As a medieval reenactor and a horseman who is practeicing mounted combat and who has done quite a lot of sparring from horseback i can tell that moving your shield to the other side of your body is very impractical. As you point out, moving your horse around is far better solution. The shields that i use and that most likely was used during the medieval era is to be strapped on your arm in a way that dose not prohibit the use of rains in any way. The other side can be rather effectively protected with a sword from any infantry attack. From arrows the sword offers little protection but then again the shield would not cover the horse anyway so retreat would be the best strategy anyway.
I was trying to use a kite shield for some shots on a movie while galloping. However I had no protection on the knee and the shield kept bashing me on it. Had to do the scenes with only the sword. How to you prevent the shield from hurting you? Armor and padding on the leg? Some padding on the shield?
@@tiagodacruz2484 To loose straps maybe? If you are able to sit in the saddle and follow the horses movements with the seat, then the shield should not flop to much about. But as you suggested, padding on your knee would be a simple fix.
The best knights indeed did need no reins to direct their destriers. After having trained one for eleven years, I can confirm that. The more you are able to set the animal into the perfect balance, the less you really need reins. You do 90 % via subtle weight shifts to do all these intricate movements you need to do in tight battle situations. Your horse really needs to full acknowledge the rider's leadership and trust him, otherwise even the fiercest bit will be of no use to stop him from running in panic. You can give very strict aids with your seat. One of the masters that taught me said "You can place 50 different signals between your lower legs." Yes, that is true (and not easy to learn).That is why I think it is basically quite possible to swing a shield over the horse's head (of course it is good to train the situation, makes things easier) and to let go of the reins. After the maneouver, you can pick up the reins again.By the way: Your horse is really funny. I laughed a lot about you two.
I know this comment was made a year ago but this topic greatly interests me and I have a question. You say an experienced knight wouldn't need reins or would at least need them less. That makes perfect sense. What I would like to know is if such an experienced knight would also need to be familiar with his horse. I would assume that horse casualties were far more common than knight casualties. Say there was an experienced knight who could command his horse exceptionally well without reins but that horse died in battle and he had to buy a new horse. Would he be able to direct his new horse without reins or would he have to take the time to train his new horse to respond to him? If he did have to train his new horse approximately how long would that take? If you take the time to answer this I would greatly appreciate it.
@@jasonhood8672, Generally speaking, if you can ride one horse without reins you can ride any horse without reins. While it would vary horse to horse and rider to rider because all are different, you would be able to hop on a new horse rather quickly and be able to do what you would on your own horse. You would, of course, need to learn how to move with this horse and learn how to work with this particular horse, but an experienced rider would be able to figure it out rather quickly. If you want to know more about it from a horseman check out the Modern History TV channel. He is a reenactor that specifically trains horses for medieval battles.
All you have to do is roll it over. That's all. Another technique would be to spin the shield upside down, first, then flop it over. I think the first method would be quicker, though.
I could never do what you just did on camera. But I can admit publicly that I do put on my chainmail and ride a fake horse in the privacy of my own home... with the doors locked and the portcullis dropped.... with the draw bridge up... and ummm.... a 100 metre moat dug around my house filled with water and laser sharks.... and a warding spell put up so people cannot spy on me using sorcery.
It's worth remembering that most organize mounted warfare was formation-based. Knights charge in a line, cataphracts charge in a wedge, etc. In each of those cases, you get much the same effect as an infantry shield wall - each man protects his left, but also the right of the man to his side. It was at least partly for this reason that charges didn't necessarily happen at the gallop, since formations fall apart very quickly when the horses are allowed to run flat-out. I do wonder about the "Norman" label. It may be a case of parallel evolution, but I have always associated the kite pattern more with the medieval Romans (Byzantines) than with the Normans.
I have ridden on an off since I was 7 years old. I have ridden and competed in both English (dressage and show jumping) and Western (Pleasure, reigning and trail). English riding need not have the reins far apart. In fact, with very little tugs, the reins can turn a horse. One trick is to slightly rotate the rein in hand, the horse turns. In Western, reining via putting one or other rein on the horse's neck is effective and a technique. In advanced techniques, it tends to be done with one hand, and split reins. My horse, when I owned one until I gave him up upon becoming a father, was trained in both traditions. I also had him trained to respond to leg commands, which he did instantly, being well trained. By squeezing the calf of the right leg, he would turn to the desired degree. You don't control the horse with the reins as much as you communicate with it. The same goes with legs. I once rode one of the top Western horses in my country, a quarter horse cross which won at nationals. It was trained to do everything based on where the rider placed their weight on the saddle. It ran off with me right to a tree branch. I stayed on as it cantered or galloped off. It had been trained to do everything not based on reins but on how the rider distributed their weight. I got it to stop by sitting back. If I wanted to turn left or right, this would be achieved by leaning in those directions. My own horse at the time was also trained to slow down or stop upon my sitting down (I was already seated, it refers to placing your weight at the back of the saddle) further into the saddle. He was also trained to turn on the spot among other things. The trick in pleasure is to pretend you are in no way communicating with the horse. Movements have to be subtle. Interesting and entertaining video, though. That said, spinning the horse to get the arrow on the shield would be much faster than moving the shield manually. When riding, horse and rider become one, and lifting a shield over a horse's head is likely to spook it.
Shad, I've been riding on my own (as opposed to riding with a parent) since I was 3 years old. This includes mounted sparring, so I feel I can speak with a little bit of authority. You were close when you talked about dropping the reins. As a mounted archer, I do drop my reins when shooting my bow. I also drop them when using my bullwhip, bolos, or even eating a sandwich. You were also spot on when you described the differences between neck reining and plow reining. Excellent explanation. However, one method of steering steeds you did not mention was Leg Pressure. Note that this is LEG pressure, not KNEE pressure. Knee pressure is a myth. To illustrate, get in the good old "Horse Stance" from martial arts. Now, try to push in with your knee. Hard, because you need the horse to feel that pressure through your armor, through the saddle, and so forth. Ain't happening, is it? Now, seated on the back of your noble steed, use your heel against his ribs to make him turn. Trained, a horse will move away from the pressure. By varying the position from closer to the horse's shoulders to closer to his flanks, you can cause the horse to move his front end, back end, or even step sideways (sidepassing). This is what spurs are for: not just making the horse go forwards, but left and right in various modes as well. Shifting your weight and giving the verbal command, "Whoa!" can also be used to make the horse stop (assuming, again, he's trained to do this) I hope that helps some. If you ever make it to America, please feel free to visit. You can try out my mounted archery horse...whose name, ironically enough, is also Shad... in the meantime, if you are ever in Sydney, look up my friend Rob Tegruzzio of Workhorse Forge, and tell him you heard about "Jimmy." He can give you a good idea of what it's like to work with a descendant of actual warhorses.
I don't have experience in mounted combat, but I ride a lot, and have played polocrosse (mounted lacrosse: highly recommend, Awesome!) and it is possible to A) plough rein efficiently using one hand just by shortening reins, and B) control reins with a hand which is holding something else, so if you had to switch your shield over you could still control your horse with the hand your sword is in. Additionally, you wouldn't have as much of a problem swapping a kite shield over as you did in the video, as the horse's neck would usually be quite a bit lower down, although with the pointed rim of the kite shield you might have to take quite a bit of care not to jab your horse in the ribs, but emphasis on the fact that this is just from my knowledge of modern sport riding
Trained horses can be quite responsive to pressing only your leg to one side of the horse to turn into that specific direction. Also Trained horses would be able to automatically run parallel to troops at a specific speed without you even having to use the reins if you trained it to react that way. I have show horses and one thing we do for fun during the horse shows is an obstacle course. I have practiced homemade courses at home so when we get to the show the horse can almost do all of it on its own with minimal direction from the rider. You are not wrong, I just thing you are putting to much emphases on reins. Even leaning into the saddle with a leg press can make a horse do circles. Anyways love your channel. Keep up the good work! You should do a video with you jousting with Frederik the horse haha!!!
The diagonal grip idea holds a lot of merit. Also, the horse does not really know if the reign or the shield is touching is neck, it just doesn't want to run into something it didn't see while it's running so it will turn away from anything touching it's neck. This is how a herd of wild horses can seem to all turn in unison even when a threat comes from a flank.
During the time of the norman conquest alot of the cavelry would have used kite sheilds, however I dont agree that it would be so hard to move a lance to the other side of the horse because the norman cavelry (don't know about elswere in europe at this time) held there lances overhand, so you would jab the lance as aposed to big under hand thrusts. This also meant that the lance could be raised above the head of the horse and your own head, you could theoreticaly jab a man on the ground to finnish him off.
you can train your horse using dressage. I've used this with driving cattle. shifting your weight in the saddle and tilting it to one side is what we would use to signal left or right.
I think your point about having the shield strapped on a diagonal whilst upon horse-back is spot on. If you look at the Bayeux Tapestry you can see the shields (of the cavalrymen) sitting at a roughly 45 degree angle which would support your point.
11:10 Thats a solid point. Moving your entire horse its a great response to arrow fire because the side of the horse is A MUCH BIGGER TARGET than the horse looking at you. Remember that your horse is still a living being, and its life its worth preserving as well. So, by doing that, not only you get in a position where you can protect yourself with your shield, you are protecting your horse ASWELL. Im not a native english speaker, apollogy for language butchering. Keep up the good work.
What does it say in the rectangle on the horse's right flank? Are there any kite shields on the right on Bayeux? Could you upload a version with the irreverent bits cut out? This video is over 20 minutes long & I want all of those minutes to count.
The odd thought I keep coming up with is why some form of Kite shield in the old west? Maybe it wouldn't protect from bullets, but arrows could probably be stopped. Plus it could be used for shelter in some form.
@Shad, The Bayeux tapestry shows several knights riding with the points of their kite shields turned behind them instead of down. Doing it that way eliminates the problem of the point impacting the horse's neck when shifting the shield from one side to the other. With the point turned behind, the kite shield can then be maneuvered in the saddle like a round shield. Granted, the problem you brought up regarding the need to drop the reins would stiill be an issue. A horse that has been trained to respond to spur and knee commands will still be responsive however. Given that fact, I'm not sure that the advantage of holding onto the reins outweighs the disadvantage of being turned into a pin cushion by enemy archers loosing arrows from the right side.
