maybe have Multi functional Paveses have exist what could be used Standing on the ground against Arrows and Bolts and be used half way descent in Hand to hand combat .
You never know when ninjas might be around. Better be safe and hold your shield behind you just in case, that way you can die from the honorable battleaxe in front of you than the risk of a surprise ninja from behind...... Or they just may be hot and want to die in the shade....
Yeah, getting even a fraction of an army's worth of men who can draw a 100+lb bow, or the industry to manufacture a several hundred pound crossbow was an accomplishment rarely done in mass. Plus, getting stabbed in the arm still has a higher survival rate than the torso, even with infections.
Great historical example comes from the "The history of the wars" or "the wars" by Procopius (somewhere around the 6th century, but obviously you find free translations online just as easy). In book I, at some point he compares Eastern Roman and Persian archery and their equipment: "...especially among the Persians they were falling by the arrows in great numbers. For while their missiles were incomparably more frequent, since the Persians are almost all bowmen and they learn to make their shots much more rapidly than any other men, still the bows which sent the arrows were weak and not very tightly strung, so that their missiles, hitting a corselet, perhaps, or helmet or shield of a[n Eastern] Roman warrior, were broken off and had no power to hurt the man who was hit. The Roman bowmen are always slower indeed, but inasmuch as their bows are extremely stiff and very tightly strung, and one might add that they are handled by stronger men, they easily slay much greater numbers of those they hit than do the Persians, for no armour proves an obstacle to the force of their arrows."
@@louisvictor3473 Anna Comnemna says a similar thing about the Seljuk Turks with their horse archers with composite bows and the Crusaders with crossbows during the 1st Crusade. She described knights absolutely covered in arrows stuck in shields and mail that failed to penetrate while finding the penetration power of crossbows shocking.
Interesting fact I came across recently is that Byzantine military manuals recommended that horse archers should NOT be armed with very heavy bows, that speed of shooting (and therefore volume of arrow fire) is a preferable trait on the battlefield to the greater range etc of more powerful bows.
Its all about layers, even if the missile goes through the shield it'll have lost a signifiant portion of its kinetic energy. Now the missile has to penetrate the body armour (if used) and even the under layer of garments or gambison with less energy. What could've been a major wound could be reduced to a minor wound or even totally negated.
Not only the speed of the projectile will be reduced when going through each layer, the tip can also be blunted/deformed, and the angle of the projectile can change too... IMO this can make all the difference in many cases, ie needle arrow VS mail shirt. And finally of course, a shield would be useful in hand to hand fight, especially against people that might use anti-armor weapons.
My thoughts as well. I understood shields to be generally to be a less weighty form of protection (like armour) with the draw back of having to actively use it. On the battle field, it is equivalent to having more armour against one direction (i.e. towards the missiles) without having to sacrifice too much mobility (since you can also discard it once it is too damaged/weighed down as opposed to stuff strapped to you).
I was going to write the same, until I saw your comment. In addition, I suspect importantly, if the shield was ruined, had spears and arrows stuck in it, or otherwise became cumbersome, it was easily discarded. Even if a spear or arrow penetrated the shield and armor, and even if it caused a non-lethal wound, ditching the shield would remove the spear. Meanwhile, ditching body armor really wasn't an option. Just not having to spend the battle with a bunch of arrows and spears stuck to your armor would be more than worth it. For support, while I'm sure shields were retrieved and repaired after battle, it's clear that the Vikings treated shields as partly disposable, as warrior graves usually contain several shields. It's easy to forget that warriors and soldiers of past times were rational professionals, whose lives depended on their equipment. They knew that even slight benefits added up, and carefully weight the cost/benefit of every piece. If a shield improved their chances by 10%, while not causing any significant disadvantage, they'd use a shield.
Don't forget, also, that for the most part, fighters holding shields weren't just hiding behind them standing still waiting for something to puncture their shields. Shields would have been in constant motion and the odds of a sword or arrow striking one from straight-on perpendicular are very small. The shield would most likely have been struck a glancing blow. Let us not forget that the shield was a hugely useful attack weapon that could be used to leverage your close combat foe off balance or even used as a blunt weapon to dispatch a downed foe. The usefulness of shields is woefully understimated.
Especially given what we've learned about the protective value of common textile armors; that itself isn't taking into acount rigid, or semi-rigid, metallic armors worn over the textile armor.
