing their spears. Mike Loades did a series for, iirc, BBC called Weapons That Made Britian, and one episode was dedicated to the shield. Now I understand that television is a VERY poor place to get historical research, but Mike is an active HEMA instructor and does study Medieval weapons and armor from a historical perspective, so take it with a grain of salt. In this video he actually explains and shows the method of using the shield by cav who's method of attack was simply to ride up and throw their spear into the mass of infantry then retreating. Here's a link to the video the relevant part starts at 31:57. ua-cam.com/video/O03o7ZTDE2w/v-deo.html
um in a general melee wouldn't switching your shield from one side to the other leave the other side open (outside of worn armor)? Likewise moving the shield from one side to the other would be awkward at best and wouldn't it open up more weaker areas in the armor (shield arm under arm)?
I am not sure if these questions have been asked yet. 1. Would the tail of the kite shield been used to bash or slice at opponents while charging? 2. Could the tail of the kite shield also been used to spur their horse on such as a horse whip or spurs?
DPNSCounselor I'm not sure you could use the tail to hit people as you don't really have the leverage and most likely the shield will be wrenched backwards, though I guess it could spur the horse.
Shad,
I'm going to raise the same point in response to you that I raised in response to Matt's video.
You're not holding the shield the same way horsemen were depicted in medieval tapestries were holding them. The very same tapestry that Matt cited in his video shows the point of the kite shield extending BEHIND the rider rather than extending downward. Held in that manner, the kite shield could be maneuvered in the saddle with the same utility as a round shield.
Probably a stupid question, couldn't you just turn the kite-shield horizontal and use the top of the shield to protect the right side of the body when needed?
only thing that seemed off to me is i dont believe your supposed to strap a round shield. Could be wrong but i thought there was just a handle in the boss?
The ancient Hoplites would disagree with you.
ahhh yer completely right should have clarified i meant the viking style of the round shield specifically
Just seems weird to have a shield with a boss then to use a strap system instead
I'm trying to get through this video even though you make it very hard due to your rambling.You never mentioned arrows which would probably be the main use of a shield while on horse back, you have leg defenses without a shield, you are completely ignoring the ergonomics of horse riding, and I feel that your perception of horse back fighting(based on what you are saying) is that a horse would stand right next to 3-5 enemies become surrounded and fight while on top of the horse.
Wouldn't a kite shield also make it harder to move your reigns to the left to control your horse?
Will nonya That's a great question, I hope someone who's actually tried it can tell us. But if these shields were indeed typically used with a vertical grip by horsemen, maybe that has something to do with the ability to raise the kite's tail and bring the shield-bearing arm further to the other side. Still, I expect that, in a charge, there's not so much need for maneuverability. But I'd really love some input for this from somebody who rides.
Will nonya You raise a very good point and perhaps that's why kite shields have the diagonal strap configuration, to assist with this problem.
Will nonya Exactly. Your rein hand can't move far from the center position without the horse thinking you are trying to tell them something. Especially since the bits typically used in this period (as far as I know) are curb type bits which don't 'steer' the horses head at all. Pulling one rein on one side with a curb bit doesn't really work well and that is not how they are used. In general, with a curb bit you only move your rein hand a few inches either side to communicate what you want to the horse. Moving your shield to the other side of the horse is highly impractical without simply dropping the reins which while possible is probably not ideal.
Will nonya In some paintings, the tip is up or to the right side and in either position, the whole shield is above the horse. Another trick is that a horse will follow another horse.
Just curious do you have peranakan heritage in you
I know that it's a rather old video, but I think part of the answer comes from what kind of enemy that your cavalrymen are most likely to encounter on the battlefield. Although by the early Middle Ages, heavy cavalry had imposed itself as the decisive force on western battlefields, we know they were rarely numerous in actual absolute and relative numbers. Equiping and training knights is expensive and although the early Middle Ages was as impoverished as it often thought, trade and cities had shrunk because the weakening of the central states had made the roads dangerous. The raids by people such as the Magyars and the Avars had forced the local autorities to take defense in their own hands leading to feudalism and many of these feudal nobles were waging war against each others and many robbed the countryside creating enormous amount instability (the various early Capetian kings of France struggled to simply control the Île-de-France, their own country where Paris is until well into the 11th century).