10/10 for acting!! :P RIP frederick! certainly some good points, regarding neck reining, iv not done that since i was like 6.. i found it pretty annoying, like the 'plow' kinda crap, i mean.. its good if your more new to riding, however, once you know how to properly use a curb bit with a horse, which allot of the bits from the medieval era iv seen are, you really do not have to have much if any contact on the reins.. however my area of interest is the 2nd half of the 15th C.. so riders would often be well armoured, and have a small shield such as a small pavise type, or eranche type, so the left hand side would typicaly be protected, and the right side could possibly handle the strike coming in from the right hand side.. particularly as the body is seen facing the oponent in parts of treatises, also, lances are often rebatted aside, by swords, small crudgles thingies? [idk what fiore was smoking], and even lances.. and when it is shown, the dropping of the reins seems to be more of a choice when you want to disarm your oponent and grapple.. and actualy on the horn, so they could still be easily grabbed.. however that does fall under the guise of which all art depicting combat should fall upon, however it is from treatises meant to be detailed and with the help of the master or anyone trained with him enough, be able to teach people.. personaly im fine with dropping the reins, as they work with leg work to communicate with the horse, and if im set up to drop them, i will do so, and to be fair, im often used to riding for hours on end each day, you will need to scratch itches, drink, eat.. and if you do trickriding, dropping the reigns isnt something completely alien.. probably where i get it from but idk.. when doing stunts, im often going at a canter, however when fencing, its much more at an amble.. idk.. one of my friends, tuuli had a blog post about it and i cant find a link now.. so really.. idk.. i still would not use a kite shield over a heater.. but thats me.. however.. i should really shut up and go to sleep lol.. ill reply more of my thoughts tomorrow [technicaly tonight as its 7 am here lol]
EVILBARBARIANIMPALER Awesome man, thanks heaps for sharing your insights.Yeah, armor added to horse and shield combat really mixes things up. I'm glad you enjoyed the gags, they really cracked me up.
Since you mentioned trick riding, I don't see why a knight couldn't just lean/hang and bring the shield over as far as possible in an emergency. So if he needed cover on his right side, he could bring the shield half way to his right and hang his body to the left. Obviously this would be an emergency tactic and turning the horse would be far more practical.
Regardless of weather the shield has a central boss or is strapped, you could have a very long shoulder strap used for transport. You could put the strap on and If someone wanted to shoot you, you could swing the shield onto your back, or around your back to your right while still holding the reigns.
As for blocking lances (hope I can post instuctive video here), these russians seem to do some experimenting this year in what Id call lance fencing and its really impressive (they have loads of other interesting videos, some of them show, at least to me, why it would be pointless to try and get the shield to the other side, as unless pursued by other cavalrymen, its allways easy and simple to turn a horse to present shielded, or whichever side needed to the enemy - especially looking at their mounted sword vs sword duelling and maneuver patterns) Nevertheless the main point is - lance can be parried by another lance: ua-cam.com/video/HI8vCZGWa0k/v-deo.html After more carefull examination it also shows points discussed here - the ones about rein usage while holding shield. This french group also has many similar videos worth watching: ua-cam.com/video/WEE7j9czmCU/v-deo.html Here some points might be of interest regarding especially norman part of presentation - kite shields not held in hands, but strapped around neck and shoulders in some participants and shown horse to horse duel once again showing it wasnt complicated to hold desired side of a horse presented to the enemy. As for going against arrows - well in no case can horse be protected by anything else, than distance, unpredictable movement pattern and maybe terrain obstacles, so no shield will protect it that much more, or less - Id say there isnt really much dispute - there are great areas on unarmoured horse, that nothing can protect from well placed arrow. Better stay away and attack, where they cant concentrate too much firepower. At least in my opinion it takes minimally two riders to eliminate single longbowman, so in small engagements they really need some numerical advantage and willingness to sacrifice horses, in great battles, matter might be different due to easier ability to achieve local numerical superiority, so that unless they attack line of archers head on, only little fire can be brought forward before contact. This one is la garrocha training by Jesus Morales: ua-cam.com/video/fgYq7kq77rk/v-deo.html Hope I see it correctly, he isnt even using reins, at least in some instances, where his hand is clearly shown resting on his hip, sure these are propably learned and repetitive movement for a horse, nevertheless, I firmly believe, leaving a little freedom to a horse to become a partner, rather than vehicle might ease out things for a rider, especially in close combat, so that he only corrects a horse, when he needs to, so whole problem of reins vs no reins fall off. For me it also shows (along with videos above) why horses feet arent really such an easy target as sometimes portrayed: - its something different to hit them while horse is standing still having all the time and peace in the world to prepare perfectly alinged strike and to hit them on a horse jumping around that can clear great distance in, or out of range as needed - theres another man on a horse with a weapon able to hit his opponent, while he tryes to lob striked down, he really needs to adress this before he manages to do anything to horses feet. Id also speculate, that rider can lean from the saddle, which should work the same as holding shield up close to the body vs presenting it to the front with hand stretched out, so that smaller shield further forward offers much more protection by reducing possible angles of attacks and in this case also increasing his reach from horses silhouette, so once again he need to be adressed first before any strikes against the horse itself can be made.
Jaroslav Kravčák Hey mate thanks heaps for sharing this. I've had a look at those videos and they were great. I feel you points about cavalry and arrow fire and close range attacks to the horse are spot on. Thanks again.
I have to add, the fact that Heater shields are a lot more sturdy is also making them better suited for dealing with lance charges. Along with speed of switching side in case of emergency.
When I was younger and I was doing lesson of horseback riding, I rode a horse that was trained to be ridden without a rein. Once you get used to the technique it works really well but from what I understand I takes a certain type of personality for the horse to be receptive to the training. You see, some horse are highly sensible on their belly, you don't use spurs on them! But they can feel very precise movement of your feet thus making it possible to ride without rein. Some are just though SOB that requires spurs and force. That being said, turning your horse around is a far better solution.
According to the instructing knight was instructing Miles Falworth, on how to control/direct the horse in combat in the movie "The Black Shield of Falworth" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Shield_of_Falworth), using "knees & spurs will tell the horse what you want him to do".
A trip to The Spanish Riding School in Viena, Austria maybe an idea to see war horses in action. Every above the air moves the Lippanzan horses make was used in mounted combat.
You really only have two types of bits...snaffle bit which is either a round ring bit of various sizes or a D ring snaffle. Snaffle bits are jointed in the middle (the part that goes into the horse's mouth). Curb bits are a solid mouth piece attached to various sized bars. The top part which is attached to the bridle and the reins go on the bottom of the bar. Curb bits usually have an upward curve on the middle of the mouth piece. Sometimes the mouth piece is a straight bar. You plow rein with snaffle bits and neck rein with curb bits (think racehorses and cowboy horses).
For the even when you surrounded and have to worry about melee attacks on a horse, you can direct your horse to kick while you are attacking. They aren't just a extra set of legs to manuever and weight in a charge, they are also a extra set of teeth and hoofs that can knock people over.
In theory no reins is possible. Depending on the characteristics of the horse, it’s experience in battle and level of training. I am currently training a re-enactment horse and as it is so sensitive to voice/seat/human on ground presence and absence I can actually discard them from time to time at any speed. Especially as it is trained to MAINTAIN a certain speed until told otherwise. However I haven’t attempted this yet in armour as I am only just now learning everything and combining my knowledge in training with the fabulous knowledge of a reenactor
Shad, I love your videos and think they’re awesome, but I’ve got one thing I’d like to add to this one. If you have reins which are connected behind the horse’s head it’s nearly impossible to avoid turning the horse if the hand holding the reins isn’t positioned in the center. However if the reins are split into two separate lengths of leather behind the horse’s head the rider can extend one length by giving one side slack. This would allow equal pressure to be applied on either side of the horse’s neck avoiding unintentionally turning the horse. This could be done with connected reins but it would be more difficult. I am speaking from the experience I’ve had on my family’s ranch so I’ve no idea if this was historical practice. Thanks for hearing me out and again, I love your channel thanks for making such great videos.
+Shadiversity You kind of missing a huge part of the kite shield. And that is the existing iconography of the kite shield. First I believe the most commonly depict it with four straps in a square or diamond configuration. That allow holding it in much bigger variety then you make it sound. Secondly, and this is the biggie. You competently forgot about the shoulder strap. (one or two so it could also be worn like a backpack.) which allows you to hang the shield on your shoulder or your back and free up both of your hands. And that is what knights on horse did most of the time.
Looking at the way you hold it the shield the end and at the Bateux tapestry I couldn't get rid of the thought that it's protecting not the rider's legs but the back of the horse! And also had immediate urge to organize the experiment with archer shooting at the rider checking where the arrows land. Of course the weak part is that probably a lot of them will land in the horse neck.
fizikshizik Hey this is a great point. The Kite shield was certainly used to protect the rider and the horse when riding away from an enemy with the shield slung over the back.
Don't forget you would have leg armour so when riding a slight compromise by the shield tilting back would not be a great concern. You are only in transit at the time, once in combat chaos none of these slight variations in details will be a contributing factor to the outcome.
The main advantage to having a mounted rider is speed. Speed gives you a greater ability to evade rather then attempting to parry or block. If you're mounted, you wouldn't stop your mount, because then you've discarded your speed advantage. Probably the greatest threat to a mounted soldier is either large quantities of arrows (battle of Agincourt), or spears/barriers (because horses tend to get skittish if you make them charge at a spike or a wall.) I don't see much value in bothering with flipping your shield to the other side of your mount, since this basically makes the main job of your shield being to defend you from above, and since you should be moving fast enough that specific threats can be evaded rather then directly blocked. Alternatively, mounts give you the advantage of deploying troops to specific areas of a field on shorter notice, or to pursue troops in a route, making the prospect of losing a fight more costly, and thus giving you some level of brinkmanship. On another note, it is suspected that the kite shield was developed specifically for horseman to supplement leg armor. Conversely, the heater shield is suspected of being developed after full plate leggings made having a shield hanging that low become somewhat redundant. Just my thoughts. Feel free to add to these or correct me.
About arrowfire: most probably it will arrive from front of you, if you attack infantry. So if your horse is protected, then you just move your shield to protect your upper body. If you are fighting against cavalry archers, then the formation will be your protection. Thats how the knights won over hungarian cavalry archers at battle of Riade. On melee combat, then thats why you have crossguards on your sword: that help you protect your right (dominant) side. And your armor.
