When the historians are english or french themselves or the doucmentary is funded by BBC it will tend to focus on that... this is similar to when Geroge rr martin was asked about why he has so many white guys in his books and his answer was "well... im white."
Awesome video mate! Yeah I totally agree that the kite works better on foot than on horseback, while still being effective on horseback. I can’t wait to hear your thoughts on center grips on kite shields, I love a center grip. Now, I’ve come to the understanding that the farther you go back in history, the smaller horses became, to the point that they were unsuitable to ride. My source citing that they didn't have the back strength and this is the reason why you find so many chariots in the classical period. Have you heard this before? It would be good to get further clarification. I’m thinking this might be more true in certain geographical locations than others.
While it is true that Horses were too small to ride in the early days of domestication, by 600BC at least Heavy cavalry (that is where the horse is also armored) was already used by various cultures, while Celtic horses were said to be significantly slowed down by their armour, the horses in the middle east were already strong enough to be used as shock cavalry like they were in medieval times.
I see several possible reasons, because we know that horses were ridden in classical times. Possibility 1 is that putting armour on horses made them difficult to ride, or slow. However the Persians had heavily armoured cataphracts in the time of Xenophon. The other possibility I see is the danger of riding horses into combat without stirrups, which were brought to Europe by the Huns at the very end of the classical period. (image of a horse race in ancient Greece www.perseus.tufts.edu/Olympics/pictures/1991.08.0296.jpeg)
Are cataphract fighting styles with long spear really comparable to lance tactics in medieval europe? I put forward the following idea for a somewhat unrelated video that I have been wanting an answer to for a while and hoped you could do a video on this: What was the recruiting system for armies like, typically, in Medieval Europe? What type of person would be conscripted/hired to fight and how did this change over time? I was hoping you could expand and talk a bit about how society was structured in your answer as well. I know in the old pre-Marian reform Roman times, only landed citizens would fight, for instance, so how was it done, typically, in feudal Europe?
Masra94 That would be a video I'd like to see! I do know that early on, the kings of Europe had a lot of trouble from roaming mercenary bands and rebellious lords. Armies were not centrally recruited for a while after the fall of the Roman Empire, no standing armies. But I don't know much about the recruitment of the average Joe (so to speak).
Well, this is not exactly about recruitment preferences, but it tells a lot (imho) about the possible structure of medieval armies in the HRE because there seemed to be a whole lot of very small contingents, so every nobleman or clergyman was supposed to provide a certain number of troops (generally heavy cavalrymen (Panzerreiter)), the text includes a request for troops. It is in German, but maybe Google Translate helps... www.zeno.org/Geschichte/M/Delbrück,+Hans/Geschichte+der+Kriegskunst/3.+Teil.+Das+Mittelalter/2.+Buch.+Der+vollendete+Feudalstaat/1.+Kapitel.+Die+Staatenbildung+auf+den+Trümmern+des+Karolingerreichs/Das+feudale+Kriegsaufgebot It is also from about 1900 so it might be outdated. But this guy was not one of the historians with no military knowledge. But unfortunately he doesn't talk about militia or levy or similar supporting elements. The text suggests that the armies consisted of heavy cavalry only (with all necessary additions of course). I think this is at least debatable.
+Masra94 I don't think so. The byzantine themselves write about the normans who were both allies and foes in terms that make it sound like their cavalry was doing something very different that the byzantine had difficulty emulating. A lot of people feel cataphracts weren't overly quick and could wheel well. While matt does give the impression he knows his stuff I wish he was more mumble in advocating his hypothesis as no one knows a tremendous amount about how heavy cavalry functioned.
Matt great video & very good points. The more that I watch your last "sparring" video the more that I can see how that kite shield is protecting the man using it's leg, actively & passively as well, as it makes a low attack from the attackers right a difficult & chancy thing. Grunts (Infantry Soldiers) worry about their legs. "Primarily an infantry weapon" makes perfect sense to me. Thank-you, Dante.
Looking at the design, it looks very similar to the tower shield used by roman legionaries. Therefore it would make perfect sense if it came from the eastern roman empire as an adaptation to modernized combat.
Earliest prominent use of large kite shields that I can remember off the top of my head is actually with the use of Frankish mounted infantry under Charlemagne, e.g. at the Battle of Tours.
I agree. If you think about the Romans, their legionaries used the LONG scutum which protected the legs, and could form a wall, whilst the cavalry used the round, short barma. If you're on horseback, and suddenly need to wheel your torso round to defend an attack from the right, or mandritto, that long tail would get in the way, as you hoist it over the horse's neck! And there are mediaeval statues in churches of groups of knights on foot with kites. Look too at the long ancient Egyptian basket/hide shields that are really kites with the points cut off!
Just saw this video. It occurs to me that the Kite Shield is a Byzantium invention. The Ancient Romans primarily used two shields, the rectangular Scutum and a circular shield used by the Cavalry. It would be cheaper and possibly easier for them to combine those two shields into one single type. Cavalry would want their rounded top, some length to guard the legs, and narrowing towards the base to make it easier to use on horseback, whereas Infantry would also want some length, and perhaps some narrowing towards the base to lighten it. Think about it.
Hey Matt I have an interesting thought on kite shields. There's a line in "The Marriage of Branwyn" in the second branch of the Mabinogion that states, "and aloft was held a shield with the point to ward the sky in the manner of peace." Just found that very interesting and I know it doesn't have much to do with what you're taking about here, but I found it very interesting. They discuss this shield a great deal in the Mabinogi and I'm trying to go through and do a study of the talk of shield usage in that.
Many people also believe in a medieval arms race of arms against armor. Seeing plate armor being developed because of crossbows and lances and plate armor being driven from the battlefield by gunpowder. All while one predates plate armor by a few centuries and the other is more or less from the same decades.
DushinSC To add on that. Cavalry as an army component is something that only became popular after chariots and is partly the replacement of chariots. The Batavi and I believe the Cheruski provided many cavalryman (and the imperial bodyguard) in the first century AD.
DushinSC Gunpowder made it's first appearance on medieval battlefields in the early 14th century, which was actually *before* plate armor developed. Seems rather illogical to claim that gunpowder weapons drove plate armor from the battlefield when they were on same fields for centuries. Crossbows were being used as early as the Crusades and were introduced to England in the 11th century. During the 100 Years' War the French made extensive use of specialized mercenary crossbowmen in lieu of archers, and in fact the English also employed crossbowsmen during the 100 Years' War, although they primarily relied on the longbowmen. If we want to figure out why plate armor disappeared we have to look at factors other than the appearance of gunpowder and crossbowmen. (Sources Strickland & Hardy "The Great Warbow", Hugh D. Soar "The Crooked Stick")
DushinSC Actually earliest gunpowder weapons were in Europe since the second half of the 13th century becoming quite important from as early as 1350 and by the time of (and before, earliest remains are from ~1380) full plate we can see mercenaries use handguns too. :D
John Johnson Would it be possible to explain the disappearences as related to the perfecting of these technologies? The first guns were a far cry from later muskets. The first airplanes may have not changed war fare much in WWI, but they made a huge difference in WWII. The machine gun was invented in the Civil War, but did change the shape of fighting until WWI.
AlwaysAmazingSlyWit Well you see early gunpowder weapons were in fact more dangerous to the user, a lot more expensive and far less effective compared to traditional weaponry... but they were good for psychological warfare :)
9 років тому+3
"Two hands" lance (kontos) was used by Alexander the Great's cavalry and the parthians and scythians.
really good videos on the kite shield, same as always. some thoughts: i've always thought of the kite shield as a real G.I. of an article of war. Its not that it excels in one area, but that it can cover more bases than more specialized defensive weapons. e.g., equally at home on horse, on foot, on the march, under fire, as a utilitarian object for tasks ancilliary to the battlefield, emblazon bearer, and to keep throwing axes or javelins held for the throwing arm with cover, protection from gauling arrows when on horseback very right about the lack of reach compared to the buckler or heater type shield, but I.M.H.H.O., that is one negative to at least half a dozen positives regarding the provenance of the kite sheild.
The Bayeax tapestry depicts cavalry using kite shields. It was used by both. The flaw in your argument about the point is shown in the Bayeaux tapestry. Cavalry frequently used the kite shield with the point turned behind them rather than downward. That allows the kite shield to be used like a round shield in the saddle.
Brilliant video ! Can you make a video talking about the different kinds of kite shields (like the ones from Byzantium) and their chronological history ?
I enjoyed most of your videos Matt but I think I do need to say something for kite shield in this one: on horseback, espacially when you are equipped with a lance in your right hand which requires full grip from the beginning to the end, you need to reserve your left hand for the horse rein. I believe in this situation a center grip round shield, although it maybe more agile, is not preferred comparing to a "strap" shield, which offers good amount of passive protection and also frees your left hand to steer the horse.
I still assert that the use of the kite shield by cavalry is related to developments in shock cavalry kit/tactics, namely the "knightly " saddle. Its not so much down to the couched lance, but the new type of saddle which dis appear around the time of the bayeaux tapestry iirc. To me this hypothesis answers neatly your question about why cav would use kite shields at all when round shields have so many advantages. Great video/topic. Looking forward to more. P.S. pollaxes.
I have always read that this type originated in Byzantium, as you said.I also agree it was, at first, an infantry shield. The clue is in the grip, it alows you to use your left hand to hold the kontarion, that came in use, Just like the macedonians held their pikes.
Questions arise about the center boss and why it was needed, the 'Kite shield' developed from infantry troops progressing from standard shields that had center grips needing hand protection as did say round shields.