Therefore, most of the armies of the time period were infantrymen, some limited numbers well trained and equiped as castle garrisons or town militias, others being untrained and dreadfully equiped peasant leavies. So, it's very likely that opposing enemy cavalry would be driven away relatively quickly allowing your own cavalry to charge enemy infantry formations in the angle they wanted, disengage without being pursued too closely and charge again. In these circumstances, kite shields are excellent as you can always turn the right side toward the less mobile foot soldiers.
However, in the richer Middle East, cavalrymen were fielded in much larger numbers. The Eastern Roman Empire had a powerful standing army with a long tradition of fielding heavily armored cataphracts (much heavier than contemporary knights) and lighter cavalrymen. Similarly, Persians had an even longer history of fielding cataphracts and light cavalry and the Turks were ex steppes nomads fielding both heavy and light cavalry. Arabs weren't very different in that regard. Although they all fielded large numbers of infantry, if your cavalry clash with cavalry, chances are that the melee will last quite a bit. Since both are numerous and both are swift, once you clashed it's hard to disengage and you also absolutely have to defeat them so you can hit the infantry and win the battle. So, having a smaller more manoeuvrable shield is much more important because your enemies have the same ability to manoeuver and attack on your right where wouldn't be able to defend yourself if you were wearing a large kite shield. On top of that, if you are an heavily armored cataphract wearing a long coat of scale armor or mail hauberk under a coat of lamellar armor while your arms and legs are protected by laminar armor, chances are that you don't need to cover your legs with a shield all that much. Also, you're pretty well protected against arrows and your horse as well thanks to the scale or lamellar bard it wears. So, different cavalry shields for different foes and different needs.
My understanding of one way the Kite Shield was used, particularly at the battle of Hastings was to protect the rider's back as they retreated from the shield wall after riding forward to throw spears or javelins. The Norman's used their horses to harass the front line and try to provoke the shield wall to advance. From this I assume they were kite shields with a strap so it could be worn at the front and then moved to the back. That said I have kind of forgotten how highly developed impact warfare was at that point. Were they using massed lance charges into massed infantry with lances at this point? I know the lances where simple light lances (long spears) in the Norman period.
hegelbot According to my understanding, lanced (or speared) charges were certainly used in the early medieval period but as to what type of formation I haven't found anything definitive as to say, in a whole lined rank or single file, one after the other, or simply whenever the rider saw an opening in the enemy ranks.
the main disadvantage to not being able to use the kite shield on your right side would be against arrows and crossbow bolts coming at you from that side.
***** Yes, that's a VERY good point!
***** Horsemen were flankers, at least in the later history. You put them on the right and left side of your troops and attack at the left and right ends or even behind the enemy troops. If you are doing it right, the projectiles should only come from one direction and I don't mean the pop group.
The problem with your points is that in limiting your angle of defense means in some angles you have weak points.
The ones who can challenge cavalry would most likely be other cavalry and bowmen which is precisely the ones who can exploit those weak points the most.
A round shield will provide protection regardless of angle of engagement and from what direction arrows are raining.
All those penalties for minimal protection to legs. Since a light cavalry mission isn't to charge the ranks that protection isn't even needed.
adrixshadow All great points! thanks for the feedback mate!
adrixshadow Not really. There seems to be three ways to hold a kite shield according to the paintings and those are tip up, tip sideways (facing right) and tip down. You ride into combat holding onto the reigns with tip up or sideways and then you use the tip down and expose the shielded side to the enemy and move the lance over to the left, go tip down and charge forward with your lance to attack guys with swords or hold the shield sideways if you want some left, center and right protection.
I can't say if that's how it was really done due to the propagandist nature of military paintings of the time. I mean the knights could be doing mop up duty, but that doesn't look good in a painting.
Ifyou reach over your right arm to protect it with your round shield with your left arm to ward off a left side attacker, it woud seem you are interfering with the right arm weapon arm with your shield.Wouldn't a good horseman simply rotate his mount to the right to present his shield arm to an attacker from the right, unless he simply struck out at the attacker with his right arm as the presenter states?
Also, I believe it would be very hard to maneuver the horse when trying to defend the right side with a shield anyway.
Marcos Cordeiro And in fact I talk about this in my new video, ua-cam.com/video/zXUlfxuXdM4/v-deo.html
I am Shad Yay!
I think the real reason the kite shield was used in that time period has to do with STIRRUPS!