Okay, for the lengths you went to for this video, you've earned another subscriber. Sure, it was a little silly, but the prop did help demonstrate your point.
There seems to be many types of strap configurations on how to hold the shield. It seems that horsemen had a fist down method. Hold your hands to your side and make a fist. That's how you hold the shield on horseback. There is a support strap for your upper arm and a handle. It's much easier to move the shield over the horse that way. fc00.deviantart.net/fs12/i/2006/305/a/b/Norman_Shield_by_katsutoshi.jpg The bottom leather piece is the handle while the top piece is the shoulder strap and arm support.
Most of my decent experience with horses come from polo, which i feel is probably one of the closest modern representations of mounted combat that does not involve actual weapons. Polo is played with neck reigns which would support your point because neck reigning is the obvious choice for one handed riding. Also in a gallop you would greatly struggle to regain control of the reigns because they would be flying everywhere and i feel that maybe if there were arrows coming in you would probably not be in melee combat so you could afford to just for a few seconds swap the reigns to your other hand with your weapon. i would assume that just as in polo when doing a swing with your weapon you would be in a half seat opposed to regular seat. this makes you more stable but it would be much harder to pass the shield from one side to the other. because the horses head is closer to you. so maybe when changing your shield position you might actually change seat to give you far more room. In addition i believe the kite shield would be by far the best shield because i doubt that in melee combat you would be all that worried about arrows and moving your shield would probably be a hindrance so all parrying would be done with a sword or other side weapon if possible. because of increased manoeuvrability. if you had a small convex shield this might not be so but then your shield would be less use against archers which would be a more important use of said shield so a kite wold cover more of you and therefore be better against missile attack.
The thing that always makes me sceptical about the idea that the kite shield was developed especially for cavalry is the fact that if it was used as most people describe it (point protecting the offhand leg) then it would seem to me to make attacking infantry much more difficult. If you are attacking a man on your left (assuming you are right handed) than you will generally have to lean down to one degree of another depending on the weapon you are using in order to attack them. If you have the big kite shield point sticking out the bottom, in order for you to lean down you will have to tip the top of your shield away from your body creating more of an opening for attacks to your torso. Conversely, with a round shield you can lean over as much as you want keeping the shield close to your body while still pointing it downwards which is where the attacks will be coming from. The above is with a horizontally strapped shield though. I can imagine that if you used it diagonally or vertically so that the bottom of the shield pointed backwards more it would be less of an issue. However, to me this seems like evidence that the kite wasn't originally intended as a cavalry shield, this was just a way in which you could use it to make it better in this role.
Don't know... No reins in hell! In this very situation, surrounded by a lot of enemies on the battlefield, war horses were trained not only to fearless engage enemie's phanax/lines, but also to - attack by themselves and - obey commands sent by the legs only. That's one of the same reasons that war horses were so expensive, and war saddles had front and back "guard" borders, to help you to move a lot with less risk of just falling down after receiving a "nice" stroke. Furthermore, the kite shield offer a nice extra protection to the legs, for the case you are distracted slaying a bastard in the other side. Besides that, unless you are worried about arrows, the sword's hand side has the sword itself, which can provide all the defense you need - if the knight do not skip that class. In case of really need to move the shield to the the other side, the crinet would help to not hit and hurt the horse's neck.
I can't speak for all riding styles, but in Spanish and English riding, your legs, reigns, and voice communicate to the horse, and in that order. in english, the reigns are considered something along the lines as a "Okay legs aren't getting through to the horse, directing his head will help him understand." What you're describing in reigning comes from Western style; American style riding. it's different for European styles. the reigns are much tighter around the horse and you move them only tiny bits.
You are very right with using reigns.. But you forget the horses are selected and trained to this end. a battle will more often than not startle and scare any normal horse but a warhorse (worth a lot more than a average horse). so when you put a rider with a horse that's been trained for purpose he has good control of the horse. allowing them to use their hand for fighting and even using bows :)
Well...with a kite shield, they protect you from your lower face, to your ankle pretty much, and the slight angle from the straps, would angle it to not interfere with riding, but still cover the same area, with more over your chest. And they can't hit you lances from the side, unless a formation and get up to a gallop in the wide open and charge you without noticing. Plus the limitations of their own shields and using lances like you. You both can only do the same things. From what I've seen, they would hit with lances, with the kite shield covering them, from arrows and other lances, then because they used guige straps, would move it to cover their backs after they hit and were returning to their lines to re-lance, and the shield would then protect their backs. And no one could hit you on the right side, unless you let them, or you were down to swords against other calvary, but then you had your own sword out to defend that side along with attacking. And your shield on the other.
So you wouldn't move a shield over, plus you can't use your weapon. Calvary is a shock force, hit. Pull back and repeat. You're mobile, just move your horse to meet/attack the threat. Besides wouldn't you walk/canter till just before you were in bow/crossbow range. Then work to a gallop to cross the kill zone as quick as possible?
7:17 The reins don't just help in directing your horse on a battlefield, they also allow you to retain control if it is "spooked" by something nearby or even wounded. I think in most situations you'd want the extra control they offer simply because war is unpredictable so you don't know what might happen next and you'd want to avoid losing control of your mount or even worse, being thrown! However, once a cavalier was engaged in melee combat with other cavalry or infantry they'd need both hands to fight so would have to relinquish control of the reins, albeit temporarily. Hence, I think they probably did train to fight without holding the reins but would've maintained their grip as much as possible, while not in combat . I suspect the heater (iron) shield became popular because it was a compromise between the round and kite shield, being more protective than the former but more maneuverable than the latter. Also, as armor improved cavaliers would increasing wear greaves over their mail leggings and eventually full plate, obviating the need to carry a full-length shield like the kite shield.
it's not a big deal to let go of the reins for a moment or two and then quickly grab them back, also you can let them hang on your arm for a while, and you are kinda still able to operate the horse with reins hanging on your arm, though much less accurately of course. But if you desperately need to cover your other side with a shield, you can definitely do it. Reins are not a problem here. Well, I'm not a proficient rider in any way, but I've had some little experience, a few years as a kid and a few more times recently. Also, you don't need the most accurate use of reins all the time, you need to turn - you can even grab one side of the reins with your [weapon] hand, or with just its thumb, and pull a little. There are plenty of little improvised things you can do, my point is - it's not a huge problem. And of course there's no need at all to keep your reins hand in the centre, you can adjust the length of both reins' sides and hold them asymmetrically.
Some historians say that knights had really good control of their horses, so turning would be easy instead of changing the shield direction itself. However, the purpose of cavalry wasn't to engage in hand to hand. In hand to hand, the guy on foot would just attack the horse and win. Cavalry won by charging, but they could turn their horse about with a kite shield, when being pelted by arrows, I guess?en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destrier#/media/File:Matthew_Paris_-_William_Marshal.jpg - Kind of strange, but the pic makes it look like the shield is hanging around the rider's neck. :P
Roman cavalry (maybe more the auxiliaries) used a centre grip, flat, oblong shield on horseback. That means they had to do the neck-reining using a centre grip shield, with the added complication of having no stirrups... I think we can only safely conclude that big shields were used on horseback with a huge amount of practice!!
You never mentioned one of the important pieces of kit utilized in mounted combat as well as being mounted in general, and that is a good set of spurs.
I think the kite shield is perfectly suitable for Norman cavalry. One uses it fixed on one side of the horse to protect the side of the non dominant hand. Arm slipped through the straps, hand holding the reins. Dominant hand for lance / sword. Cavalry isn't intended to get bogged down in static mellee; instead it's in and out.
+Iggytommy I agree. Most people commenting tend to be influenced by infantry fighting. The Spanish conquistadors in the new world much later describe attacking in tight waves, striking and withdrawing to avoid being overwhelmed.
The best part of this is when Shad walks from one side of the room to the other and does that silly waddle thing because he can’t put his legs together
The Normans knights during the final part of charge against the infantry used, as more as possible, to bend on the left of the horse (on the right if left-handed); in this way the spear was between the kite shield and the horse's neck, so they had a clearence of good vision line too. Also during the charge against other mounted warriors they tried their best to avoid that the pole could hit the horse's head. This was a problem with the plate armours during the late Middle Ages, anyway the best models still permitted to move on the hips. I am sad when I see in each historical or fantasy movie the mounted warriors charging perfectly perpendicular to the soil :(
I used to own a Anglo-Arabian Gelding, and he could be controlled using the legs, toes and heels. The only times I really needed the Reigns was when he stubbornly wanted to do something or go somewhere I didn't. A war horse would probably be even better trained, responding to leaning left or right for turning, or leaning back to slow down. I don't believe there would be any need to move the shield to the other side. If you are facing another cavalryman your sword will be your defence a you pass by (Cavalry are weapons of motion). If that is not possible, or you are in the middle of a melee, then the horse should be turned. If you are being shot at from your right side by an archer, then kick the horse into a gallop. Your speed will be your defence. Archers are probably aiming at your horse anyway (I would be, larger target). Turning completely around to bring your shield to face your opponent would also end your charge and in fact, turn it into a retreat.Numidian Cavalry famously controlled their horses with Neither reigns nor bridles. I love your channel, but here you are riding a dead horse.
if the charge is going in one direction, why would then the arrowfire be coming from the side like that? I get that having multible positions to try to flank the enemy would be good but if you are being shot from the side like that I see it as you are already in CQB and the enemy would then be shooting at their own as well. (was that ever done? shooting at the battlefield were both sides were fighting.)
Isn't a heater shield thicker than a kite shield? If it is, could that thickness correspond to the increased impact force from lances and other such weapons? Might the shield be intended as something of a bumper to save a knight from blunt force trauma while they're in a gallop?
Brainfart: Could the reins in some way be attached to the body of the rider so the rider could give directions with his torso? That way the shield hand is more open to such overhead maneuvers.