9 років тому
I totally agree with your reformulation. The reason why people aswered your previous video is that you were vindicative on the fact that it was NOT a shild made for cav in the first place, stating that cav existed before the shield. It is an illogism since infantry existed before the kite shield too therefore we can say it was NOT a shield made for infantry, using your logic. I think you are right saying that it is better on foot than on horse but I think there is no problem saying "we don't know if it was made for horsemen or infantry". "We don't know is a key word a lot of us forget but it is the most important word in history study. The most important, the only one that will allow us to stay in the truth. We can interpret, we may have theories but we always should remember what we know and what we don't know. We don't know the intentions of people back at those times, but we know that it is better on foot than on horse. We know it is usable on horse and we know it has a lot of potential on foot.
This may already have been mentioned by someone but from a complete laymans point of view id say that the kite shield makes perfect sense appearing hand-in-hand with the more modern heavy shock cavalry which started forming seriously around the time of the normans rise to prominence or a bit before. While previously cavalry was alot more limited due to technological limitations and therefore they werent quite as heavy as the later age classical european "super heavy" knight. So while cavalry was always there and was always important, with or without lance, it wasnt the same heavy destructive single charge force. Therefore a mobile shield was more, important and made more sense, in previous ages whereas a kite shield perfectly covers one side which matches the single heavy charge tactic perfectly since it allows the cavalry to dictate the terms of the engagement and therefore keep one side "safe" while the other one more directly faces the enemy and needs the full protection of a large shield (since a full charge cant be stopped or changed in an instance and reacting with a smaller shield in time will be hard while aiming a weapon. After such a charge the knight, or cavalryman etc, can choose to engage single enemies most likely keeping his shielded side towards them before retreating and reforming for another charge alternatively using the speed of his mount to simply fall back from a potentialy dangerous situation where he could be flanked on his unshielded side. Even failing this he kan keep his attention and weapon hand on one side to defend himself while the shield passively keeps his other side very well protected with a minimal price of attention and effort. From this point of view i could understand why the kite shield appeared all around the place at around this time as heavy cavalry was impacting all cultures in much the same way. If a knight or man at arms learns the kite shield on horse it would then be very understandable why it spread to infantry use as well since it is a very good shield for offering protection in a similar fashion to the earlier roman "scutum" (yes it means simply shield but everyone knows which shape i am refering to i believe). It still protects large protection at a small cost which can be very helpfull if fighting for a prolonged amount of time as you quite simply get tired and your reflexes slow which can seriously affect your survival more with a smaller angle based shield which requires more constant adjustment.
I agree with most of what you have said but I have another explanation. For a very long time heavy infantry relied entirely on their large shields for protection, with additional help of maybe helmets and leg protection in richer cultures. There was an inherent limit on the amount of armor a foot solider could ware because they often had to march all day in their kit. The Romans only got away with the amount of weight they carried by making their troops run 10 miles a day in their armor. This meant that two handed melee weapons were quite rare because everyone needed one hand for their shield. The 11th century is significant because it marks the gradual transition from this style of fighting to heavily armored, shield-less heavy infantry that could use more powerful two handed weapons. The soldiers in the bayeux tapestry are covered neck to knees in mail, probably with extra padding underneath. The kite shields they use also protect neck to knees and are much smaller than typical modern reconstructions like yours. My theory is that it is a "only when you need it" shield for someone who wares a lot of mail and wants to be able to carry out the occasional two handed broad sword attack when the opportunity arises. Someone with that much mail would have to ride to battle on a horse and therefore still sort of makes it a cavalry shield. Also, while its true that the kite shield it unique to a small group of cultures at one time this is also true of most shield designs. The Romans, Greeks, Egyptians and Persians all had unique shield types that no one else adopted. Id argue having a weird fighting style is actually a deliberate tactic to prevent marauding enemies from used captured arms.
I don't know much about using a shield, but I have a lot on riding horses and I see clearly the kite shield is too long, making right turns impossible to signal to the horse with the reins (left hand holding kite shield AND reins cannot go to the right) and I think I would prefer a smaller shield and be able to "steer" my horse to turn, especially on the battlefield. A small shield let the cavalier turn his upper body to the right and can fight or defend on both sides. With the kite shield to are pretty limited in your movements. I imagine charging on a destrier and not being able to stop it because i'm stuck with the shield,,, and no thanks ! As always, very interesting vid!
I really feel like we need to rewind the story a little and talk about how shields were used on horses. Can you operate the reins while holding a center-gripped shield? Do you need positive control of the reins when charging? Do you need it when stuck in close combat? It is possible to protect yourself with your shield on the right side at all considering you are straddling a horse and are also possible locked into a high backed war saddle? Matt, you had mentioned that later 'age of reason' cavalrymen had used mail gloves to protect their left hands. This makes me think the reins and the left hand were a weak point in the cavalry weapon system. I had also heard it said that many polearms had hooks specifically to entangle the reins. Also we know that the rein were often made of chain to make them harder to cut. The earlier shields I have seen portrayed in artwork (and yes, a grain of salt here) showed quite small shields strapped to the forearm. Possibly just their to protect the left hand/arm?
***** Actually its far more complicated than you imply and there's very specific facts that are important to know in regard to riding with or without reins and the shape of the shield plays a huge and important part when it comes to riding a horse.
Besides, a common practice in medieval warfare is that you do not kill the horseback riders: they are nobles so you capture them for ransom. So protecting their legs is more important than protecting the horse, because there is a great chance that you won't get killed even if your side loses the battle. I think the kite shield is the best cavalry shield you can choose when you want both the best protection and a free left hand to hold the rein. The reason that kite shield disappeared in 14th century is, I believe, armor in that era is good enough to provide sufficient protection to the rider's legs.
You havent thought of formation of the cavalerie. Maybe the advantage of the teardrop shield on horseback is much more given if the horseman are in closer formation as they were in shock cavalerie than in archerie on horseback used by the rest of the world where they have a much more open formation. In shock cavalerie you dont need as much protection from aside because you have your neighbour in formation in light cavalerie you dont have that protection fom aside. Just thoughts...
Me and my LARPing friend just had an argument about this. I stand with it being an infantry shield. I have one for LARPs and it's perfectly functional as an infantry shield.
I have few theories about this please let me know your thoughts. Cavalry: yes you are right it protects just one side but, it could be a good thing for charge. Also in melee I would argue, it is through that you are protected only on one side, but you are fully protected and can focus on the on the other. (not saying is the best but perhaps it makes some sense spear +big shield) Foot soldiers: well there are few reasons why I thing this could be a better shield than the round one. I believe there could be two reasons a) better protection against bows and crossbows(leg protection is an issue with the shield wall) and b) I would argue that the way you hold the shield is much better for combination with spear (you can rest your spear on the shield you are mostly protected if the enemy closes distance and in the shield wall you are always protected by the person standing next to you) last theory is maybe a little stretch but it could be a reaction to Dane axe as the long axe could easily hook or cut your legs , now kite shield would offer a protection against that. Mostly I believe it was shield spear combination (shield wall-which could be reaction to cavalry) and better arrow protection
In Bulgaria this kind of shield appeared around the beginning 1-th century, I think. The same time the Bulgarian cavalry (perhaps) declined. Madrid Skylitzes shows "kite" shields when describing things, that have happend in 9th century. But of cource, the manuscript was made in the 12th century. There are earlier manuscripts, that show the same shield though.
Out of curiosity, what is the gun in the background? Maybe it's been there before but this is the first time I've noticed it. Usually you only have swords hanging, so it caught my attention. Looks like some sort of carbine.
I always wondered why it was called the 'Norman' kite shield. As far as I know, the Eastern Roman Empire (also known as the Byzantine Empire) used them first, transitioning their Skouton shields from an oval shape to a kite or teardrop shape. Heck, the grip the kite shield typically uses is an argive grip, a type of grip invented in Greece, which is pretty much the center of the Eastern Roman Empire at the time. With how much more widespread it is in the Eastern Roman Empire compared to the rest of Europe, perhaps it would be more accurate to call it the 'Byzantine' shield or the 'Eastern Roman' shield? Sorry, I'm just rambling now. Oh well.
Can you do another more detailed video about why the Norman shield was made and why it became more popular for both standard infantry and cavalry units? And what specific advantages it has compared to other shields of the day.
On the topic of shields: Why were a lot of shields around the world circles? It's something you see in Europe, but even more frequently in the Middle East and India. I'd love your take on this. Thanks!
Matt, when you were talking before about the potential disadvantages of a long shield on horseback, I found myself thinking of the long, oval (seemingly boss-held) shields Roman cavalry are often pictured using. I'd be curious to see if you think there's any relation between the two, or if, for example, you think the boss-held long shield would be significantly different in its use.
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 coud 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)
Wow a riffle?! on the wall I mean. That's beautiful! Is it fully functional real riffle or just a replica/non-functional one? Also it is quite off-topic, but in my opinion current sound of beginning clip is a bit too loud.
I've never heard that it was a cavalry shield. This is a first one on me. I know that some smaller shields that look like kite shields were used in cavalry, sure. You do see some cavalry with large kite shields, but just as you rightly say, all troops seem to use them, mostly infantry.
About on the whole kite vs round shield on horseback: wouldn't it be a major hassle to use a center grip shield while also grasping the reins? Maybe the cavalry round shields had straps instead of a grip? Other than that uncomfortable realization it's obvious to me that the kite shape should be an excellent infantry shield design P.S. The sound seems better on the recordings in this room than the bigger living room:ish place where the previous video was shot. Not as echoey. Just my two kites
Matt, I liked your earlier video on this, although "cavalry managed without the kite shield for centuries" is not a strong argument because infantry also managed without it for centuries. The kite shield is less versatile than the centre grip shield. It has less reach than a centre grip shield and because it is strapped to your arm, it is less mobile. It can't be easy to close your inside line with it. I wonder if it is anything to do with a tendency for infantry working in organised units with a tighter shield wall fighting in a more disciplined way - perhaps with individual soldiers lacking the training to fight one on one with a centre grip shield in the old way? If you are going to stand in a line and use the shield as a barrier rather than as an active part of your "fencing", the longer less mobile shield may make more sense. I'm speculating. You're the expert.