So in general I agree the kite shield is good in early cavaliere up until the stirrups were invented then all of the sudden a rider could actually fight on horse back for more then a few min. (think you have hold urself while clamping legs around horse) any blow can knock u off so u can only fight as long as u have the strength to grip the horse with more or less all the force your legs can muster. Therefore horse fighting were mostly javelin archery driven, lances .. well u can but wow it would be hard.
With stirrups moving the defensive guard would all of a sudden become far more important.
For one, the purpose of cavalry is to break up enemy formations by plowing through them. You dont want to stop in front of or in the middle of, to engage or you will get swamped and drug down by enemy troops. You have to keep going. Run them over, per say. Cavalry are shock troops and great for flanking and busting up formations. Although you dont want to charge into a spear wall, that being the exception.
As far as the Kite Shield goes, I dont see why you couldn't roll the shield over your stead and defend either side. Just roll it over, inverted on your sword side. Seems easy enough to me, though you wont have any more protection on that side than you would with a round shield, cause the bottom of you shield is now inverted.
The only way to be for sure, though, is for people to actually try it.
Just my two cents.
As I see the shield hanging on the wall I can see that the tear drop shape would make it much easier for a man to move forward without his shield getting in his way. And still afford much more protection.
"I feel... I feel... I feel..."
No Shad, you're thinking. The word for what you're doing is thinking. Feelings are something completely different.
What a nice beautiful chair.
It's him that's beautiful you pervert.
Longbow Gaming :D not really...
HeavensTroll BladeMaster Hey thanks mate, I made it myself though unfortunately I didn't think to film the process. Oh well, I might have to make another one down the track.
I am Shad that chair looks very medieval :)
i am rather surprised two people who are able to think of such good points on this kind of shield (yourself & matt) have missed that if the shield is strapped with your hand vertical or horizontal when you move it past the centre of your body your arm has to turn horizontal & hence so dose the shield meaning that the bottom of the shield is out to your left side & away from the horse allowing you to move the shield just as far to your right as a strapped round shield, the only downside to this would be when doing so on foot your feet would be exposed.
***** glad to know im not the only one.
I don't see someone attacking an opponent from horseback whilst wielding a Kite Shield and then slip it on his back while he retreats. Wouldn't it be easier and more preferable to use a smaller size shield to properly wield your weapon? Also, isn't it more hindering than helpful to charge an enemy and attack with your left hand side wielding a huge shield that gets in the way of your every blow?
No. What seems more logical is to use a smaller shield, and charge in a way that you can use your shield for either side, and ride on an enemy so he is on your right side, giving you full use of your weapon, with minimum shield interference/chances to get stuck or fumble your weapon.
Actually the reverse. Just look at jousting. Knights close left to left, so their shield side faces the enemy, and bring the lance across the horse's shoulders. Quite simply, a lot more is happening when fighting on horseback (horse control, also dealing with/ accounting for the horse's motion) than on foot, so you don't have the luxury of complicated combat motions. Besides, if you stop, you're dead. You want to cut and stab as you rip through the enemy line and out the other side (unless you skirmished and fell back to your own lines, but then too no stopping), then turn around an do it again.
Cavalry don't spar-that is, if you trade more than maybe 1 blow a piece in quick succession something has gone wrong, since if you were moving at speed you wouldn't have the time. What ever the case is, you then want to keep the enemy to your more defensible side (shield if you have it, weapon side if you don't), and try to disengage or disable your opponent.
The big risk is if you stop, then some infantry guys will wander over and butcher you with pole arms. Infantry has the edge if the horse isn't moving (that's why knights get off their horses after unhorsing their opponent and draw their sword (better still, pick up a pole weapon)).
The general them is this- horseback combat is a quick, running affair that's less refined (if one may say so) than infantry combat. there no time for fancy moves, just slash stab and run like hell the whole time.
Anyone who's done advanced horsemanship (jumping, hunter jumping, dressage, barrel racing, etc) know there is a whole lot going on even without enemies and a weapon and shield to deal with. Imagine having to do some of all of the disciplines I mentioned as you fight-jump a dead guy, sidestep to avoid a couple of carts, sliding stop, turn, and go straight to a gallop again, more bodies to deal with, jump shield wall, avoid artillery (cannon, catapult or other), plow through archers, jump trench and stakes guarding archer's flank, turn and charge back toward your own ranks. Now remember your fight all the while, and a whole lot of other guys are also charging and rampaging through enemy lines. It'd be chaos.