If you are subjected to arrow fire, chances are you are not (yet) engaged in melée. You might also be in a formation of sorts. I think it would in that case be a good idea _not_ to change directions, because presumeably you were on your way somewhere important, like a cavalry attack. And as cavalry are usually supported by infantry, if you start changing directions according to missile fire you are liable to halt the entire offensive dead in its tracks and confuse everybody. And what if some were to change direction, but others not? And how fast are you changing directions? Are you making a turn, or are you coming to a halt in order to turn more tightly? Either way, unless all the riders do the same thing, it's not good formation-sense. So move your shield to where it needs to be, and drop the reins to prevent the horse from changing directions (because I don't see why you would want to change directions if you had already made up your mind to go to a certain spot - no doubt you had a good reason for heading there in the first place). That's what I think, anyway. I never rode a horse in my life, myself. As for strapping the kite shield on obliquely, this would probably be more comfortable with the reins and everything, but it would mean that it no longer protects your leg. And indeed, the Bayeux tapestry shows exactly this, that the riders's legs are not protected by the shield.
Gilmaris Well most of these points consider individual riders and their ability to move around, so its true it has no direct bearing to whole formations. Yes thats quite sensible, to let go of reins and simply move the shield around, where it needs to be to face immediate danger, while in formation, but in such a situation it might very well be pointless. If subjected to the volley of arrows, unless going square from the right side, moving shield to the other side might not offer improved protection and horse is still number one target to be hit and injured, so after maybe blocking an arrow its still better to run away from such a place in my eyes, if somehow surprized by flanking fire to the right. As for non gunpowder missile weapons, they shouldnt be that deadly across vast distances. I dont think horsemen armed with lances generally charged in huge monolithic block many ranks deep, they either formed very shallow lines (or en haye - mostly two, or one rank deep, most propably still segmented with intervals), or rather small blocks. Hitting either of them at distances above lets say 100 metres would mean almost no arrows hit desired target in first place and apart from psychological impact of the rain of arrows damage would be only a fraction of what would happen, if archers loosed several volleys starting from maybe 50 metres. So suddenly running into devastating archer fire would generally be the cause of misjudgement and neglect of scouting ahead. Id say there is an abundance of examples to show, that charges straight into full frontal volley of missiles would do badly and are rather a product of misjudgement on commanders part. So invariably, being shot at would by itself halt the charge and make sensible enemy cavalry turn and run away. Same for standing still - no point in that, theres nothing to protect stationary horses, which are big, static targets to hit. So to disperse archers, they need to hit them, when they dont have time to respond to it. As for cavalry charges in non-gunpowder era untill maybe 18th century, when rapid musketry would make it hard to pull off, they would be going slow to preserve order and only hitting full speed few tens of metres before the enemy to conserve energy for fight, pursuit, or retreat, so if shot at from the distance, should have time to decide what to do. Apart from retreat, they could detach part of the wing to face a new threat and disperse archers, while others moved on. As for strapping the shield - Id say they had both options available - strapped around shoulder, or to the hand and could change it fairly quickly as situation dictated. Im sorry for huge block of text once again. :-D
Gilmaris Also, you still have your weapon hand to grab the reins with. Unless you are in the moment of actively using your lance of sword, your can still hold the reins with the other hand*
On riding with/without reins- Shad that's a very accurate way to put it. Both work, but reins are a bit quicker. Basically its a bio-mechanics thing-you are much weaker than the horse is. So you have to use his weaknesses to maximize your control. A horse's neck can be turned fairly easily by a human. And turning a horse's neck makes the horse want to turn- it limits the inside shoulder and gives extra space to the outside shoulder (if I recall properly). Horseman's note on your plow reining-hands down, reins tighter man! What exactly is the horse being told by your hands right now? Sorry I'm having coffee, go have some grass buddy. The reins shouldn't be tight, but they shouldn't be all droopy either. If your hands are in the right place, you'l have maybe 6 inches to move them in, so lots of slack is unnecessary. On lances and javelins- if its other horsemen wielding them, then its a moot point. Simply, both sides would close with the left side, because neither wants to be exposed to the other guy's lance (except in a chase scenario, obviously). If infantry are wielding lances, then they are a forward threat, not really side on- no infantry man is going to be stabbing at a rider on the side-you'll never hit them successfully.
This video does not make any mention of "steering" the horse with the legs or knees as was done by many mounted warriors such as the Mongolians who controlled their horses so that they could use their bows while at a full gallop.
Why not just tether two ,for example, round shields to each side of the horse? The idea originates from Lord of the rings, although in the movie they only have one on the right. Think about it, with two shields tethered about hip height or so, You could free up both hands, guide the horse and swing away with little worry of being harmed. Note: I'm not trying to be historically accurate by any means, I'm just throwing around my ideas of possibly effective techniques in combat.
The whole debate about arrowfire seems a bit detatched from any battlefield scenario to me. As cavalry, you're not supposed to expose your flank to arrowfire at any point. The only times you are under threat from arrows is during charge or retreat, neither of which exposes your flank. And in a cavalry charge, you almost have to be as worried for your horse as you have to be for yourself. If your horse goes down, you're likely to be ridden down by your fellow cavalrymen. Which would lead me to assume that during a charge, you'd actually hold your shield not to either side, but above your head, with the lower tip covering your horse's head. Given that arrowrains usually come in at a diagonal angle, that would greatly increase the horses safety. The kite almost looks as if it were designed just for that. And in that way (depending on the grip you use), you even have your shield hand just about behind the horses head, making guiding the horse easier (I'd assume.)
Something to think about. A good horse for controlling cattle, the rider doesn't tell the horse a lot of specifics, the horse reads the cow and reacts to the cow on it's own much like a dog dealing with sheep would. Is it possible that a well trained warhorse similarly can get by with no reigns even if this means his commands might be slightly delayed, because he is relying on his 'smart horse' to act correctly on it's own in most situations?
Why would horseman turn shield over his head? I'm not an expert, I'm even not a horse-rider, but in my "academic" analysis, I expect a cavalry clashes to be fast and powerful. Imagine two horsemen, riding head on at 40-50km/h. The summaric impact can be 100km/h! I think that a knight could hardly make a precise hit. A shield is important to protect LEFT side and hand controlling the horse, while right hand has a weapon to hit/defend a rider. Nothing more or less. During spear-charge, if you were expecting a strike only from your right side (?), U maybe could use a kite-shield to cover the most common target - torso (but the bottom of a shield is still to the LEFT of the horse). The best advice - take LONGER SPEAR than opponent. ;)
Wouldn't it be harder to control a horse in the clash of combat without reins? Weren't their horses about the size of a quarter horse? How fast can a quarter horse rotate?
Wouldn't turning the whole horse mean giving up the mobility you gain from being on a horse? Temporary loss of mobility doesn't seem too terrible to me. Alternatively you might temporarily give up control of your weapon in order to keep control of the reigns while transferring your shield. You might want to be flexible with the hands that wield the shield and the weapon anyway, or maybe that requires double training. Why did you keep the plastic around your horse?
I think the least of your concerns on horseback would be your safety, If archers fired arrows at you, holding the shield against them wouldnt help because they would just simply aim for the Horse, and boom, you're grounded. the Horse is a way bigger target than its Rider, way easier to hit, why try to hit the Knight in full Armour, when you can just as well shoot the Horse ? And if its armoured heavily, then you are also armoured heavily, and at long distances you wouldnt really care for Arrows cause they did glance off armour (plate armour) at certain ranges, if you were close to the Archer so he would be at the distance of being able to penetrate you: you would be probably charging at him with a few of your mates, Horses tend to be quick, he would (in most instances) rather just run in panic than actually try to engage your gang of Armoured Knights on Horses. Sure there was that one time the British did that and Annihilated the French, but it didnt happen 90% of the time. Most Archers were Peasants who were on Militia level training, because Archery is a dishonorable practice against the Honorable hand to hand combat Knights! Or something like that.
If you want to learn more about medieval horsemanship from a horseman and reenactor, check out the Modern History TV channel. He trains horses specifically for medieval battle, and covers a lot of the same things talked about here.
17:10- That's because you are using the thinking of heavy cavalrymen (especially west European) with an understanding that you are armed with a lance and (sword/mace as a secondary weapon). If you use eastern European and central Asian thinking then you'll most likely be a horse archer, so speed and firepower would be your strength (I think heavy cavalry was used in the east as well but to a lesser degree), so you would actually want a small shield or none at all- it depends on the tactics and military culture of the cavalryman I think. RIP Frederick 'A brave and noble steed cut down in his prime by a freak accident'
+Teddy Junior not true at all, the east mastered heavy cavalry long before the west, the persian cataphracts, or arabian mamluks were shock and heavy cav long before europe even discovered the stirrup
Yes, they did and were excellent troops too, but they preferred to pelt the enemy with arrows before sending in heavy cavalry, also eastern heavy cavalry weren't known for carrying large shields. eg cataphracts had small shields/none at all due to two handed lances and high quality armor. My main point above is that the west preferred heavy cav. and larger shields. Sidenote, the mamluks were originally of Turkic ethnicity not arabian, but they did fight for arabian countries.
Wow, a lot of horsing around in this episode.
Nice
You are best anon in Equestria
As a medieval reenactor and a horseman who is practeicing mounted combat and who has done quite a lot of sparring from horseback i can tell that moving your shield to the other side of your body is very impractical. As you point out, moving your horse around is far better solution. The shields that i use and that most likely was used during the medieval era is to be strapped on your arm in a way that dose not prohibit the use of rains in any way. The other side can be rather effectively protected with a sword from any infantry attack. From arrows the sword offers little protection but then again the shield would not cover the horse anyway so retreat would be the best strategy anyway.
ua-cam.com/video/OaWafIDGsOc/v-deo.html
I was trying to use a kite shield for some shots on a movie while galloping. However I had no protection on the knee and the shield kept bashing me on it. Had to do the scenes with only the sword.
How to you prevent the shield from hurting you? Armor and padding on the leg? Some padding on the shield?
@@tiagodacruz2484 To loose straps maybe? If you are able to sit in the saddle and follow the horses movements with the seat, then the shield should not flop to much about. But as you suggested, padding on your knee would be a simple fix.
The best knights indeed did need no reins to direct their destriers. After having trained one for eleven years, I can confirm that. The more you are able to set the animal into the perfect balance, the less you really need reins. You do 90 % via subtle weight shifts to do all these intricate movements you need to do in tight battle situations. Your horse really needs to full acknowledge the rider's leadership and trust him, otherwise even the fiercest bit will be of no use to stop him from running in panic. You can give very strict aids with your seat. One of the masters that taught me said "You can place 50 different signals between your lower legs." Yes, that is true (and not easy to learn).That is why I think it is basically quite possible to swing a shield over the horse's head (of course it is good to train the situation, makes things easier) and to let go of the reins. After the maneouver, you can pick up the reins again.By the way: Your horse is really funny. I laughed a lot about you two.