I think the training of the soldiers might be a part of it, when rome was gone, the idea of a standing military and conscription faded with it i believe. So when your soldiers are less trained you might want to keep them in line, that kind of shield might help with it. On the other hand the less proficient you are with the center grip shield the less use of it's advantages over strapped shields you might make, bringing it down nearly to mere passive protection, which the strapped shield gives just as well as the center grip, yet the strapped shield might be less tiring.
Interestingly, there is ample evidence for extensive use of cavalry by the Welsh/ Britons who were in constant contact with the Anglo-Saxons prior to the Norman Conquest. It may be significant that the Welsh were slow to adopt the kite shield and continued to use round shields for the most part, well into the Norman period. Another one of these commonly repeated (even by good historians) myths in history is that the Welsh learned to use cavalry from the Normans. In reality, the cavalry tradition there can be traced the whole way back to pre Roman "Celtic" times.
iopklmification It's crazy isn't it. There are people who believe there was a 'World War Two'! There are even so called 'photographs' of this made up event in so called 'history'.
Nate Pendergraft Hey Nate! Lookee here at them fancy types wid their gubments and schools and their learning offa them books! But I knows what they're learning ta do. I'm wise to them, yessir, ya hear? They ain't gunna take ma guns no how!
Perhaps the kite shield's usage, in relation to cavalry, had a bit to do with the currently used weapons? In the tapestry they seem to be using something closer to a spear than a lance, one that frequently seems to be hurled at the enemy. In that context (ha, did a Matt) a kite shield might be somewhat useful? Like a mounted version of the pavise?
The idea of the kite shield being a cavalry shield seems refuted just by looking at the thing. It is shaped almost perfectly to cover one side of a man standing on foot. Chances are, if it's shaped with remarkable specificity to fit someone on foot, it's probably made for someone on foot.
Could you make a video with thoughts about advantages and disadvantages of kite shield + weapon against other combinations? Techniques preferred? I think there must be much guesswork but nevertheless. Some sparring shown? And data about the reconstruction, weight for example, and is there a real piece it's made after? How can the straps handle heavy blows, they look a bit tiny?
First of all, great video. Watching you talk about kite shields reminded me a bit about what appears to be a smaller version used in Eastern Europe. I was wondering if you knew anything about these smaller versions that seem to always be depicted with medieval Rus or Slavic warriors. While the general shape seems to be similar, the Slavic shield shape has somewhat straighter sides (in some depictions) and seems to only cover from knee to shoulder, compared to the "Norman" style that covers from shoulder to about mid shin. On a slightly unrelated note, I was also wondering you if you had any recommendations for where to buy a shield.
The bayeux tapestry was made in Normandy, I wonder IF THAT IS the kind of shield used by the Anglo-Saxons.....and you are forgetting the most important part, the couched lance, and kite shield, have no use with out stirrups. I have the feeling that couched lance and kite shield were developed as mounted troops began experiment with different tactics. Though we could be missing something altogether. Look at the fact that they go from a boss shield with great maneuverability, to a large shield that is very passive.
The Bayeux tapestry was made in Kent by Anglo-Saxon women. Stirrups were universally used by that time. Large shields are not necessarily passive: After throwing his Pila, a Roman legionary would charge with drawn sword, using his body-weight behind his scutum to knock his opponent off his feet or at least off-balance. You can use round or kite shields similarly as well as swiping or chopping with the edge & punching with them..
2bingtim It's cool that you brought up the roman scutum as I just got one. And I can tell you that even the big republican scutum with the hand grip in the middle is more maneuverable than the slightly smaller kite shield that uses enarms. It's all about the grip it would seem.
The argument that cavalry had been around for a very long time might not cut it, for the same reason that complex hand protection didn't develop earlier. The other arguments do seem valid. Have you ever seen someone try to switch the shield from one side of the horse to another? I might try that some time, if our horse allows :P
scholagladiatoria Thanks for another great video on my favourite shield - completely agree that it was best-suited as an infantry shield, and once again, sorry if I pissed you off via my comments in the spear sparring video: wasn't intended... :(
I pity future historians trying to reconstruct the usage of the revolver from Hollywood movies... Primary sources have their uses, but I always treat them with great caution!
Matt, can you make a video about fighting a suicidal (crazy, mad, unpredictable, you name it) opponent? I think you mention this on some of your videos, but I couldn't find a video specifically about this
Lóránd-Tibor Konyelicska Crazy-mad? Like frothing angry? As my martial arts teacher put it, "anger is like a lens. A little bit focuses you. Too much blurs everything." You aren't making great tactical decisions when you get like this, you aren't fighting well, and too much tension in your muscles slows you down. There is a chance you overwhelm an opponent before they can react, but if they are decently compenent, your essentially fighting with a handicap. So, about fighting him? Stay cool, stay calm, don't let the burst of aggression take you by surprise. He'll be fighting sloppy, so take advantage of the openings he leaves and take him out with good technique.
- I think the OP might be posting about the "suicidal" attacker, who goes on pure offence (with a sword) with no defensive maneuvers. Matt mentioned this style of attacking in passing with one of the British 18th/19th Century fencing manuals (or perhaps it was one of the "Swordsman of the British Empire" entries) - I think the general consensus was "you're screwed". It's basically the double-kill scenario that traditional fencing instruction (with its emphasis on right-of-way as a way to emphasize dealing with an oncoming strike) was designed to avoid. However, if an opponent is willing to accept being cut through the neck if it means stabbing you in the chest, there's not a whole lot you can do about it. Except wear heavy armor, I suppose - that actually works just dandy vs. a number of weapons. (So I suppose the comment was, again, with 19th century military saber - no plate armor for you! A shield would probably be pretty useful in this scenario, as well. ) That being said, if the skill level is different enough (and there's enough room to use strong distancing and lateral movement), I'd say it's certainly possible. Theoretically, there are also a couple of arm grapple techniques you could arguably use that can temporarily (ie, for a second or so) immobilize the attacker's arm and keep you from getting hit, and in theory let you get your own strike in. But that starts to get into dueling, rather than fighting techniques. And those are, frankly, low-probability techniques, compared to "slash a bunch and not care if you get hit".
Could it be that this type of shield was produced for lancers and javelin cavalry? Most lancers and javelin men did not engage in prolonged combat and would have most likely turned around to re arm after the initial impact. So the cavalryman would only need to present one side as the other side has his lance or his javelins, normans would also hold their lances overhand and could strike over their shields. when the rider turned around to ride away he would slip the shield onto his back and be safe from ranged weapons as he was riding away? This is pure speculation though.
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 shield 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. Was it perhaps an evolution in response to applying tried and tested infantry refinements to a more strategic approach to the technicalities of applying the mutual defense of a shield wall to a mounted scenario ? That is not to say the kite would not be equally useful for foot formations. Equally... might the development of strapping and body harnessing have been to enable maintained solid shield positions, maintained mutual coverage, whilsty enable freer weapon use should the charge break the enemy formation... I stress,I do not know, but my 'I wonder' button got pressed.
Out of curiosity, someone talk to me about the difference between a Roman tower shield and a Norman kite shield. Specifically, I am interested in the reason as to why they would differ in their shape. Both are tall, presumably to protect the whole length of the body. But the tower shield was rectangular, whereas the kite shield was teardrop-shaped. Why? What is the practical fighting reason for the difference?
Andrew Forrest I was wondering along the same ideas myself.. To me the teardrop shape looks like an optimization. The teardrop shape is probably less restrictive to movement (less snagging your hand or weapon at the corners when fighting) and lighter (less material) than the square shield while still protecting much the same area. Probably it's better for shieldwalls of a more mobile and loose formation than the roman "testudo" formation.
Stein Gauslaa Strindhaug Is it better for formations though? I would think the coverage of a tower shield would be far superior, offering no gaps in the wall.
Andrew Forrest Possibly, a shield doesn't have to be very wide to be effective in protecting the wielder from melee attacks. A wide shield on the other hand is likely better at stopping incoming arrows, but such missiles probably don't come in much at knee/ankle height, so the width at the base of the shield is less important. It's basically a compromise which results in a lighter shield, which is obviously important.
Kite shields would make gaps in phalanx, that's why tower shields were used. Kite shields were used on horse to protect the riders off side, and is thin and long to protect leg while still being light
Hey Matt, this is a bit off topic, but it's a question I had on my mind: Often at the beginning of HEMA tournaments or classes you see the practitioners greeting each other, i.e. raising the blade to the face or the heart (similar to the bowing in, say Jiu Jitsu or Iaido). I wondered, if that actually derived from the treatises as a way of showing respect toward the teacher/instructor or (in case of a duel) the oponent, OR if it's simply a modern gesture.
Matt - You touched on this in the previous vid on the kite shield but I would be interested in your views on what you think the advantages of the round shield were vs the kite shield and the kite shield vs the round shield. Thanks.
The first horses were no more than beasts of burden. They were not tall. It is easier to pack a bag of grain on a smaller "horse" than a "war horse". It wasn't that there were no horses in Europe at all, it was that there were no tall rideable war horses until the Norman Invasion. And if you look at the Bayeau Tapestry the soldiers were all wearing chain mail. It was the attacking side protection on horse back not the purpose of the shield. When you fight on horse back there is an attacking side and an exposed side. The exposed side is defended by the shield. And the tear drop shield serves two purposes. One to defend the entire body and two, it prevents the shield from shifting the the fighting side during battle and exposing a weakness. And yes it was also an infantrymen shield. A round shield is worthless on a horse. Your knee to your foot would be cut off. The kite shield was developed for the tall war horse. Thank you.
What do we know about kite shields from historic sources? Are there better sources than the Bayeux Tapestry for details about size, grip configuration, usage?