One big complain, this all problem with difficulty parrying on right side, its do to one thing, you show you shield with hold hand horizontally, but on many art there are some nail that indicate vertical position of hand, or diagonally, and then is it comfortable and natural to rotate shield that tail of shield is directed to side not down, and then there is no problem with parrying on right.
I just want to comment about last part of your material. It's very common misunderstanding about need to hold rein during battle. Technique of horseriding changed drastically. So I dont by this point at all.
Still very interesting discussion, but I think Matt makes better points due to his greater fencing eperience while you mainly focus on what if which basicly is not stating general point.
would it make sense to have two shields and use them also as weapons?
Duel shields, it's a long shield with pointy stick in their ends
Unless the cavalry was only used for controlled and safe charges, it wouldn't have done much to protect the riders. What about skirmishes, which were much more predominant than big battles. All another cavalryman had to do was maneuver to the other side and any ambush could always strike the exposed leg, not to mention the fact that they were eventually replaced by triangle shields as armour got better whereas round shields were used both in ancient and recent times in far apart places by the cavalry.
That's a nice damascus wood sword you got there :)
No really, it is a nice shape and all! Would it survive duelling against another damascus wood sword like it? Or it would chip?
runkurgan Thanks for the compliment mate! Unfortunately it couldn't really be used for sparing, its made out of pine, light, strong for it's weight which is why its used in timber framed houses, but more brittle than other heavier timbers, especially hardwoods.
Well you certainly know your pine :)
Thanks for the answer :)
So... you have a room with only a wooden throne and a kite shield in it?
Davinel Linvega As well as other shields, wooden swords, real swords, superhero posters, oh and I can't forget the holy grail or my portal to dimension X
If the Kite shield was so bad why did the Normans use them ,considering that the Normans were mainly horsemen.
With regard to shield size the only two surviving kite shields are only 39 and 42 inches long.
Sorry to respond so late to this reply, I just finally learned about Shad. In regards to the length of the shields, remember that people were much shorter and stockier back then than they are today. So the shield length would be as Shad is describing in the video covering about 7/8ths of the body. So the sizes are pretty accurate.
Makes me wonder why,when considering their usual,modern ideas,that the Romans never evolved a kite shield? They moved from the huge scutum to oval and round shields,unless you think it could have been a very late "post" Roman invention?
***** Mostly I think it was, though Matt Easton has pointed that there was a culture that used a Kite Shield like shield. I don't feel the Norman period Kite Shield came from this previous one, more like another isolated development in shield tech.
I am Shad My post may have been misleading.I agree the Norman shield was a new form.My point was that it was strange that Rome did not think to try such a shield (unless they had and it was not employed)
Is the shield named after bird, or is the bird named after the shield?
Myurridthaekish ...what dick head.
Agreed the kite shield is much better. Besides the Normans used a round shield until they upgraded to the kite shield they wouldn't have changed it if it wasn't better and more protective.
You have said some very positive points. You are right that riders would go up to a wall of enemy infantry and poke and throw weapons at the enemy. But you missed a very good point. The infantry have spears. now in a shield wall you have locked shields (wall) and spikes (spears). now horses naturally shy away from spiked objects. Now this was true all the way up to the Napoleonic period and American civil war, when troops formed square with bayonets on. The defence on the left is very true form what you say. Now you missed a good one. With mounted forces you have 3 major advantages. 1 Charging 2 shock 3 maneuverability..Ok with this in mind.1 charging.When a rank 1-2-3 deep of horses with riders lances or swords and kites. charge a unit and intend to charge through the enemy they commit. when they hit the enemy the lance takes down the front and shatters,. from this the rider draws a sword. all the while the rider is travelling through the enemy to reach the other side. The shield on the left protects the rider so he or she can focus on killing on the right. Now the rider to his or her left will also focus on killing on the right and shield protection on the left and this is carried down the line..2 shockHaving 50-200 horses charging at you with riders and full intention of killing you is well scary to say the least. so more often than not when a lord or king goes to war. The infantry is mainly based on peasants and some what trained troops while having full time experienced and trained troops he would pay all year round. and with this in mind the infantry would more often than not break after the first clash with horses that stomped, bit, kicked, pushed and well crushed under hoof the enemy.3 Maneuverability this is married with the first two. The bulls horns, the most basic form of attack strategy.Your foot will engage towards the direct front of the enemy turning everything in to a large rugby scrum.With this in hand the cavalry will pop around the back and charge in scattering the enemy and then withdrawing over and attacking again. over and over until the enemy bold die or surrender. now again all previous points come in to play when they do this. :) this tactic is used by tank divisions the world over and another reason why tank regiments are called cavalry regiments in some cases. :)I do enjoy your vids and look forward to more.