I know this comment was made a year ago but this topic greatly interests me and I have a question. You say an experienced knight wouldn't need reins or would at least need them less. That makes perfect sense. What I would like to know is if such an experienced knight would also need to be familiar with his horse. I would assume that horse casualties were far more common than knight casualties. Say there was an experienced knight who could command his horse exceptionally well without reins but that horse died in battle and he had to buy a new horse. Would he be able to direct his new horse without reins or would he have to take the time to train his new horse to respond to him? If he did have to train his new horse approximately how long would that take?
If you take the time to answer this I would greatly appreciate it.
Thank you for sharing this ! This is fascinating !
@@jasonhood8672, Generally speaking, if you can ride one horse without reins you can ride any horse without reins. While it would vary horse to horse and rider to rider because all are different, you would be able to hop on a new horse rather quickly and be able to do what you would on your own horse. You would, of course, need to learn how to move with this horse and learn how to work with this particular horse, but an experienced rider would be able to figure it out rather quickly. If you want to know more about it from a horseman check out the Modern History TV channel. He is a reenactor that specifically trains horses for medieval battles.
The fabulous sausage pony horse was indeed distracting
+judofry Yeah . . . ^_^
Too much for you?
You had way too much fun with that "horse"...😂
3 dislikes by people with no sense of humor. Even if every point was wrong, this was still highly entertaining.
+M_Teague Well the 91 likes certainly makes those dislikes rather in consequential ^_^
Shadiversity what about the samurai shields they had on their shoulders
nice horse man
get ready to have a wild ride...
love your videos
horses can also be controlled by leaning left or right or pressure from your knees
Nice video.
May i say that a video about armor for horses wuold be intresting.
Cosimo Miniussi like talking about steel condoms
Four people were unable to maneuver their shields over their horses' heads.
172 were.
All you have to do is roll it over. That's all.
Another technique would be to spin the shield upside down, first, then flop it over. I think the first method would be quicker, though.
the Facts that you put the time to make that *thing* is just great.
I could never do what you just did on camera. But I can admit publicly that I do put on my chainmail and ride a fake horse in the privacy of my own home... with the doors locked and the portcullis dropped.... with the draw bridge up... and ummm.... a 100 metre moat dug around my house filled with water and laser sharks.... and a warding spell put up so people cannot spy on me using sorcery.
It's worth remembering that most organize mounted warfare was formation-based. Knights charge in a line, cataphracts charge in a wedge, etc. In each of those cases, you get much the same effect as an infantry shield wall - each man protects his left, but also the right of the man to his side. It was at least partly for this reason that charges didn't necessarily happen at the gallop, since formations fall apart very quickly when the horses are allowed to run flat-out.
I do wonder about the "Norman" label. It may be a case of parallel evolution, but I have always associated the kite pattern more with the medieval Romans (Byzantines) than with the Normans.
this needs way more views
Никита Иванов about 10 millon
I have ridden on an off since I was 7 years old. I have ridden and competed in both English (dressage and show jumping) and Western (Pleasure, reigning and trail). English riding need not have the reins far apart. In fact, with very little tugs, the reins can turn a horse. One trick is to slightly rotate the rein in hand, the horse turns. In Western, reining via putting one or other rein on the horse's neck is effective and a technique. In advanced techniques, it tends to be done with one hand, and split reins. My horse, when I owned one until I gave him up upon becoming a father, was trained in both traditions. I also had him trained to respond to leg commands, which he did instantly, being well trained. By squeezing the calf of the right leg, he would turn to the desired degree. You don't control the horse with the reins as much as you communicate with it. The same goes with legs. I once rode one of the top Western horses in my country, a quarter horse cross which won at nationals. It was trained to do everything based on where the rider placed their weight on the saddle. It ran off with me right to a tree branch. I stayed on as it cantered or galloped off. It had been trained to do everything not based on reins but on how the rider distributed their weight. I got it to stop by sitting back. If I wanted to turn left or right, this would be achieved by leaning in those directions. My own horse at the time was also trained to slow down or stop upon my sitting down (I was already seated, it refers to placing your weight at the back of the saddle) further into the saddle. He was also trained to turn on the spot among other things. The trick in pleasure is to pretend you are in no way communicating with the horse. Movements have to be subtle. Interesting and entertaining video, though. That said, spinning the horse to get the arrow on the shield would be much faster than moving the shield manually. When riding, horse and rider become one, and lifting a shield over a horse's head is likely to spook it.
Big ups for self-deprecating humor.
Shad,
I've been riding on my own (as opposed to riding with a parent) since I was 3 years old. This includes mounted sparring, so I feel I can speak with a little bit of authority.
You were close when you talked about dropping the reins. As a mounted archer, I do drop my reins when shooting my bow. I also drop them when using my bullwhip, bolos, or even eating a sandwich.
You were also spot on when you described the differences between neck reining and plow reining. Excellent explanation.
However, one method of steering steeds you did not mention was Leg Pressure. Note that this is LEG pressure, not KNEE pressure. Knee pressure is a myth. To illustrate, get in the good old "Horse Stance" from martial arts. Now, try to push in with your knee. Hard, because you need the horse to feel that pressure through your armor, through the saddle, and so forth.
Ain't happening, is it?
Now, seated on the back of your noble steed, use your heel against his ribs to make him turn. Trained, a horse will move away from the pressure. By varying the position from closer to the horse's shoulders to closer to his flanks, you can cause the horse to move his front end, back end, or even step sideways (sidepassing). This is what spurs are for: not just making the horse go forwards, but left and right in various modes as well.
Shifting your weight and giving the verbal command, "Whoa!" can also be used to make the horse stop (assuming, again, he's trained to do this)
I hope that helps some. If you ever make it to America, please feel free to visit. You can try out my mounted archery horse...whose name, ironically enough, is also Shad... in the meantime, if you are ever in Sydney, look up my friend Rob Tegruzzio of Workhorse Forge, and tell him you heard about "Jimmy." He can give you a good idea of what it's like to work with a descendant of actual warhorses.
I don't have experience in mounted combat, but I ride a lot, and have played polocrosse (mounted lacrosse: highly recommend, Awesome!) and it is possible to A) plough rein efficiently using one hand just by shortening reins, and B) control reins with a hand which is holding something else, so if you had to switch your shield over you could still control your horse with the hand your sword is in. Additionally, you wouldn't have as much of a problem swapping a kite shield over as you did in the video, as the horse's neck would usually be quite a bit lower down, although with the pointed rim of the kite shield you might have to take quite a bit of care not to jab your horse in the ribs, but emphasis on the fact that this is just from my knowledge of modern sport riding
but what about dragons?
"This is a horse you dirty people!"
Trained horses can be quite responsive to pressing only your leg to one side of the horse to turn into that specific direction. Also Trained horses would be able to automatically run parallel to troops at a specific speed without you even having to use the reins if you trained it to react that way. I have show horses and one thing we do for fun during the horse shows is an obstacle course. I have practiced homemade courses at home so when we get to the show the horse can almost do all of it on its own with minimal direction from the rider. You are not wrong, I just thing you are putting to much emphases on reins. Even leaning into the saddle with a leg press can make a horse do circles. Anyways love your channel. Keep up the good work! You should do a video with you jousting with Frederik the horse haha!!!
The diagonal grip idea holds a lot of merit. Also, the horse does not really know if the reign or the shield is touching is neck, it just doesn't want to run into something it didn't see while it's running so it will turn away from anything touching it's neck. This is how a herd of wild horses can seem to all turn in unison even when a threat comes from a flank.
Please ride this "horse" in every video please Shad oh how i'd laugh myself into the grave
During the time of the norman conquest alot of the cavelry would have used kite sheilds, however I dont agree that it would be so hard to move a lance to the other side of the horse because the norman cavelry (don't know about elswere in europe at this time) held there lances overhand, so you would jab the lance as aposed to big under hand thrusts. This also meant that the lance could be raised above the head of the horse and your own head, you could theoreticaly jab a man on the ground to finnish him off.
you can train your horse using dressage. I've used this with driving cattle. shifting your weight in the saddle and tilting it to one side is what we would use to signal left or right.
I think your point about having the shield strapped on a diagonal whilst upon horse-back is spot on. If you look at the Bayeux Tapestry you can see the shields (of the cavalrymen) sitting at a roughly 45 degree angle which would support your point.
Is that breed Phallus Equinus?
U gay
11:10 Thats a solid point. Moving your entire horse its a great response to arrow fire because the side of the horse is A MUCH BIGGER TARGET than the horse looking at you. Remember that your horse is still a living being, and its life its worth preserving as well. So, by doing that, not only you get in a position where you can protect yourself with your shield, you are protecting your horse ASWELL. Im not a native english speaker, apollogy for language butchering. Keep up the good work.
I'm not going to lie, I watched this one to see Shad playing with his horse.
This was from years before I learned about your channel and I just came from the shields overview video. Thank you so much for sending me here.
What does it say in the rectangle on the horse's right flank?
Are there any kite shields on the right on Bayeux?
Could you upload a version with the irreverent bits cut out? This video is over 20 minutes long & I want all of those minutes to count.
The odd thought I keep coming up with is why some form of Kite shield in the old west? Maybe it wouldn't protect from bullets, but arrows could probably be stopped. Plus it could be used for shelter in some form.
I lost it at 5:12....your enthusiasm is amazing.
2:50 "it is much easier to do so" *decapitates horse*
@Shad,
The Bayeux tapestry shows several knights riding with the points of their kite shields turned behind them instead of down. Doing it that way eliminates the problem of the point impacting the horse's neck when shifting the shield from one side to the other. With the point turned behind, the kite shield can then be maneuvered in the saddle like a round shield.
Granted, the problem you brought up regarding the need to drop the reins would stiill be an issue. A horse that has been trained to respond to spur and knee commands will still be responsive however. Given that fact, I'm not sure that the advantage of holding onto the reins outweighs the disadvantage of being turned into a pin cushion by enemy archers loosing arrows from the right side.