I don't know if this is even worth mentioning at this point, but I'm feeling chatty. When I was a child, with a voracious appetite for all things medieval, dark ages, or fantasy, I of course found pictures of the kite shield. I don't recall ever reading a word about how the shield was supposed to have been used, but just by looking at it I figured it must be a cavalry shield. After all, wouldn't somebody on foot prefer to have a shield that protected both legs? I don't feel that way anymore, and Matt's extremely sound arguments are a confirmation of my current belief.
I can see where the confusion might come from, since traditional historical dogma would say that one of the defining changes between the "dark ages" and the Medieval period was that heavy cavalry started to be used in combat in a big way for the first time.I wonder, would you say that that assumption is not particularly valid?
Hey matt, im a big fan of axes and im spesifically looking for two handed or dane axe combat. i cant seem to get my head around how they where used and there are so many contradicting arguments! do you have or will you do a video on them. would love to see something on axes in general.
I think you argued your-self out of this one (with respect, you are the best). The kite shield doesnt provide much advantage to infantry compared to a round shield for the reasons you explained. But on a horse, where you cant move your leg out of the way and side step and stuff like that, seams to me a bigger shield, closer to me would be better. Even reinforced with your butler exemple. How useful it can be in duels and, im assuming, how useless it would be for cavalry.
I can see a use for the considerable lenght of the kite shield ofr infantry: putting the shield down on the ground with the lower part while bracing for an incoming charge. While the grouns bears the weight of the shield the soldier might have an easier time dealing with the forward motion of the attackers, as he can put all of his strength and body weight into that direction.
I have a question, what will the kite shield be paired up with, will it most luckily be an arming sword/one-handed sword? Since large shields tend to be paired with swords that are smaller, and small shields tend to be paired up with large swords. Kinda like with the scutcum and gladius, and the sword and buckler.
***** anglosaxons said the same to normans in 1066; legs are weak points for raiders, and is just easy to imagine some infantery guys vs cavalerist, infanterists will try to avoid spear side, and easiest target for them will be cavalerist's legs (special left one)... but for town boys it must be complicated to understand
***** also staying in apartment it's quite hard to get, that upper part of body it's quite mobile, and cana avoid a lot of dangerous moments, when leg is "fixed" ; gl
Matt, just a quick question, do you think that a kite shield is still usable as... well, a weapon? To elaborate: I have some expirience with boss-held shield and to me, at least in duel situation, is a handy thing to smack the opponent with, be it with the edge or the boss. Now, do you think that it is still feasable in strap-held shield (altough I think that a solid wooden or iron handle or at least two crossed straps at the front are better for handling)? And what about the point at the bottom of the shield?
Someone pointed out shields were useless because they were 30lbs and too heavy. I get down voted to hell for pointed out that shields that are not 30lbs and that of course its useless it was *facepalm*
So in training an army would you agree that the skill level, as a whole, could be lower with kite shields compared to other types. For example trying to teach someone new to protect your sword hand when you strike vs here's your big shield and keep it between you and the sharp things?
what would be the purpose of the boss on a strap shield, i understand with a handled shield it protects the hand while also allowing the handle to be "in" the shield rather than behind, and also can be used in a punching motion, but with a strap shield i cannot falthom what purpose it serves
I think it's just a vestidual boss from the round/oval center gripped shields. It is quite historically accurate though many, if not most, didn't have them. It certainly would reinforce that part of the shield where the hand or arm would lie behind.
Beautiful sabre above the caplock carbine. Looks too new to be an antique. The problem with history books is that they tend to use quotes, of quotes, of quotes. If the initial interpretation is wrong, then so are what follows.
In actual combat would horsemen thrust with their couched lance while charging? I can see why just letting your weight push the spear would be great for unhorsing an opponent in a tournament, but it doesn't seem like it would be terribly effective at actually piercing armor.
SanityVideo Stiking with it, or just plain decoration. You might argue it could deflect a blow running down the shield but that seems like a rare scenario.
SanityVideo In my opinion, there's little to no reason to have a boss on a kite, especially one with enarmes. The boss is far less an offensive feature as it is a feature that allows the center gripped handle to sit close to the shield's center of gravity while still being protected (it provides a cavity for the fist to sit in). You don't need this on a center gripped kite (the only case where a boss might serve some purpose) as it's curve allows the handle to be further away while still being in the center of gravity.
SanityVideo It is probably vestigial for the most part, left over from the center-grip styles. Functionally it would provide a bit more protection against projectiles to help prevent them from piercing the shield (and consequently your arm). +aleksandar ristic +Christian Poulsen No, it was not for striking. First problem is the total lack of reach, asyou can only get the thing about elbow's distance from you. Second is targets, as due to the grip the most you are going to be able to hit is chest high meaning you are almost exclusively going to only be able to hit the opponent's shield (and if you can hit their body, why wouldn't you use your sword instead?). Thirdly is the near complete lack of damage, as due to the low range of motion the most you can expect to do is a push rather than any real damage. Fourthly, you have a sword/axe/spear/mace which is much better suited for the role of hitting things so if you are going to hit someone you might as well do it with the much more effective weapon.
It seemed to be found a bit too large/long & became cut down to become the heater shield-the classic "shield" shape.(Square top with convex sides ending in a point at the bottom. Some heaters could be quite large, but generally they where smaller than kite shields.
IMO your original point - based on lack of practicality - already ended the argument. I've never held a shield in my life, but I did grow up around horses and have been riding them since I was 6 years old. Anyone who has ever been in a saddle would recognize that this shape of shield would not be ideal on a battlefield. Perhaps for "formal" jousting, where you always know from which direction the attack will come ... but AFAIK, even in that scenario they used a smaller shield of a more rectangular shape.
scholagladiatoria I believe the kite shield was a compromise between very good protection and cover vs cut weight due the tear form rather than full rectangle along with a much more wieldy shape?
+Grumpy Pirate I agree, I think the kite is one of the better shields for foot combat, beating the crap out of round & rectangular shields. The only exception would be very close order formations where oval or rectangular shields would be superior for covering yourself and the guy to your left.
+scholagladiatoria Sorry to ask but do you have much experience riding a horse? The Thing you all lack in your Videos about the Cavalry Shield is the Horse! In your older Video you say you can't protect your right side with this shield and i can explain why you would not move your shield much at all. First the horse. Lets assume modern horses have the same "primitive reflexes" as their ancestors, which means they react the same to certain situations. To ride a Horse into a Wall of Men you need a short tempered horse or it will just stop. And trust me if a Horse is frightend it will give a shit about what the rider wants. To be able to controle such a Horse you need to be a really good horseman. This leads to a vital point, you would never throw away the reins or you you would loose the last bit of control you would have. But to use the shield effective you would need to put them out of your hands or you would give your horse false commands. Let me give you an example: You are beeing attacked from the right side, for which reasen you decide not to block with your sword but with your shield (Roundshield) you turn your upper boddy and your left arm to cover your side. In this Moment you rein pulls so hard on the snaffle that your horse will turn hard to the right and the blow your triying to block with your shield will hit in the worst case your horse. So in my Opinion a cavalryman in a crowded battle wouldn't fight the enemy on his protected side but on his armed side. Which makes the teardrop shield a perfect shield for cavalry, cause it protects the Hand with the reins and your complete side allowing you to concentrate on the opponent you are trying to kill with optimum control of your horse. Sincerely Markus
My understanding is that the Normans were primarily mounted infantry anyway, no? So the idea that they brought in the kite shield to serve as a *cavalry* shield when they weren't cavalrymen themselves seems a bit backward.
"Medieval History isn't only about England" and "Medieval History isn't only about France" are things that historians tend to forget.
+Thiago Monteiro M.E. doesnt just talk about english and french history, Historians tend to specialise and so speak of what they know.
When the historians are english or french themselves or the doucmentary is funded by BBC it will tend to focus on that... this is similar to when Geroge rr martin was asked about why he has so many white guys in his books and his answer was "well... im white."
Absolutely!
@@dt4236 European culture is white and so are the people in history and in medieval myths and stories. Why would anyone ask such a dumb question?!
Awesome video mate! Yeah I totally agree that the kite works better on foot than on horseback, while still being effective on horseback. I can’t wait to hear your thoughts on center grips on kite shields, I love a center grip.
Now, I’ve come to the understanding that the farther you go back in history, the smaller horses became, to the point that they were unsuitable to ride. My source citing that they didn't have the back strength and this is the reason why you find so many chariots in the classical period. Have you heard this before? It would be good to get further clarification.
I’m thinking this might be more true in certain geographical locations than others.
I am Shad was wondering the same thing, thanks for pointing it out here first =)
Alexander the great used cavalry. I don't know how big the horses were though.
While it is true that Horses were too small to ride in the early days of domestication, by 600BC at least Heavy cavalry (that is where the horse is also armored) was already used by various cultures, while Celtic horses were said to be significantly slowed down by their armour, the horses in the middle east were already strong enough to be used as shock cavalry like they were in medieval times.
I see several possible reasons, because we know that horses were ridden in classical times. Possibility 1 is that putting armour on horses made them difficult to ride, or slow. However the Persians had heavily armoured cataphracts in the time of Xenophon. The other possibility I see is the danger of riding horses into combat without stirrups, which were brought to Europe by the Huns at the very end of the classical period. (image of a horse race in ancient Greece www.perseus.tufts.edu/Olympics/pictures/1991.08.0296.jpeg)
@shadiveraity you finally admit that kite shields are better used on foot.
Are cataphract fighting styles with long spear really comparable to lance tactics in medieval europe?
I put forward the following idea for a somewhat unrelated video that I have been wanting an answer to for a while and hoped you could do a video on this:
What was the recruiting system for armies like, typically, in Medieval Europe? What type of person would be conscripted/hired to fight and how did this change over time? I was hoping you could expand and talk a bit about how society was structured in your answer as well. I know in the old pre-Marian reform Roman times, only landed citizens would fight, for instance, so how was it done, typically, in feudal Europe?