Is that shield flat or curved?
Could they not have had smaller versions of the kite shield on horseback? If we go by medieval art, perhaps artists just made them all the same.
Ó Slatraigh Well yes they could have, and in fact they did, a smaller kite shield is a heater shield, even if it's still got the true kite shield shape.
I am Shad Indeed.
not too sure if anybody mention it in comments, but what I think it(Kite sheald) might have a realy good aerodinamics. Just imagine - you on the horse - air resistanse - kite sheald good be d as a wing. Easy to carrie, faster reatreat, after you shot an arrow for example. small but atvantage(ofcourse if you riding a horse)
In my opinion, the benefits in terms of aerodynamics would be unnoticeable, if not nonexistent. You have to know that you would not be generally holding your kite shield like a wing. Even if you do, it would have more friction in the air simply because of its curved shape causing it to come into contact with more surface area. Even with that, the shield wouldn't be big enough nor moving fast enough for the air to be a factor at all.
Of course, I'm no expert. If you (or anyone) thinks otherwise, I would be happy to know your view and re-evaluate my own opinion.
The truth is alluring; however you must ask yourself what is logical to any given situation. The armor and weapons very between Infintery soldier and Calvary soldier vary widely so it is logical that the shields they used would have been varying as well.
Thatoneguy overthere Oh yes very much so. Please don't misunderstand, I'm openly biased for the Kite Shied, its my favorite ^_^
That may be all well and good; however I tend to try and look at the movements that are possible to achieve with such objects. That way I am free to make my own style as apposed to try to extrapolate what they where originally used for. Let me put it this way. Put yourself in the shoes of general. Would it benefit your army to all use the same equipment or is it more logical to use special equipment for special tasks carried out by different parts of your army. I would say to you that you should never be biased in this way. Remember every technique works, not every technique works 100% of the time. That being said I do have a few favorites of my own if truth be told. :)
...of a general... sorry
cant you just roll the round part of the shield over to the other side?
Its all conditional and dependant on the situation.
You seem to be "absorbed " in the kite shield but were they not only used by Normans? Then possibly used as national identity , not because they were the absolute last word in shields. They must not be THE BEST as you say because most armies /tribes did not use them.
This is true. Cavalry are not meant to stay in melee.
i do not know that much about the greater shields but at least the round shield looks rather awkward. first the stainless steel bowl that somehow magically holds on the shield (remember the boss is hollow because the grip is behind it). Why? there are good sources of shield bosses around that look much nicer than that and are not that expensive. Ithink you invested a bit of work to build it - so why ruining the efford by saving at the wrong end? Second: I do not know thats your height (because of size comparision) but i guess the shield is around 80-90 cm in diameter? thats quite huge.the median of found evidences seems to be around 65-70cm.
vlad tepesch Oh yeah my shield is a big one, all intentional, as with the boss. I found it works just as well and was very inexpensive. Overall the only thing I needed to buy to make my shields was the glue. Everything else was found from stock. I'm intending to make more accurate shields in the future but for the purposes of my videos and basic sparing these ones serve quite well.
Pardon spelling but I think you described cressie not agincourt
pappajudas You know I very well might have, lol. I'm FAR from an expert when it comes to actual recorded historical battles, but hey, I try ^_^
I am Shad You adequately/accurately described Agincourt. Agincourt featured the english choosing the ground which was basically a 'defile' flanked by forest. Archers were arrayed across the defile, and on both flanks where the French Chivalry could not charge. Equally, although not a marsh, the ground was lowlying and waterlogged ... It is argued intensely whether they archers slaughtered the French via arrow strikes , or whether they did so with hammers, axes, and daggers into gaps in armour. Indeed the majority may have been suffocated or drowned. Academic in a way, as however they did it the majority of Henry's army were archers, whom certainly won the day.Crecy , the English fronted on a slope backed by a steeper hill. They had forest to their rear and on both sides, again funneling the French into the chosen killing ground .Again rain served us well as the majority of the French projectile troops were Genoese mercenary crossbowmen. The rain loosened their strings which the could not remove, and thus weakened the effect of their xbows. Crossbows were impossible to unstring easily. The British bowmen had removed their strings with relative ease, replaced them and swiftly cut the crossbowmen to pieces, causing a route. The french chivalry rode them down in disgust which broke formation and laid them exposed to archers volleys whilst erradicating the main advantage of a massed charge of heavies.Again... the churned, muddy, ground served us whilst hugely impeding the French heavies as they were unable to deliver a competent charge due to being already fragmented in formation and horses being winded/blown due to slope and severe mud.The issue of No retreat was less to do with terrain and more to do with a smaller broken army would have been ridden down and slaughtered, in both battles, if they had broken and sought to route. They knew that, and fought accordingly.