10/10 for acting!! :P RIP frederick!
certainly some good points, regarding neck reining, iv not done that since i was like 6.. i found it pretty annoying, like the 'plow' kinda crap, i mean.. its good if your more new to riding, however, once you know how to properly use a curb bit with a horse, which allot of the bits from the medieval era iv seen are, you really do not have to have much if any contact on the reins.. however my area of interest is the 2nd half of the 15th C.. so riders would often be well armoured, and have a small shield such as a small pavise type, or eranche type, so the left hand side would typicaly be protected, and the right side could possibly handle the strike coming in from the right hand side.. particularly as the body is seen facing the oponent in parts of treatises, also, lances are often rebatted aside, by swords, small crudgles thingies? [idk what fiore was smoking], and even lances..
and when it is shown, the dropping of the reins seems to be more of a choice when you want to disarm your oponent and grapple.. and actualy on the horn, so they could still be easily grabbed.. however that does fall under the guise of which all art depicting combat should fall upon, however it is from treatises meant to be detailed and with the help of the master or anyone trained with him enough, be able to teach people..
personaly im fine with dropping the reins, as they work with leg work to communicate with the horse, and if im set up to drop them, i will do so, and to be fair, im often used to riding for hours on end each day, you will need to scratch itches, drink, eat.. and if you do trickriding, dropping the reigns isnt something completely alien.. probably where i get it from but idk.. when doing stunts, im often going at a canter, however when fencing, its much more at an amble.. idk.. one of my friends, tuuli had a blog post about it and i cant find a link now..
so really.. idk.. i still would not use a kite shield over a heater.. but thats me..
however.. i should really shut up and go to sleep lol.. ill reply more of my thoughts tomorrow [technicaly tonight as its 7 am here lol]
EVILBARBARIANIMPALER Awesome man, thanks heaps for sharing your insights.Yeah, armor added to horse and shield combat really mixes things up. I'm glad you enjoyed the gags, they really cracked me up.
Since you mentioned trick riding, I don't see why a knight couldn't just lean/hang and bring the shield over as far as possible in an emergency. So if he needed cover on his right side, he could bring the shield half way to his right and hang his body to the left. Obviously this would be an emergency tactic and turning the horse would be far more practical.
At least you brought protection
Regardless of weather the shield has a central boss or is strapped, you could have a very long shoulder strap used for transport. You could put the strap on and If someone wanted to shoot you, you could swing the shield onto your back, or around your back to your right while still holding the reigns.
As for blocking lances (hope I can post instuctive video here), these russians seem to do some experimenting this year in what Id call lance fencing and its really impressive (they have loads of other interesting videos, some of them show, at least to me, why it would be pointless to try and get the shield to the other side, as unless pursued by other cavalrymen, its allways easy and simple to turn a horse to present shielded, or whichever side needed to the enemy - especially looking at their mounted sword vs sword duelling and maneuver patterns) Nevertheless the main point is - lance can be parried by another lance:
ua-cam.com/video/HI8vCZGWa0k/v-deo.html
After more carefull examination it also shows points discussed here - the ones about rein usage while holding shield.
This french group also has many similar videos worth watching:
ua-cam.com/video/WEE7j9czmCU/v-deo.html
Here some points might be of interest regarding especially norman part of presentation - kite shields not held in hands, but strapped around neck and shoulders in some participants and shown horse to horse duel once again showing it wasnt complicated to hold desired side of a horse presented to the enemy.
As for going against arrows - well in no case can horse be protected by anything else, than distance, unpredictable movement pattern and maybe terrain obstacles, so no shield will protect it that much more, or less - Id say there isnt really much dispute - there are great areas on unarmoured horse, that nothing can protect from well placed arrow. Better stay away and attack, where they cant concentrate too much firepower. At least in my opinion it takes minimally two riders to eliminate single longbowman, so in small engagements they really need some numerical advantage and willingness to sacrifice horses, in great battles, matter might be different due to easier ability to achieve local numerical superiority, so that unless they attack line of archers head on, only little fire can be brought forward before contact.
This one is la garrocha training by Jesus Morales:
ua-cam.com/video/fgYq7kq77rk/v-deo.html
Hope I see it correctly, he isnt even using reins, at least in some instances, where his hand is clearly shown resting on his hip, sure these are propably learned and repetitive movement for a horse, nevertheless, I firmly believe, leaving a little freedom to a horse to become a partner, rather than vehicle might ease out things for a rider, especially in close combat, so that he only corrects a horse, when he needs to, so whole problem of reins vs no reins fall off.
For me it also shows (along with videos above) why horses feet arent really such an easy target as sometimes portrayed:
- its something different to hit them while horse is standing still having all the time and peace in the world to prepare perfectly alinged strike and to hit them on a horse jumping around that can clear great distance in, or out of range as needed
- theres another man on a horse with a weapon able to hit his opponent, while he tryes to lob striked down, he really needs to adress this before he manages to do anything to horses feet. Id also speculate, that rider can lean from the saddle, which should work the same as holding shield up close to the body vs presenting it to the front with hand stretched out, so that smaller shield further forward offers much more protection by reducing possible angles of attacks and in this case also increasing his reach from horses silhouette, so once again he need to be adressed first before any strikes against the horse itself can be made.
Jaroslav Kravčák Hey mate thanks heaps for sharing this. I've had a look at those videos and they were great. I feel you points about cavalry and arrow fire and close range attacks to the horse are spot on. Thanks again.
Just imagine this guy high! lol
im high and had to come off full screen because I was laughing so much when the horse came out
4:10 It's a moot point, not a mute one.
Sorry, carry on.
Gilmaris what if a Viking who can't talk wants to contest a proposition at a community gathering?
I have to add, the fact that Heater shields are a lot more sturdy is also making them better suited for dealing with lance charges. Along with speed of switching side in case of emergency.
I think the horse prop distracted you more than it distracted us. :)
+Papadragon18 . . . yes
^_^
When I was younger and I was doing lesson of horseback riding, I rode a horse that was trained to be ridden without a rein. Once you get used to the technique it works really well but from what I understand I takes a certain type of personality for the horse to be receptive to the training. You see, some horse are highly sensible on their belly, you don't use spurs on them! But they can feel very precise movement of your feet thus making it possible to ride without rein. Some are just though SOB that requires spurs and force. That being said, turning your horse around is a far better solution.
Wow, there were some pretty entertaining parts in this video :P
I especially liked the scene where Frederick was killed...
According to the instructing knight was instructing Miles Falworth, on how to control/direct the horse in combat in the movie "The Black Shield of Falworth" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Shield_of_Falworth), using "knees & spurs will tell the horse what you want him to do".
A trip to The Spanish Riding School in Viena, Austria maybe an idea to see war horses in action. Every above the air moves the Lippanzan horses make was used in mounted combat.
You really only have two types of bits...snaffle bit which is either a round ring bit of various sizes or a D ring snaffle. Snaffle bits are jointed in the middle (the part that goes into the horse's mouth). Curb bits are a solid mouth piece attached to various sized bars. The top part which is attached to the bridle and the reins go on the bottom of the bar. Curb bits usually have an upward curve on the middle of the mouth piece. Sometimes the mouth piece is a straight bar. You plow rein with snaffle bits and neck rein with curb bits (think racehorses and cowboy horses).
For the even when you surrounded and have to worry about melee attacks on a horse, you can direct your horse to kick while you are attacking. They aren't just a extra set of legs to manuever and weight in a charge, they are also a extra set of teeth and hoofs that can knock people over.
First time I laugh so much that I almost choke myself in front of a video. You are awesome, so fun and so interesting at the same time !!
Keep it up !
I had way too much fun with how much fun you had with that force. And excellent "I just decapitated my friend" squealing at the end.
In theory no reins is possible. Depending on the characteristics of the horse, it’s experience in battle and level of training. I am currently training a re-enactment horse and as it is so sensitive to voice/seat/human on ground presence and absence I can actually discard them from time to time at any speed. Especially as it is trained to MAINTAIN a certain speed until told otherwise. However I haven’t attempted this yet in armour as I am only just now learning everything and combining my knowledge in training with the fabulous knowledge of a reenactor
Shad, I love your videos and think they’re awesome, but I’ve got one thing I’d like to add to this one. If you have reins which are connected behind the horse’s head it’s nearly impossible to avoid turning the horse if the hand holding the reins isn’t positioned in the center. However if the reins are split into two separate lengths of leather behind the horse’s head the rider can extend one length by giving one side slack. This would allow equal pressure to be applied on either side of the horse’s neck avoiding unintentionally turning the horse. This could be done with connected reins but it would be more difficult. I am speaking from the experience I’ve had on my family’s ranch so I’ve no idea if this was historical practice. Thanks for hearing me out and again, I love your channel thanks for making such great videos.
Me: *sees thumbnail*
Me: This is gonna be fun
Entertaining, funny, and educational! Great video.
+Shadiversity You kind of missing a huge part of the kite shield. And that is the existing iconography of the kite shield.
First I believe the most commonly depict it with four straps in a square or diamond configuration. That allow holding it in much bigger variety then you make it sound.
Secondly, and this is the biggie. You competently forgot about the shoulder strap. (one or two so it could also be worn like a backpack.) which allows you to hang the shield on your shoulder or your back and free up both of your hands. And that is what knights on horse did most of the time.
Looking at the way you hold it the shield the end and at the Bateux tapestry I couldn't get rid of the thought that it's protecting not the rider's legs but the back of the horse! And also had immediate urge to organize the experiment with archer shooting at the rider checking where the arrows land. Of course the weak part is that probably a lot of them will land in the horse neck.
fizikshizik Hey this is a great point. The Kite shield was certainly used to protect the rider and the horse when riding away from an enemy with the shield slung over the back.
Don't forget you would have leg armour so when riding a slight compromise by the shield tilting back would not be a great concern. You are only in transit at the time, once in combat chaos none of these slight variations in details will be a contributing factor to the outcome.
The main advantage to having a mounted rider is speed. Speed gives you a greater ability to evade rather then attempting to parry or block. If you're mounted, you wouldn't stop your mount, because then you've discarded your speed advantage. Probably the greatest threat to a mounted soldier is either large quantities of arrows (battle of Agincourt), or spears/barriers (because horses tend to get skittish if you make them charge at a spike or a wall.) I don't see much value in bothering with flipping your shield to the other side of your mount, since this basically makes the main job of your shield being to defend you from above, and since you should be moving fast enough that specific threats can be evaded rather then directly blocked.