Masra94 That would be a video I'd like to see! I do know that early on, the kings of Europe had a lot of trouble from roaming mercenary bands and rebellious lords. Armies were not centrally recruited for a while after the fall of the Roman Empire, no standing armies. But I don't know much about the recruitment of the average Joe (so to speak).
Well, this is not exactly about recruitment preferences, but it tells a lot (imho) about the possible structure of medieval armies in the HRE because there seemed to be a whole lot of very small contingents, so every nobleman or clergyman was supposed to provide a certain number of troops (generally heavy cavalrymen (Panzerreiter)), the text includes a request for troops. It is in German, but maybe Google Translate helps...
www.zeno.org/Geschichte/M/Delbrück,+Hans/Geschichte+der+Kriegskunst/3.+Teil.+Das+Mittelalter/2.+Buch.+Der+vollendete+Feudalstaat/1.+Kapitel.+Die+Staatenbildung+auf+den+Trümmern+des+Karolingerreichs/Das+feudale+Kriegsaufgebot
It is also from about 1900 so it might be outdated. But this guy was not one of the historians with no military knowledge.
But unfortunately he doesn't talk about militia or levy or similar supporting elements. The text suggests that the armies consisted of heavy cavalry only (with all necessary additions of course). I think this is at least debatable.
+Masra94 I don't think so. The byzantine themselves write about the normans who were both allies and foes in terms that make it sound like their cavalry was doing something very different that the byzantine had difficulty emulating. A lot of people feel cataphracts weren't overly quick and could wheel well.
While matt does give the impression he knows his stuff I wish he was more mumble in advocating his hypothesis as no one knows a tremendous amount about how heavy cavalry functioned.
Matt great video & very good points. The more that I watch your last "sparring" video the more that I can see how that kite shield is protecting the man using it's leg, actively & passively as well, as it makes a low attack from the attackers right a difficult & chancy thing. Grunts (Infantry Soldiers) worry about their legs. "Primarily an infantry weapon" makes perfect sense to me. Thank-you, Dante.
Looking at the design, it looks very similar to the tower shield used by roman legionaries. Therefore it would make perfect sense if it came from the eastern roman empire as an adaptation to modernized combat.
Earliest prominent use of large kite shields that I can remember off the top of my head is actually with the use of Frankish mounted infantry under Charlemagne, e.g. at the Battle of Tours.
I agree. If you think about the Romans, their legionaries used the LONG scutum which protected the legs, and could form a wall, whilst the cavalry used the round, short barma. If you're on horseback, and suddenly need to wheel your torso round to defend an attack from the right, or mandritto, that long tail would get in the way, as you hoist it over the horse's neck! And there are mediaeval statues in churches of groups of knights on foot with kites. Look too at the long ancient Egyptian basket/hide shields that are really kites with the points cut off!
Just saw this video. It occurs to me that the Kite Shield is a Byzantium invention. The Ancient Romans primarily used two shields, the rectangular Scutum and a circular shield used by the Cavalry. It would be cheaper and possibly easier for them to combine those two shields into one single type. Cavalry would want their rounded top, some length to guard the legs, and narrowing towards the base to make it easier to use on horseback, whereas Infantry would also want some length, and perhaps some narrowing towards the base to lighten it. Think about it.
Hey Matt I have an interesting thought on kite shields. There's a line in "The Marriage of Branwyn" in the second branch of the Mabinogion that states, "and aloft was held a shield with the point to ward the sky in the manner of peace." Just found that very interesting and I know it doesn't have much to do with what you're taking about here, but I found it very interesting. They discuss this shield a great deal in the Mabinogi and I'm trying to go through and do a study of the talk of shield usage in that.
Many people also believe in a medieval arms race of arms against armor. Seeing plate armor being developed because of crossbows and lances and plate armor being driven from the battlefield by gunpowder. All while one predates plate armor by a few centuries and the other is more or less from the same decades.
DushinSC To add on that. Cavalry as an army component is something that only became popular after chariots and is partly the replacement of chariots.
The Batavi and I believe the Cheruski provided many cavalryman (and the imperial bodyguard) in the first century AD.
DushinSC Gunpowder made it's first appearance on medieval battlefields in the early 14th century, which was actually *before* plate armor developed. Seems rather illogical to claim that gunpowder weapons drove plate armor from the battlefield when they were on same fields for centuries. Crossbows were being used as early as the Crusades and were introduced to England in the 11th century. During the 100 Years' War the French made extensive use of specialized mercenary crossbowmen in lieu of archers, and in fact the English also employed crossbowsmen during the 100 Years' War, although they primarily relied on the longbowmen.
If we want to figure out why plate armor disappeared we have to look at factors other than the appearance of gunpowder and crossbowmen.
(Sources Strickland & Hardy "The Great Warbow", Hugh D. Soar "The Crooked Stick")
DushinSC Actually earliest gunpowder weapons were in Europe since the second half of the 13th century becoming quite important from as early as 1350 and by the time of (and before, earliest remains are from ~1380) full plate we can see mercenaries use handguns too. :D
John Johnson Would it be possible to explain the disappearences as related to the perfecting of these technologies? The first guns were a far cry from later muskets.
The first airplanes may have not changed war fare much in WWI, but they made a huge difference in WWII. The machine gun was invented in the Civil War, but did change the shape of fighting until WWI.
AlwaysAmazingSlyWit Well you see early gunpowder weapons were in fact more dangerous to the user, a lot more expensive and far less effective compared to traditional weaponry... but they were good for psychological warfare :)
"Two hands" lance (kontos) was used by Alexander the Great's cavalry and the parthians and scythians.
really good videos on the kite shield, same as always. some thoughts: i've always thought of the kite shield as a real G.I. of an article of war. Its not that it excels in one area, but that it can cover more bases than more specialized defensive weapons. e.g., equally at home on horse, on foot, on the march, under fire, as a utilitarian object for tasks ancilliary to the battlefield, emblazon bearer, and to keep throwing axes or javelins held for the throwing arm with cover, protection from gauling arrows when on horseback
very right about the lack of reach compared to the buckler or heater type shield, but I.M.H.H.O., that is one negative to at least half a dozen positives regarding the provenance of the kite sheild.
The Bayeax tapestry depicts cavalry using kite shields. It was used by both. The flaw in your argument about the point is shown in the Bayeaux tapestry. Cavalry frequently used the kite shield with the point turned behind them rather than downward. That allows the kite shield to be used like a round shield in the saddle.
I want to hear about that carbine length musket behind you on the wall! Great video thanks for sharing your knowledge and experience.
Brilliant video !
Can you make a video talking about the different kinds of kite shields (like the ones from Byzantium) and their chronological history ?
I enjoyed most of your videos Matt but I think I do need to say something for kite shield in this one: on horseback, espacially when you are equipped with a lance in your right hand which requires full grip from the beginning to the end, you need to reserve your left hand for the horse rein. I believe in this situation a center grip round shield, although it maybe more agile, is not preferred comparing to a "strap" shield, which offers good amount of passive protection and also frees your left hand to steer the horse.
I still assert that the use of the kite shield by cavalry is related to developments in shock cavalry kit/tactics, namely the "knightly " saddle. Its not so much down to the couched lance, but the new type of saddle which dis appear around the time of the bayeaux tapestry iirc. To me this hypothesis answers neatly your question about why cav would use kite shields at all when round shields have so many advantages. Great video/topic. Looking forward to more.
P.S. pollaxes.
I have always read that this type originated in Byzantium, as you said.I also agree it was, at first, an infantry shield. The clue is in the grip, it alows you to use your left hand to hold the kontarion, that came in use, Just like the macedonians held their pikes.
Questions arise about the center boss and why it was needed, the 'Kite shield' developed from infantry troops progressing from standard shields that had center grips needing hand protection as did say round shields.
I totally agree with your reformulation. The reason why people aswered your previous video is that you were vindicative on the fact that it was NOT a shild made for cav in the first place, stating that cav existed before the shield. It is an illogism since infantry existed before the kite shield too therefore we can say it was NOT a shield made for infantry, using your logic. I think you are right saying that it is better on foot than on horse but I think there is no problem saying "we don't know if it was made for horsemen or infantry". "We don't know is a key word a lot of us forget but it is the most important word in history study.
The most important, the only one that will allow us to stay in the truth.
We can interpret, we may have theories but we always should remember what we know and what we don't know.
We don't know the intentions of people back at those times, but we know that it is better on foot than on horse. We know it is usable on horse and we know it has a lot of potential on foot.
This may already have been mentioned by someone but from a complete laymans point of view id say that the kite shield makes perfect sense appearing hand-in-hand with the more modern heavy shock cavalry which started forming seriously around the time of the normans rise to prominence or a bit before. While previously cavalry was alot more limited due to technological limitations and therefore they werent quite as heavy as the later age classical european "super heavy" knight.
So while cavalry was always there and was always important, with or without lance, it wasnt the same heavy destructive single charge force. Therefore a mobile shield was more, important and made more sense, in previous ages whereas a kite shield perfectly covers one side which matches the single heavy charge tactic perfectly since it allows the cavalry to dictate the terms of the engagement and therefore keep one side "safe" while the other one more directly faces the enemy and needs the full protection of a large shield (since a full charge cant be stopped or changed in an instance and reacting with a smaller shield in time will be hard while aiming a weapon. After such a charge the knight, or cavalryman etc, can choose to engage single enemies most likely keeping his shielded side towards them before retreating and reforming for another charge alternatively using the speed of his mount to simply fall back from a potentialy dangerous situation where he could be flanked on his unshielded side. Even failing this he kan keep his attention and weapon hand on one side to defend himself while the shield passively keeps his other side very well protected with a minimal price of attention and effort.