DustyPilgrim1 Awesome man, thanks heaps for clearing it up. Very informative too. I didn't know much about Crecy.
I think I stand corrected
Love your channel, but as a fellow antipodean may I commend you to please use the phrase "Bullshit" or even "Bulldust" in place of "Bullcrap". Love your work, cheers mate :)
+Matthew Broad Why?
In the melee the kite shield would still be rubbish even when it protects your whole left side. Your enemy would rarely be so noble not to kill your horse. And if your horse falls amidst your enemies your sure to be dead or captured.
Ah, so close to the exit tagline.
And above all, what about dragons?
Hi Shad, Kite is a great cavalry shied, protects the riders kegs & the horses flank.The Normans used different strapping types for different application,say infantry.try & try on a good swordsman with a kite on foot,your'e going to have tough time.Cheers
kerry mcmanus Thanks man!
No problem Shad. Did you make the chair it's very nice.
kerry mcmanus I did indeed make it, thanks for noticing it. Funny thing, the chair was easier to make than one of my swords.
Are you a weapon maker?
Wood weapon replicas and shields, yes.
You kinda lost me in 2:31 mate: that's not the handle of a kite shield at all, actually it looks like a Roman scutum handle or something modern faking medieval gear...
Skerdy Yup, Sam The Ram is right. Although not that common, I've seen it some times. There is also some artwork showing it, like www.angelfire.com/wy/svenskildbiter/armsandarmour/etienne.jpg
Sam The Ram
and Marcos Cordeiro thanks, I really didn't know that.
Marcos Cordeiro To me that Shield looks more like the guy is gripping it by the two
strappings instead of strap it to his arm. I have seen such Strap grips
by some kind of Arabic or Mongolian horseman shields.
Nighti88 Yeah, you are right about this image. I didn't analyse it well enough before using as an example.
so knights move in an L shape? lol
gi70st Actually, I once read somewhere that this may be the reason why the knight moves that way in chess. It is believed chess is inspired by an indian game called Chaturanga, in which the horse moves in an L shape, and warfare in ancient India used a lot of cavalry. Soooo... Yeah, it is possible that it was because the horsemen only tried to expose one side.
on horseback you are holding the reins controlling the horse, a weapon and a shield?
I suggest get on a horse and try a shield.
The war horse would be steered with the knees, not the reigns.
I am No expert on the period or shield use... But ... I have to wonder whether the kite shield is indeed a perfect shape for use by those intended to be applied as 'Heavies in a massed charge' as a high impact force. The kite shiled would be perfect shape to occupy the narrow space between close formed cavalry , possibly trained to seek to ride 'knee to knee'. Just as large Roman or greek shileds were used by foot formations to also shield a man on the wielders' flank, the kite would serve a similar role used mounted filling the void and covering two men knee to face, whilst enabling use of a lance/spear/sword etc' , yet retaining an element of 'cover' to both men as a bonus against any braced and grounded pike, spear or mobile shiltron countermeasure.
Is that shield huge or is OP just a manlet
Steven Swingler Fare question ^_^
My Kite shield is definitely on the larger end of the spectrum when it comes to kite shields and I’ve done that on purpose. One, I like it bigger in terms of functionality and effectiveness. Two, I wanted to show that Kite shields actually did come in this size. Three, that Kite shields can be made big and still be VERY light and effective, just look how easily I’m moving it around. And four, by making mine on the bigger end I hoped to convey that kite shields on average are big shields, not always as big as mine, but big. They’re not heater shields. A shield in the shape of a kite shield but in the size of a heater shield is a heater shield.
how is your jacket still alive
is there any chance you are driving a BMW?