Alternatively, mounts give you the advantage of deploying troops to specific areas of a field on shorter notice, or to pursue troops in a route, making the prospect of losing a fight more costly, and thus giving you some level of brinkmanship.
On another note, it is suspected that the kite shield was developed specifically for horseman to supplement leg armor. Conversely, the heater shield is suspected of being developed after full plate leggings made having a shield hanging that low become somewhat redundant.
Just my thoughts. Feel free to add to these or correct me.
About arrowfire: most probably it will arrive from front of you, if you attack infantry. So if your horse is protected, then you just move your shield to protect your upper body. If you are fighting against cavalry archers, then the formation will be your protection. Thats how the knights won over hungarian cavalry archers at battle of Riade. On melee combat, then thats why you have crossguards on your sword: that help you protect your right (dominant) side. And your armor.
Okay, for the lengths you went to for this video, you've earned another subscriber. Sure, it was a little silly, but the prop did help demonstrate your point.
There seems to be many types of strap configurations on how to hold the shield. It seems that horsemen had a fist down method. Hold your hands to your side and make a fist. That's how you hold the shield on horseback. There is a support strap for your upper arm and a handle. It's much easier to move the shield over the horse that way.
fc00.deviantart.net/fs12/i/2006/305/a/b/Norman_Shield_by_katsutoshi.jpg
The bottom leather piece is the handle while the top piece is the shoulder strap and arm support.
Most of my decent experience with horses come from polo, which i feel is probably one of the closest modern representations of mounted combat that does not involve actual weapons. Polo is played with neck reigns which would support your point because neck reigning is the obvious choice for one handed riding.
Also in a gallop you would greatly struggle to regain control of the reigns because they would be flying everywhere and i feel that maybe if there were arrows coming in you would probably not be in melee combat so you could afford to just for a few seconds swap the reigns to your other hand with your weapon. i would assume that just as in polo when doing a swing with your weapon you would be in a half seat opposed to regular seat. this makes you more stable but it would be much harder to pass the shield from one side to the other. because the horses head is closer to you. so maybe when changing your shield position you might actually change seat to give you far more room.
In addition i believe the kite shield would be by far the best shield because i doubt that in melee combat you would be all that worried about arrows and moving your shield would probably be a hindrance so all parrying would be done with a sword or other side weapon if possible. because of increased manoeuvrability. if you had a small convex shield this might not be so but then your shield would be less use against archers which would be a more important use of said shield so a kite wold cover more of you and therefore be better against missile attack.
The thing that always makes me sceptical about the idea that the kite shield was developed especially for cavalry is the fact that if it was used as most people describe it (point protecting the offhand leg) then it would seem to me to make attacking infantry much more difficult. If you are attacking a man on your left (assuming you are right handed) than you will generally have to lean down to one degree of another depending on the weapon you are using in order to attack them. If you have the big kite shield point sticking out the bottom, in order for you to lean down you will have to tip the top of your shield away from your body creating more of an opening for attacks to your torso. Conversely, with a round shield you can lean over as much as you want keeping the shield close to your body while still pointing it downwards which is where the attacks will be coming from.
The above is with a horizontally strapped shield though. I can imagine that if you used it diagonally or vertically so that the bottom of the shield pointed backwards more it would be less of an issue. However, to me this seems like evidence that the kite wasn't originally intended as a cavalry shield, this was just a way in which you could use it to make it better in this role.
Don't know... No reins in hell! In this very situation, surrounded by a lot of enemies on the battlefield, war horses were trained not only to fearless engage enemie's phanax/lines, but also to - attack by themselves and - obey commands sent by the legs only. That's one of the same reasons that war horses were so expensive, and war saddles had front and back "guard" borders, to help you to move a lot with less risk of just falling down after receiving a "nice" stroke. Furthermore, the kite shield offer a nice extra protection to the legs, for the case you are distracted slaying a bastard in the other side.
Besides that, unless you are worried about arrows, the sword's hand side has the sword itself, which can provide all the defense you need - if the knight do not skip that class.
In case of really need to move the shield to the the other side, the crinet would help to not hit and hurt the horse's neck.
I can't speak for all riding styles, but in Spanish and English riding, your legs, reigns, and voice communicate to the horse, and in that order.
in english, the reigns are considered something along the lines as a "Okay legs aren't getting through to the horse, directing his head will help him understand."
What you're describing in reigning comes from Western style; American style riding. it's different for European styles. the reigns are much tighter around the horse and you move them only tiny bits.
You are very right with using reigns.. But you forget the horses are selected and trained to this end. a battle will more often than not startle and scare any normal horse but a warhorse (worth a lot more than a average horse). so when you put a rider with a horse that's been trained for purpose he has good control of the horse. allowing them to use their hand for fighting and even using bows :)
Well...with a kite shield, they protect you from your lower face, to your ankle pretty much, and the slight angle from the straps, would angle it to not interfere with riding, but still cover the same area, with more over your chest. And they can't hit you lances from the side, unless a formation and get up to a gallop in the wide open and charge you without noticing. Plus the limitations of their own shields and using lances like you. You both can only do the same things. From what I've seen, they would hit with lances, with the kite shield covering them, from arrows and other lances, then because they used guige straps, would move it to cover their backs after they hit and were returning to their lines to re-lance, and the shield would then protect their backs. And no one could hit you on the right side, unless you let them, or you were down to swords against other calvary, but then you had your own sword out to defend that side along with attacking. And your shield on the other.
So you wouldn't move a shield over, plus you can't use your weapon. Calvary is a shock force, hit. Pull back and repeat. You're mobile, just move your horse to meet/attack the threat. Besides wouldn't you walk/canter till just before you were in bow/crossbow range. Then work to a gallop to cross the kill zone as quick as possible?
7:17 The reins don't just help in directing your horse on a battlefield, they also allow you to retain control if it is "spooked" by something nearby or even wounded. I think in most situations you'd want the extra control they offer simply because war is unpredictable so you don't know what might happen next and you'd want to avoid losing control of your mount or even worse, being thrown!
However, once a cavalier was engaged in melee combat with other cavalry or infantry they'd need both hands to fight so would have to relinquish control of the reins, albeit temporarily. Hence, I think they probably did train to fight without holding the reins but would've maintained their grip as much as possible, while not in combat .
I suspect the heater (iron) shield became popular because it was a compromise between the round and kite shield, being more protective than the former but more maneuverable than the latter. Also, as armor improved cavaliers would increasing wear greaves over their mail leggings and eventually full plate, obviating the need to carry a full-length shield like the kite shield.
it's not a big deal to let go of the reins for a moment or two and then quickly grab them back, also you can let them hang on your arm for a while, and you are kinda still able to operate the horse with reins hanging on your arm, though much less accurately of course. But if you desperately need to cover your other side with a shield, you can definitely do it. Reins are not a problem here. Well, I'm not a proficient rider in any way, but I've had some little experience, a few years as a kid and a few more times recently. Also, you don't need the most accurate use of reins all the time, you need to turn - you can even grab one side of the reins with your [weapon] hand, or with just its thumb, and pull a little. There are plenty of little improvised things you can do, my point is - it's not a huge problem.
And of course there's no need at all to keep your reins hand in the centre, you can adjust the length of both reins' sides and hold them asymmetrically.
you can use your legs to accurately steer and get a quick response. I think that's how archers in particular do the horseback thing
Some historians say that knights had really good control of their horses, so turning would be easy instead of changing the shield direction itself.
However, the purpose of cavalry wasn't to engage in hand to hand. In hand to hand, the guy on foot would just attack the horse and win. Cavalry won by charging, but they could turn their horse about with a kite shield, when being pelted by arrows, I guess?en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destrier#/media/File:Matthew_Paris_-_William_Marshal.jpg - Kind of strange, but the pic makes it look like the shield is hanging around the rider's neck. :P
Roman cavalry (maybe more the auxiliaries) used a centre grip, flat, oblong shield on horseback. That means they had to do the neck-reining using a centre grip shield, with the added complication of having no stirrups... I think we can only safely conclude that big shields were used on horseback with a huge amount of practice!!
iirc they primarily used knee commands while riding
You never mentioned one of the important pieces of kit utilized in mounted combat as well as being mounted in general, and that is a good set of spurs.
I think the kite shield is perfectly suitable for Norman cavalry. One uses it fixed on one side of the horse to protect the side of the non dominant hand. Arm slipped through the straps, hand holding the reins. Dominant hand for lance / sword. Cavalry isn't intended to get bogged down in static mellee; instead it's in and out.
+Iggytommy I agree. Most people commenting tend to be influenced by infantry fighting. The Spanish conquistadors in the new world much later describe attacking in tight waves, striking and withdrawing to avoid being overwhelmed.
Letting go of your reins seems to ask for someone else to grab them.
The best part of this is when Shad walks from one side of the room to the other and does that silly waddle thing because he can’t put his legs together
The Normans knights during the final part of charge against the infantry used, as more as possible, to bend on the left of the horse (on the right if left-handed); in this way the spear was between the kite shield and the horse's neck, so they had a clearence of good vision line too. Also during the charge against other mounted warriors they tried their best to avoid that the pole could hit the horse's head. This was a problem with the plate armours during the late Middle Ages, anyway the best models still permitted to move on the hips. I am sad when I see in each historical or fantasy movie the mounted warriors charging perfectly perpendicular to the soil :(
This video made me subscribe
+CHOCLATETEAPOT Awesome, thanks mate!
very good video very informative ( even if its your opinion ) and i loved the horse it made me laugh was very funny
juzzbuzz1 Well I'm glad someone laughed apart from me. Honestly that horse was cracking me up! Glad you liked the video and thanks for saying so!
I used to own a Anglo-Arabian Gelding, and he could be controlled using the legs, toes and heels. The only times I really needed the Reigns was when he stubbornly wanted to do something or go somewhere I didn't. A war horse would probably be even better trained, responding to leaning left or right for turning, or leaning back to slow down. I don't believe there would be any need to move the shield to the other side. If you are facing another cavalryman your sword will be your defence a you pass by (Cavalry are weapons of motion). If that is not possible, or you are in the middle of a melee, then the horse should be turned. If you are being shot at from your right side by an archer, then kick the horse into a gallop. Your speed will be your defence. Archers are probably aiming at your horse anyway (I would be, larger target). Turning completely around to bring your shield to face your opponent would also end your charge and in fact, turn it into a retreat.Numidian Cavalry famously controlled their horses with Neither reigns nor bridles. I love your channel, but here you are riding a dead horse.