From this point of view i could understand why the kite shield appeared all around the place at around this time as heavy cavalry was impacting all cultures in much the same way. If a knight or man at arms learns the kite shield on horse it would then be very understandable why it spread to infantry use as well since it is a very good shield for offering protection in a similar fashion to the earlier roman "scutum" (yes it means simply shield but everyone knows which shape i am refering to i believe). It still protects large protection at a small cost which can be very helpfull if fighting for a prolonged amount of time as you quite simply get tired and your reflexes slow which can seriously affect your survival more with a smaller angle based shield which requires more constant adjustment.
I agree with most of what you have said but I have another explanation. For a very long time heavy infantry relied entirely on their large shields for protection, with additional help of maybe helmets and leg protection in richer cultures. There was an inherent limit on the amount of armor a foot solider could ware because they often had to march all day in their kit. The Romans only got away with the amount of weight they carried by making their troops run 10 miles a day in their armor. This meant that two handed melee weapons were quite rare because everyone needed one hand for their shield.
The 11th century is significant because it marks the gradual transition from this style of fighting to heavily armored, shield-less heavy infantry that could use more powerful two handed weapons. The soldiers in the bayeux tapestry are covered neck to knees in mail, probably with extra padding underneath. The kite shields they use also protect neck to knees and are much smaller than typical modern reconstructions like yours.
My theory is that it is a "only when you need it" shield for someone who wares a lot of mail and wants to be able to carry out the occasional two handed broad sword attack when the opportunity arises. Someone with that much mail would have to ride to battle on a horse and therefore still sort of makes it a cavalry shield.
Also, while its true that the kite shield it unique to a small group of cultures at one time this is also true of most shield designs. The Romans, Greeks, Egyptians and Persians all had unique shield types that no one else adopted. Id argue having a weird fighting style is actually a deliberate tactic to prevent marauding enemies from used captured arms.
The kite shield was essentially used in antiquity as the thureos. Just a small shape and grip changes.
Love the new opening sound.
aleksandar ristic me too.
I think it's creepy - I thought it was just gonna be for the shining themed video
aleksandar ristic D:
aleksandar ristic hate it
Pariah You're banned from the interweb. Begone!
I don't know much about using a shield, but I have a lot on riding horses and I see clearly the kite shield is too long, making right turns impossible to signal to the horse with the reins (left hand holding kite shield AND reins cannot go to the right) and I think I would prefer a smaller shield and be able to "steer" my horse to turn, especially on the battlefield. A small shield let the cavalier turn his upper body to the right and can fight or defend on both sides. With the kite shield to are pretty limited in your movements. I imagine charging on a destrier and not being able to stop it because i'm stuck with the shield,,, and no thanks !
As always, very interesting vid!
I really feel like we need to rewind the story a little and talk about how shields were used on horses. Can you operate the reins while holding a center-gripped shield? Do you need positive control of the reins when charging? Do you need it when stuck in close combat? It is possible to protect yourself with your shield on the right side at all considering you are straddling a horse and are also possible locked into a high backed war saddle?
Matt, you had mentioned that later 'age of reason' cavalrymen had used mail gloves to protect their left hands. This makes me think the reins and the left hand were a weak point in the cavalry weapon system. I had also heard it said that many polearms had hooks specifically to entangle the reins. Also we know that the rein were often made of chain to make them harder to cut. The earlier shields I have seen portrayed in artwork (and yes, a grain of salt here) showed quite small shields strapped to the forearm. Possibly just their to protect the left hand/arm?
***** Actually its far more complicated than you imply and there's very specific facts that are important to know in regard to riding with or without reins and the shape of the shield plays a huge and important part when it comes to riding a horse.
Besides, a common practice in medieval warfare is that you do not kill the horseback riders: they are nobles so you capture them for ransom. So protecting their legs is more important than protecting the horse, because there is a great chance that you won't get killed even if your side loses the battle. I think the kite shield is the best cavalry shield you can choose when you want both the best protection and a free left hand to hold the rein. The reason that kite shield disappeared in 14th century is, I believe, armor in that era is good enough to provide sufficient protection to the rider's legs.
You havent thought of formation of the cavalerie. Maybe the advantage of the teardrop shield on horseback is much more given if the horseman are in closer formation as they were in shock cavalerie than in archerie on horseback used by the rest of the world where they have a much more open formation. In shock cavalerie you dont need as much protection from aside because you have your neighbour in formation in light cavalerie you dont have that protection fom aside.
Just thoughts...
Me and my LARPing friend just had an argument about this. I stand with it being an infantry shield. I have one for LARPs and it's perfectly functional as an infantry shield.
I have few theories about this please let me know your thoughts.
Cavalry:
yes you are right it protects just one side but, it could be a good thing for charge. Also in melee I would argue, it is through that you are protected only on one side, but you are fully protected and can focus on the on the other. (not saying is the best but perhaps it makes some sense spear +big shield)
Foot soldiers:
well there are few reasons why I thing this could be a better shield than the round one. I believe there could be two reasons a) better protection against bows and crossbows(leg protection is an issue with the shield wall) and b) I would argue that the way you hold the shield is much better for combination with spear (you can rest your spear on the shield you are mostly protected if the enemy closes distance and in the shield wall you are always protected by the person standing next to you)
last theory is maybe a little stretch but it could be a reaction to Dane axe as the long axe could easily hook or cut your legs , now kite shield would offer a protection against that.
Mostly I believe it was shield spear combination (shield wall-which could be reaction to cavalry) and better arrow protection
In Bulgaria this kind of shield appeared around the beginning 1-th century, I think. The same time the Bulgarian cavalry (perhaps) declined. Madrid Skylitzes shows "kite" shields when describing things, that have happend in 9th century. But of cource, the manuscript was made in the 12th century. There are earlier manuscripts, that show the same shield though.
Out of curiosity, what is the gun in the background? Maybe it's been there before but this is the first time I've noticed it. Usually you only have swords hanging, so it caught my attention. Looks like some sort of carbine.
Jordan Hansen It's a British 1844 pattern cavalry carbine with Tower marks.
scholagladiatoria Thanks for responding! Sorry my question didn't have much to do with your topic.
I find it interesting that, on the Bayeux tapestry, the mounted normans are using the kite shield horizontally
I always wondered why it was called the 'Norman' kite shield. As far as I know, the Eastern Roman Empire (also known as the Byzantine Empire) used them first, transitioning their Skouton shields from an oval shape to a kite or teardrop shape. Heck, the grip the kite shield typically uses is an argive grip, a type of grip invented in Greece, which is pretty much the center of the Eastern Roman Empire at the time. With how much more widespread it is in the Eastern Roman Empire compared to the rest of Europe, perhaps it would be more accurate to call it the 'Byzantine' shield or the 'Eastern Roman' shield?
Sorry, I'm just rambling now. Oh well.
Sun Tzu has entire pages of the Art of War dedicated to the deployment of chariots and horsemen and that was written sometime around 500 B.C.
Can you do another more detailed video about why the Norman shield was made and why it became more popular for both standard infantry and cavalry units? And what specific advantages it has compared to other shields of the day.
would be very very interested in a video on mounted warriors in Vendel era Scandinavia
On the topic of shields: Why were a lot of shields around the world circles? It's something you see in Europe, but even more frequently in the Middle East and India. I'd love your take on this. Thanks!
+Decay and gets destroy by a dane axe
You have some new eyecandy on the wall. Of the boom stick type.
that base intro sound is so awesome
Matt, when you were talking before about the potential disadvantages of a long shield on horseback, I found myself thinking of the long, oval (seemingly boss-held) shields Roman cavalry are often pictured using. I'd be curious to see if you think there's any relation between the two, or if, for example, you think the boss-held long shield would be significantly different in its use.
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 coud 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)
Wow a riffle?! on the wall I mean. That's beautiful! Is it fully functional real riffle or just a replica/non-functional one?
Also it is quite off-topic, but in my opinion current sound of beginning clip is a bit too loud.
I've never heard that it was a cavalry shield. This is a first one on me. I know that some smaller shields that look like kite shields were used in cavalry, sure. You do see some cavalry with large kite shields, but just as you rightly say, all troops seem to use them, mostly infantry.
I think cavalry first appeared in around 800 BC, though domesticated equines existed thousands of years before then.
About on the whole kite vs round shield on horseback: wouldn't it be a major hassle to use a center grip shield while also grasping the reins? Maybe the cavalry round shields had straps instead of a grip? Other than that uncomfortable realization it's obvious to me that the kite shape should be an excellent infantry shield design
P.S. The sound seems better on the recordings in this room than the bigger living room:ish place where the previous video was shot. Not as echoey. Just my two kites
Matt, I liked your earlier video on this, although "cavalry managed without the kite shield for centuries" is not a strong argument because infantry also managed without it for centuries. The kite shield is less versatile than the centre grip shield. It has less reach than a centre grip shield and because it is strapped to your arm, it is less mobile. It can't be easy to close your inside line with it. I wonder if it is anything to do with a tendency for infantry working in organised units with a tighter shield wall fighting in a more disciplined way - perhaps with individual soldiers lacking the training to fight one on one with a centre grip shield in the old way? If you are going to stand in a line and use the shield as a barrier rather than as an active part of your "fencing", the longer less mobile shield may make more sense. I'm speculating. You're the expert.
I think the training of the soldiers might be a part of it, when rome was gone, the idea of a standing military and conscription faded with it i believe. So when your soldiers are less trained you might want to keep them in line, that kind of shield might help with it. On the other hand the less proficient you are with the center grip shield the less use of it's advantages over strapped shields you might make, bringing it down nearly to mere passive protection, which the strapped shield gives just as well as the center grip, yet the strapped shield might be less tiring.
Interestingly, there is ample evidence for extensive use of cavalry by the Welsh/ Britons who were in constant contact with the Anglo-Saxons prior to the Norman Conquest. It may be significant that the Welsh were slow to adopt the kite shield and continued to use round shields for the most part, well into the Norman period. Another one of these commonly repeated (even by good historians) myths in history is that the Welsh learned to use cavalry from the Normans. In reality, the cavalry tradition there can be traced the whole way back to pre Roman "Celtic" times.