I like Matt Easton's videos because I fight. CACC (folk wrestling) to be exact, like most people my age branching into MMA. That's how I discovered HEMA, by getting some of the medieval grappling sections of the well known treatises. Matt fights, so like all people who fight he understands things like line, tempo and distance. Listening to you its clear that you do not. With the greatest respect, maybe take the role playing tshirt off (seriously, Pathfinder, great game) and take up a combat sport, get an understanding of what people can and can't do. I also don't know where you get this "10%" casualty idea from, disengaging is not always and option the person or people you are fighting allow. I'm not even sure it would hold true assuming you didn't cut off, out flaked or caught on bad ground.
+Cash Steel Listen mate, im sure you had a framed ''certified badass'' certificate hanging in the living room but hear me out, its a proven fact that people fight far more differently when you know that your life is not on the line, people fight far more aggressively when sparring because you know its mostly fun and games. Id imagine that most troops in a medieval fight would more or less want to survive the day, and not much else.
Also, in greek warfare, when the phalanx's met they certainly wouldnt fight to the death, the armies would retreat after about 5% casualties.
+Cash Steel id also like to know what parts you disagree with, or least feel that this guys lack of experience affects his statements
you bitch about him getting involved out of his expertise, namely fighting, yet you continue to criticise something out of yours, namely historical accuracy... am I Missing something?
He does hema
Weight and mobility keeps cavalry alive technically
Great Video really, but I seriosly dont think Impact warfare was the predominant tactic in the norman period, shield form was identical to infantry shields out of sheer pragmatism. Read pragmatism as as fashion, logistics and other factors of mindset. The grip argument has some merit, but the rank and file argument is anachronistic. And this is my argument a military horse of the frankish period was highly expensive, 12 solidi or cows, so no norman miles would have used his warhorse as a one shot battering ram against a shield wall, so if leg protection would become crucial he had allready made a severe tactical mistake.
+Cla Spe but the impact warfare is what the sources describe for the battle of hastings and others on the euro mainland?
i never thaught it was used on horse back i thought it was more heated shield
I think a zulu shield is the best cavalry shield.
Do you not play the Legend of Zelda? The Hylian Shield is a Kite Shield. Just not the Norman Kite Shield.
Or is the Hylian Shield a Heater Shield? Because I've gotten information about it from second hand sources, and maybe one or two from the Main source, i.e. Nintendo.
That’s what she said
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Either he's tiny, or that shield is huge!
The shield is huge; his "kite shield is king" video actually talks about how the kite shield is supposed to be very large to offer maximum protection.
do some real life testing using it on horseback before you start speculating please :)
Norman
Not to mention that all fkn normans used this shield on horseback.
Meal-lay? Sounds kinky.
John Doe ...it's just one of the things I hate about shadiversity... his mispronunciation of basic English words.
Shad brigandine
I don't think your kite shield is constructed properly. It should have a hand grip that is vet icle with an arm strap at elbow with a pad to fill the gap between the arm and shield. This would allow better angle and control of it.
ua-cam.com/video/bJNbnJw_eBo/v-deo.html
the kite shield was made historically with nearly every kind of handle and strap combination imaginable. there is not really a way to make one improperly in that sense. his kite shield is not 100% historical, but that is for other reasons than the type of handle; it is because of material and construction.
additionally, if you watch the video series from shad i linked, you'll see the advantages his set up has over the one you describe. I personally think the horizontal grip is better than the vertical for kite shields. hope this was a helpful response to you. have a good day.
edit: I realized you might also be thinking of a heater shield, which is different from a kite shield, shad compares them in the video I linked so you can know the difference. Heaters are shorter, usually thicker, and always have straps.
Try riding a horse wth it
You are too small.
Perhaps you shield is too big?
According to the Bayeux tapestry the kite shield makes a good dining table.
Lady Melisandre Well I could certainly use mine as a dinner table ^_^
My Kite shield is definitely on the larger end of the spectrum when it comes to kite shields and I’ve done that on purpose. One, I like it bigger in terms of functionality and effectiveness. Two, I wanted to show that Kite shields actually did come in this size. Three, that Kite shields can be made big and still be VERY light and effective, just look how easily I’m moving it around. And four, by making mine on the bigger end I hoped to convey that kite shields on average are big shields, not always as big as mine, but big. They’re not heater shields. A shield in the shape of a kite shield but in the size of a heater shield is a heater shield.
I am Shad
I also like it bigger in terms of functionality and effectiveness. ;)
Al-Malik Al-Ashraf Khalil No you can't have me.