This is the funniest vid ever, great job man!
if the charge is going in one direction, why would then the arrowfire be coming from the side like that? I get that having multible positions to try to flank the enemy would be good but if you are being shot from the side like that I see it as you are already in CQB and the enemy would then be shooting at their own as well. (was that ever done? shooting at the battlefield were both sides were fighting.)
Isn't a heater shield thicker than a kite shield? If it is, could that thickness correspond to the increased impact force from lances and other such weapons? Might the shield be intended as something of a bumper to save a knight from blunt force trauma while they're in a gallop?
Brainfart: Could the reins in some way be attached to the body of the rider so the rider could give directions with his torso? That way the shield hand is more open to such overhead maneuvers.
If you are subjected to arrow fire, chances are you are not (yet) engaged in melée. You might also be in a formation of sorts. I think it would in that case be a good idea _not_ to change directions, because presumeably you were on your way somewhere important, like a cavalry attack. And as cavalry are usually supported by infantry, if you start changing directions according to missile fire you are liable to halt the entire offensive dead in its tracks and confuse everybody. And what if some were to change direction, but others not? And how fast are you changing directions? Are you making a turn, or are you coming to a halt in order to turn more tightly? Either way, unless all the riders do the same thing, it's not good formation-sense. So move your shield to where it needs to be, and drop the reins to prevent the horse from changing directions (because I don't see why you would want to change directions if you had already made up your mind to go to a certain spot - no doubt you had a good reason for heading there in the first place). That's what I think, anyway. I never rode a horse in my life, myself.
As for strapping the kite shield on obliquely, this would probably be more comfortable with the reins and everything, but it would mean that it no longer protects your leg. And indeed, the Bayeux tapestry shows exactly this, that the riders's legs are not protected by the shield.
Gilmaris
Well most of these points consider individual riders and their ability to move around, so its true it has no direct bearing to whole formations.
Yes thats quite sensible, to let go of reins and simply move the shield around, where it needs to be to face immediate danger, while in formation, but in such a situation it might very well be pointless. If subjected to the volley of arrows, unless going square from the right side, moving shield to the other side might not offer improved protection and horse is still number one target to be hit and injured, so after maybe blocking an arrow its still better to run away from such a place in my eyes, if somehow surprized by flanking fire to the right.
As for non gunpowder missile weapons, they shouldnt be that deadly across vast distances. I dont think horsemen armed with lances generally charged in huge monolithic block many ranks deep, they either formed very shallow lines (or en haye - mostly two, or one rank deep, most propably still segmented with intervals), or rather small blocks. Hitting either of them at distances above lets say 100 metres would mean almost no arrows hit desired target in first place and apart from psychological impact of the rain of arrows damage would be only a fraction of what would happen, if archers loosed several volleys starting from maybe 50 metres. So suddenly running into devastating archer fire would generally be the cause of misjudgement and neglect of scouting ahead.
Id say there is an abundance of examples to show, that charges straight into full frontal volley of missiles would do badly and are rather a product of misjudgement on commanders part. So invariably, being shot at would by itself halt the charge and make sensible enemy cavalry turn and run away. Same for standing still - no point in that, theres nothing to protect stationary horses, which are big, static targets to hit. So to disperse archers, they need to hit them, when they dont have time to respond to it.
As for cavalry charges in non-gunpowder era untill maybe 18th century, when rapid musketry would make it hard to pull off, they would be going slow to preserve order and only hitting full speed few tens of metres before the enemy to conserve energy for fight, pursuit, or retreat, so if shot at from the distance, should have time to decide what to do. Apart from retreat, they could detach part of the wing to face a new threat and disperse archers, while others moved on.
As for strapping the shield - Id say they had both options available - strapped around shoulder, or to the hand and could change it fairly quickly as situation dictated.
Im sorry for huge block of text once again. :-D
Gilmaris Also, you still have your weapon hand to grab the reins with. Unless you are in the moment of actively using your lance of sword, your can still hold the reins with the other hand*
besides. .... wasn't the kite the gap between the heater and round shield?
... and the reason why people switched to heaters was because of horse?
On riding with/without reins- Shad that's a very accurate way to put it. Both work, but reins are a bit quicker. Basically its a bio-mechanics thing-you are much weaker than the horse is. So you have to use his weaknesses to maximize your control. A horse's neck can be turned fairly easily by a human. And turning a horse's neck makes the horse want to turn- it limits the inside shoulder and gives extra space to the outside shoulder (if I recall properly).
Horseman's note on your plow reining-hands down, reins tighter man! What exactly is the horse being told by your hands right now? Sorry I'm having coffee, go have some grass buddy. The reins shouldn't be tight, but they shouldn't be all droopy either. If your hands are in the right place, you'l have maybe 6 inches to move them in, so lots of slack is unnecessary.
On lances and javelins- if its other horsemen wielding them, then its a moot point. Simply, both sides would close with the left side, because neither wants to be exposed to the other guy's lance (except in a chase scenario, obviously). If infantry are wielding lances, then they are a forward threat, not really side on- no infantry man is going to be stabbing at a rider on the side-you'll never hit them successfully.
This video does not make any mention of "steering" the horse with the legs or knees as was done by many mounted warriors such as the Mongolians who controlled their horses so that they could use their bows while at a full gallop.
Why not just tether two ,for example, round shields to each side of the horse? The idea originates from Lord of the rings, although in the movie they only have one on the right. Think about it, with two shields tethered about hip height or so, You could free up both hands, guide the horse and swing away with little worry of being harmed.
Note: I'm not trying to be historically accurate by any means, I'm just throwing around my ideas of possibly effective techniques in combat.
The whole debate about arrowfire seems a bit detatched from any battlefield scenario to me.
As cavalry, you're not supposed to expose your flank to arrowfire at any point.
The only times you are under threat from arrows is during charge or retreat, neither of which exposes your flank.
And in a cavalry charge, you almost have to be as worried for your horse as you have to be for yourself. If your horse goes down,
you're likely to be ridden down by your fellow cavalrymen.
Which would lead me to assume that during a charge, you'd actually hold your shield not to either side, but above your head,
with the lower tip covering your horse's head. Given that arrowrains usually come in at a diagonal angle, that would greatly increase the horses safety.
The kite almost looks as if it were designed just for that.
And in that way (depending on the grip you use), you even have your shield hand just about behind the horses head, making guiding the horse easier (I'd assume.)
Something to think about. A good horse for controlling cattle, the rider doesn't tell the horse a lot of specifics, the horse reads the cow and reacts to the cow on it's own much like a dog dealing with sheep would. Is it possible that a well trained warhorse similarly can get by with no reigns even if this means his commands might be slightly delayed, because he is relying on his 'smart horse' to act correctly on it's own in most situations?
Why would horseman turn shield over his head? I'm not an expert, I'm even not a horse-rider, but in my "academic" analysis, I expect a cavalry clashes to be fast and powerful. Imagine two horsemen, riding head on at 40-50km/h. The summaric impact can be 100km/h! I think that a knight could hardly make a precise hit. A shield is important to protect LEFT side and hand controlling the horse, while right hand has a weapon to hit/defend a rider. Nothing more or less.
During spear-charge, if you were expecting a strike only from your right side (?), U maybe could use a kite-shield to cover the most common target - torso (but the bottom of a shield is still to the LEFT of the horse). The best advice - take LONGER SPEAR than opponent. ;)
Wouldn't it be harder to control a horse in the clash of combat without reins? Weren't their horses about the size of a quarter horse? How fast can a quarter horse rotate?
Och come on Shad, get off your high horse!
;)
Wouldn't turning the whole horse mean giving up the mobility you gain from being on a horse?
Temporary loss of mobility doesn't seem too terrible to me.
Alternatively you might temporarily give up control of your weapon in order to keep control of the reigns while transferring your shield.
You might want to be flexible with the hands that wield the shield and the weapon anyway, or maybe that requires double training.
Why did you keep the plastic around your horse?
It's rather telling that the shield the early hussars used strongly resembles an upside down kite shield.
I think the least of your concerns on horseback would be your safety, If archers fired arrows at you, holding the shield against them wouldnt help because they would just simply aim for the Horse, and boom, you're grounded.
the Horse is a way bigger target than its Rider, way easier to hit, why try to hit the Knight in full Armour, when you can just as well shoot the Horse ?
And if its armoured heavily, then you are also armoured heavily, and at long distances you wouldnt really care for Arrows cause they did glance off armour (plate armour) at certain ranges, if you were close to the Archer so he would be at the distance of being able to penetrate you: you would be probably charging at him with a few of your mates, Horses tend to be quick, he would (in most instances) rather just run in panic than actually try to engage your gang of Armoured Knights on Horses.
Sure there was that one time the British did that and Annihilated the French, but it didnt happen 90% of the time.
Most Archers were Peasants who were on Militia level training, because Archery is a dishonorable practice against the Honorable hand to hand combat Knights!
Or something like that.
This is it this is the video he references in the sword gags episode
If you want to learn more about medieval horsemanship from a horseman and reenactor, check out the Modern History TV channel. He trains horses specifically for medieval battle, and covers a lot of the same things talked about here.
17:10- That's because you are using the thinking of heavy cavalrymen (especially west European) with an understanding that you are armed with a lance and (sword/mace as a secondary weapon).
If you use eastern European and central Asian thinking then you'll most likely be a horse archer, so speed and firepower would be your strength (I think heavy cavalry was used in the east as well but to a lesser degree), so you would actually want a small shield or none at all- it depends on the tactics and military culture of the cavalryman I think.
RIP Frederick
'A brave and noble steed cut down in his prime by a freak accident'
+Teddy Junior not true at all, the east mastered heavy cavalry long before the west, the persian cataphracts, or arabian mamluks were shock and heavy cav long before europe even discovered the stirrup
Yes, they did and were excellent troops too, but they preferred to pelt the enemy with arrows before sending in heavy cavalry, also eastern heavy cavalry weren't known for carrying large shields. eg cataphracts had small shields/none at all due to two handed lances and high quality armor. My main point above is that the west preferred heavy cav. and larger shields. Sidenote, the mamluks were originally of Turkic ethnicity not arabian, but they did fight for arabian countries.
1:41 this is what happiness looks like. change my mind