Matt, history isn't about finding the truth, its about repeating lies until they are accepted as facts.
iopklmification Especially in government run schools
iopklmification It's crazy isn't it. There are people who believe there was a 'World War Two'! There are even so called 'photographs' of this made up event in so called 'history'.
iopklmification It's all right son, you're safe now. Tell me where the bad historian hurt you.
Nate Pendergraft Hey Nate! Lookee here at them fancy types wid their gubments and schools and their learning offa them books! But I knows what they're learning ta do. I'm wise to them, yessir, ya hear? They ain't gunna take ma guns no how!
Nate Pendergraft You think the history books that a private school uses are much better?
Perhaps the kite shield's usage, in relation to cavalry, had a bit to do with the currently used weapons? In the tapestry they seem to be using something closer to a spear than a lance, one that frequently seems to be hurled at the enemy. In that context (ha, did a Matt) a kite shield might be somewhat useful? Like a mounted version of the pavise?
That intro is 2spooky4me
Sallet How do I not know that you're a skeleton underneath that sallet, pretending to be a human with human fears?
deektedrgg A Dark Souls reference perhaps?
The idea of the kite shield being a cavalry shield seems refuted just by looking at the thing. It is shaped almost perfectly to cover one side of a man standing on foot. Chances are, if it's shaped with remarkable specificity to fit someone on foot, it's probably made for someone on foot.
Could you make a video with thoughts about advantages and disadvantages of kite shield + weapon against other combinations? Techniques preferred? I think there must be much guesswork but nevertheless. Some sparring shown? And data about the reconstruction, weight for example, and is there a real piece it's made after? How can the straps handle heavy blows, they look a bit tiny?
First of all, great video.
Watching you talk about kite shields reminded me a bit about what appears to be a smaller version used in Eastern Europe. I was wondering if you knew anything about these smaller versions that seem to always be depicted with medieval Rus or Slavic warriors. While the general shape seems to be similar, the Slavic shield shape has somewhat straighter sides (in some depictions) and seems to only cover from knee to shoulder, compared to the "Norman" style that covers from shoulder to about mid shin.
On a slightly unrelated note, I was also wondering you if you had any recommendations for where to buy a shield.
The bayeux tapestry was made in Normandy, I wonder IF THAT IS the kind of shield used by the Anglo-Saxons.....and you are forgetting the most important part, the couched lance, and kite shield, have no use with out stirrups. I have the feeling that couched lance and kite shield were developed as mounted troops began experiment with different tactics. Though we could be missing something altogether. Look at the fact that they go from a boss shield with great maneuverability, to a large shield that is very passive.
The Bayeux tapestry was made in Kent by Anglo-Saxon women. Stirrups were universally used by that time. Large shields are not necessarily passive: After throwing his Pila, a Roman legionary would charge with drawn sword, using his body-weight behind his scutum to knock his opponent off his feet or at least off-balance. You can use round or kite shields similarly as well as swiping or chopping with the edge & punching with them..
2bingtim It's cool that you brought up the roman scutum as I just got one. And I can tell you that even the big republican scutum with the hand grip in the middle is more maneuverable than the slightly smaller kite shield that uses enarms. It's all about the grip it would seem.
The argument that cavalry had been around for a very long time might not cut it, for the same reason that complex hand protection didn't develop earlier. The other arguments do seem valid. Have you ever seen someone try to switch the shield from one side of the horse to another? I might try that some time, if our horse allows :P
scholagladiatoria Thanks for another great video on my favourite shield - completely agree that it was best-suited as an infantry shield, and once again, sorry if I pissed you off via my comments in the spear sparring video: wasn't intended... :(
Another Great Video as always! very interesting and very informative!
Question: +scholagladiatoria what is the origins of the Gambison?
I pity future historians trying to reconstruct the usage of the revolver from Hollywood movies...
Primary sources have their uses, but I always treat them with great caution!
Matt, can you make a video about fighting a suicidal (crazy, mad, unpredictable, you name it) opponent? I think you mention this on some of your videos, but I couldn't find a video specifically about this
Lóránd-Tibor Konyelicska TL;DR You're fucked. Specially if you don't know he's suicidal.
Lóránd-Tibor Konyelicska I think if there was a way to fight such opponents, we would have won the war in Afghanistan nine years ago.
Lóránd-Tibor Konyelicska Crazy-mad? Like frothing angry? As my martial arts teacher put it, "anger is like a lens. A little bit focuses you. Too much blurs everything." You aren't making great tactical decisions when you get like this, you aren't fighting well, and too much tension in your muscles slows you down. There is a chance you overwhelm an opponent before they can react, but if they are decently compenent, your essentially fighting with a handicap.
So, about fighting him? Stay cool, stay calm, don't let the burst of aggression take you by surprise. He'll be fighting sloppy, so take advantage of the openings he leaves and take him out with good technique.
AlwaysAmazingSlyWit
Ahh, the Jedi way. It has served many a warrior-monk well indeed.
- I think the OP might be posting about the "suicidal" attacker, who goes on pure offence (with a sword) with no defensive maneuvers. Matt mentioned this style of attacking in passing with one of the British 18th/19th Century fencing manuals (or perhaps it was one of the "Swordsman of the British Empire" entries) - I think the general consensus was "you're screwed".
It's basically the double-kill scenario that traditional fencing instruction (with its emphasis on right-of-way as a way to emphasize dealing with an oncoming strike) was designed to avoid. However, if an opponent is willing to accept being cut through the neck if it means stabbing you in the chest, there's not a whole lot you can do about it. Except wear heavy armor, I suppose - that actually works just dandy vs. a number of weapons.
(So I suppose the comment was, again, with 19th century military saber - no plate armor for you! A shield would probably be pretty useful in this scenario, as well. )
That being said, if the skill level is different enough (and there's enough room to use strong distancing and lateral movement), I'd say it's certainly possible. Theoretically, there are also a couple of arm grapple techniques you could arguably use that can temporarily (ie, for a second or so) immobilize the attacker's arm and keep you from getting hit, and in theory let you get your own strike in. But that starts to get into dueling, rather than fighting techniques. And those are, frankly, low-probability techniques, compared to "slash a bunch and not care if you get hit".
Could it be that this type of shield was produced for lancers and javelin cavalry? Most lancers and javelin men did not engage in prolonged combat and would have most likely turned around to re arm after the initial impact. So the cavalryman would only need to present one side as the other side has his lance or his javelins, normans would also hold their lances overhand and could strike over their shields. when the rider turned around to ride away he would slip the shield onto his back and be safe from ranged weapons as he was riding away? This is pure speculation though.
1:13 "Cavalry had been around since men domesticated horses. Cavalry had been around forever."
Uh-oh.. Matt is a Young Earth creationist.
Priester Johannes yes their is a problem with denying confirmed scintific discoveries
Priester Johannes it wasnt proved the earth was flat their was no evidence of such thing it was just a hypothesis that made the most sense at the time
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 shield 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. Was it perhaps an evolution in response to applying tried and tested infantry refinements to a more strategic approach to the technicalities of applying the mutual defense of a shield wall to a mounted scenario ? That is not to say the kite would not be equally useful for foot formations. Equally... might the development of strapping and body harnessing have been to enable maintained solid shield positions, maintained mutual coverage, whilsty enable freer weapon use should the charge break the enemy formation... I stress,I do not know, but my 'I wonder' button got pressed.
A slightly aggressive but convincing Matt Easton in this one! ^^
Out of curiosity, someone talk to me about the difference between a Roman tower shield and a Norman kite shield. Specifically, I am interested in the reason as to why they would differ in their shape. Both are tall, presumably to protect the whole length of the body. But the tower shield was rectangular, whereas the kite shield was teardrop-shaped. Why? What is the practical fighting reason for the difference?
Andrew Forrest I was wondering along the same ideas myself.. To me the teardrop shape looks like an optimization. The teardrop shape is probably less restrictive to movement (less snagging your hand or weapon at the corners when fighting) and lighter (less material) than the square shield while still protecting much the same area. Probably it's better for shieldwalls of a more mobile and loose formation than the roman "testudo" formation.
Stein Gauslaa Strindhaug
Is it better for formations though? I would think the coverage of a tower shield would be far superior, offering no gaps in the wall.
Andrew Forrest
Possibly, a shield doesn't have to be very wide to be effective in protecting the wielder from melee attacks. A wide shield on the other hand is likely better at stopping incoming arrows, but such missiles probably don't come in much at knee/ankle height, so the width at the base of the shield is less important.
It's basically a compromise which results in a lighter shield, which is obviously important.
Ivan Harlokin
But what about the sharp angles? Just style or function?
Kite shields would make gaps in phalanx, that's why tower shields were used. Kite shields were used on horse to protect the riders off side, and is thin and long to protect leg while still being light
If I recall correctly weren't the Cataphracts of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byantine Empire) couching their lances back in the 7/8th century?
Hey Matt, this is a bit off topic, but it's a question I had on my mind:
Often at the beginning of HEMA tournaments or classes you see the practitioners greeting each other, i.e. raising the blade to the face or the heart (similar to the bowing in, say Jiu Jitsu or Iaido).
I wondered, if that actually derived from the treatises as a way of showing respect toward the teacher/instructor or (in case of a duel) the oponent, OR if it's simply a modern gesture.
Matt - You touched on this in the previous vid on the kite shield but I would be interested in your views on what you think the advantages of the round shield were vs the kite shield and the kite shield vs the round shield. Thanks.
"First off remember: Medieval history isn't only about England" Hahahahaha
My gods, i'm lmfao!
Nice video!
The first horses were no more than beasts of burden. They were not tall. It is easier to pack a bag of grain on a smaller "horse" than a "war horse". It wasn't that there were no horses in Europe at all, it was that there were no tall rideable war horses until the Norman Invasion. And if you look at the Bayeau Tapestry the soldiers were all wearing chain mail. It was the attacking side protection on horse back not the purpose of the shield. When you fight on horse back there is an attacking side and an exposed side. The exposed side is defended by the shield. And the tear drop shield serves two purposes. One to defend the entire body and two, it prevents the shield from shifting the the fighting side during battle and exposing a weakness. And yes it was also an infantrymen shield. A round shield is worthless on a horse. Your knee to your foot would be cut off. The kite shield was developed for the tall war horse. Thank you.
What do we know about kite shields from historic sources? Are there better sources than the Bayeux Tapestry for details about size, grip configuration, usage?
I don't know if this is even worth mentioning at this point, but I'm feeling chatty.
When I was a child, with a voracious appetite for all things medieval, dark ages, or fantasy, I of course found pictures of the kite shield. I don't recall ever reading a word about how the shield was supposed to have been used, but just by looking at it I figured it must be a cavalry shield. After all, wouldn't somebody on foot prefer to have a shield that protected both legs?
I don't feel that way anymore, and Matt's extremely sound arguments are a confirmation of my current belief.
Yay, the manuscript evidence I posted on your page! Finally contributing to this channel in a real way =),
I can see where the confusion might come from, since traditional historical dogma would say that one of the defining changes between the "dark ages" and the Medieval period was that heavy cavalry started to be used in combat in a big way for the first time.I wonder, would you say that that assumption is not particularly valid?
I'd imagine that the couched lance was used as far back as the stirrup existed.
Bitemis The stirrup is in no way a requirement for couching the lance. It helps, but is not necessary.
www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php
I'm just saying it'd be the only extra thing I'd want in order to be confident in the technique.
Hey matt, im a big fan of axes and im spesifically looking for two handed or dane axe combat. i cant seem to get my head around how they where used and there are so many contradicting arguments! do you have or will you do a video on them. would love to see something on axes in general.
I think you argued your-self out of this one (with respect, you are the best).
The kite shield doesnt provide much advantage to infantry compared to a round shield for the reasons you explained. But on a horse, where you cant move your leg out of the way and side step and stuff like that, seams to me a bigger shield, closer to me would be better.
Even reinforced with your butler exemple. How useful it can be in duels and, im assuming, how useless it would be for cavalry.
I can see a use for the considerable lenght of the kite shield ofr infantry: putting the shield down on the ground with the lower part while bracing for an incoming charge. While the grouns bears the weight of the shield the soldier might have an easier time dealing with the forward motion of the attackers, as he can put all of his strength and body weight into that direction.
I have a question, what will the kite shield be paired up with, will it most luckily be an arming sword/one-handed sword? Since large shields tend to be paired with swords that are smaller, and small shields tend to be paired up with large swords. Kinda like with the scutcum and gladius, and the sword and buckler.
good shield combined with spear for riding horse, excelent foot protection, can say this from experience of riding horses and bikes (:
*****
anglosaxons said the same to normans in 1066;
legs are weak points for raiders, and is just easy to imagine some infantery guys vs cavalerist, infanterists will try to avoid spear side, and easiest target for them will be cavalerist's legs (special left one)... but for town boys it must be complicated to understand
*****
also staying in apartment it's quite hard to get, that upper part of body it's quite mobile, and cana avoid a lot of dangerous moments, when leg is "fixed" ; gl
I always thought they made a smaller kite shield for cavalry
Matt, just a quick question, do you think that a kite shield is still usable as... well, a weapon? To elaborate: I have some expirience with boss-held shield and to me, at least in duel situation, is a handy thing to smack the opponent with, be it with the edge or the boss. Now, do you think that it is still feasable in strap-held shield (altough I think that a solid wooden or iron handle or at least two crossed straps at the front are better for handling)? And what about the point at the bottom of the shield?
Someone pointed out shields were useless because they were 30lbs and too heavy. I get down voted to hell for pointed out that shields that are not 30lbs and that of course its useless it was *facepalm*
So in training an army would you agree that the skill level, as a whole, could be lower with kite shields compared to other types. For example trying to teach someone new to protect your sword hand when you strike vs here's your big shield and keep it between you and the sharp things?
what would be the purpose of the boss on a strap shield, i understand with a handled shield it protects the hand while also allowing the handle to be "in" the shield rather than behind, and also can be used in a punching motion, but with a strap shield i cannot falthom what purpose it serves
I think it's just a vestidual boss from the round/oval center gripped shields. It is quite historically accurate though many, if not most, didn't have them. It certainly would reinforce that part of the shield where the hand or arm would lie behind.
Beautiful sabre above the caplock carbine. Looks too new to be an antique.
The problem with history books is that they tend to use quotes, of quotes, of quotes. If the initial interpretation is wrong, then so are what follows.
In actual combat would horsemen thrust with their couched lance while charging? I can see why just letting your weight push the spear would be great for unhorsing an opponent in a tournament, but it doesn't seem like it would be terribly effective at actually piercing armor.
What's the point of having a boss on a shield that's strapped on?
SanityVideo Possibly to strike with it?
Not sure honestly.
SanityVideo Stiking with it, or just plain decoration. You might argue it could deflect a blow running down the shield but that seems like a rare scenario.
SanityVideo Arrows maybe? It looks like it covers part of where the arm is strapped on.
SanityVideo In my opinion, there's little to no reason to have a boss on a kite, especially one with enarmes.
The boss is far less an offensive feature as it is a feature that allows the center gripped handle to sit close to the shield's center of gravity while still being protected (it provides a cavity for the fist to sit in). You don't need this on a center gripped kite (the only case where a boss might serve some purpose) as it's curve allows the handle to be further away while still being in the center of gravity.
SanityVideo It is probably vestigial for the most part, left over from the center-grip styles. Functionally it would provide a bit more protection against projectiles to help prevent them from piercing the shield (and consequently your arm).
+aleksandar ristic +Christian Poulsen
No, it was not for striking. First problem is the total lack of reach, asyou can only get the thing about elbow's distance from you. Second is targets, as due to the grip the most you are going to be able to hit is chest high meaning you are almost exclusively going to only be able to hit the opponent's shield (and if you can hit their body, why wouldn't you use your sword instead?). Thirdly is the near complete lack of damage, as due to the low range of motion the most you can expect to do is a push rather than any real damage. Fourthly, you have a sword/axe/spear/mace which is much better suited for the role of hitting things so if you are going to hit someone you might as well do it with the much more effective weapon.
Have you seen any shields of comparable size used as often on horseback as the kite shield?
Huh... the Matt Easton Hater Brigade seems to be slacking.
so Kite is better infantry shield than round shield in close formation
Do you guys call the remnant/successor of the Roman Empire the Byzantian Empire in Britain? Because we call it the Byzantine Empire in America.
+Ryan Caufmann Roman is far more accurate since they called themselves that.Even the Turks and previous Balkan nations called them Romans.
It does appear to be a fantastic shield for a footman. Why did it die out/what replaced it?
It seemed to be found a bit too large/long & became cut down to become the heater shield-the classic "shield" shape.(Square top with convex sides ending in a point at the bottom. Some heaters could be quite large, but generally they where smaller than kite shields.
IMO your original point - based on lack of practicality - already ended the argument. I've never held a shield in my life, but I did grow up around horses and have been riding them since I was 6 years old. Anyone who has ever been in a saddle would recognize that this shape of shield would not be ideal on a battlefield. Perhaps for "formal" jousting, where you always know from which direction the attack will come ... but AFAIK, even in that scenario they used a smaller shield of a more rectangular shape.
What is "The Original Tokyo Laundry"?
Can I get more info what is this couched lance?
is the kite shield the maximum size shields got
Dario Gonzalez No, the pavise is bigger and a lot heavier.
scholagladiatoria I believe the kite shield was a compromise between very good protection and cover vs cut weight due the tear form rather than full rectangle along with a much more wieldy shape?
+Grumpy Pirate I agree, I think the kite is one of the better shields for foot combat, beating the crap out of round & rectangular shields. The only exception would be very close order formations where oval or rectangular shields would be superior for covering yourself and the guy to your left.
+scholagladiatoria
Sorry to ask but do you have much experience riding a horse?
The Thing you all lack in your Videos about the Cavalry Shield is the Horse!
In your older Video you say you can't protect your right side with this shield and i can explain why you would not move your shield much at all.
First the horse. Lets assume modern horses have the same "primitive reflexes" as their ancestors, which means they react the same to certain situations. To ride a Horse into a Wall of Men you need a short tempered horse or it will just stop. And trust me if a Horse is frightend it will give a shit about what the rider wants. To be able to controle such a Horse you need to be a really good horseman. This leads to a vital point, you would never throw away the reins or you you would loose the last bit of control you would have. But to use the shield effective you would need to put them out of your hands or you would give your horse false commands. Let me give you an example: You are beeing attacked from the right side, for which reasen you decide not to block with your sword but with your shield (Roundshield) you turn your upper boddy and your left arm to cover your side. In this Moment you rein pulls so hard on the snaffle that your horse will turn hard to the right and the blow your triying to block with your shield will hit in the worst case your horse. So in my Opinion a cavalryman in a crowded battle wouldn't fight the enemy on his protected side but on his armed side. Which makes the teardrop shield a perfect shield for cavalry, cause it protects the Hand with the reins and your complete side allowing you to concentrate on the opponent you are trying to kill with optimum control of your horse.
Sincerely Markus
Are there any shops that sell such a thing?
My understanding is that the Normans were primarily mounted infantry anyway, no? So the idea that they brought in the kite shield to serve as a *cavalry* shield when they weren't cavalrymen themselves seems a bit backward.
correlation doesn't imply causation
+The Captain It does imply causation, just not the direction and it also doesn't factor in mediation and moderation.