I think it is important to account for what the shield is used with. For example, even if the shield can't stop a longbow arrow, the mail can't stop it and the padded jacket can't stop it, but all three combined just might. Layers of protection.
@Projected Senator Raymond Foster Depends on the shield. Typically the larger a shield became, the thinner it had to be to avoid becoming too heavy. The Roman scutum for example was made from very thin plywood. It would have offered minimal protection from longbows and crossbows, especially at close range. Luckily for the Romans, bows of their time period were much weaker.
But you can view your heroes & examine their equiptment, video cuts to a barely dressed young lady with no armour, few weapons, but quite impressive equiptment.
It's like modern body armor. Yes there are rounds that will penetrate body armor depending on the level you're wearing but it doesn't mean it isn't worth wearing.
Modern body armour works great, as long as the other person shoots it. There are plenty of areas left uncovered that if hit there, you’re going to be out of action. Not saying it’s not worth having, just that you’d better keep your first aid skills sharp as well. I’m of the better to have and not need camp, but every time it goes on it shines a light on how relatively unfit I am nowadays. Body armours’ primary function, as far as I’m concerned, is to help you survive on your way to cover.
@Kshitij Raj a properly fitted plate/carrier should cover from clavicle to belly button, and from nipple to nipple on the front. On the back it should be 2” down from your most prominent vertebrae (look down, and starting from the base of your skull feel downward. It’s the one that sticks out most) to just above the small of your back. Since most people buy the same size plate front and back, the back plates upper location is the important one. This is more that half of your torso, if you’re facing perpendicular to the target. It’s also the reason modern shooting stances are how they are. If a person is going to wear plates, they should be wearing side plates as well. m.ruclips.net/video/PO_8GGluIOM/видео.html That’s a good resource for this kind of talk.
@Kshitij Raj the point of either armours is to keep you alive. Getting a wound in the olde tymes was much more likely to go septic. They needed more coverage to help keep that from happening. Getting shot in the arm/legs is survivable, with medical attention. The neck/face/head is a small fast moving target. A spear or a sword leaves a much bigger wound, typically, but is also much easier to protect against. Look at the weight of a full plate harness (the best protection before firearms) vs what the average US infantryman is required to carry. Believe it or not, the plate weighs less, depending on SOP. That’s one of the reasons you see the folks that have more freedom of choice in their loadout choose to forego the flak aspect. Of course if you have an MRAP, your armour is something that a knight could only dream of having. Heck even 20th century soldiers would be envious.
@@nathanielkidd2840 It covers the most vital areas. Most people aim for center mass also. Just like medieval armor, it doesn't cover everything but it improves your odds. Naturally mobility is important as well but a well fit , quality piece of modern rifle plates should have minimal impact on mobility.
Shields do work. At Poitiers for example the French men at arms were imperivous to the English arrows because they were "well pavised". As you said shields come in a variety of constructions. Some are just wood boards and covedred in painted linen, yes, but a lot, and I mean a lot, of surviving originals are covered in rawhide, often both inside and outside, which increase massively their stopping power. Some even in their gesso cover have crushed iron ore or glass, put over the rawhide, which would make them even sturdier. And these are hand held shields, not siege stuff like the large pavises. They seem to be far more common at least in survivals, than the ones that are just poplar boards and painted linen. It seems that the norm, for hand held shields, be it infantry, cavalry, siege, is that they are covered in some rawhide and then covered in gesso, and maybe the gesso itself is "reinforced" by hardening mediums such as iron ore or glass. Those are the kind of shieds that we should be testing, really :D.
Thanks and yes I totally agree. I feel like medieval shields are not being tested fairly. However I don't think Roman era shields are being treated particularly unfairly, just that the pilum is a very specialised weapon explicitly for penetrating shields (and therefore implying that normal javelins would not).
Viking Weapons and Combat Techniques, by William R. Short, does touch somewhat on the performance in practical tests of various "facing layers" on the round shield popular in Scandinavia at the time, although the commentary is focused primarily on the effect of the blow on the shield itself, rather than the effect of the shield on the blow (if that distinction makes sense). It's been a few years since I read it, but the results stuck with me. Apparently, even a single layer of linen glued to the face can significantly extend the useful life of a shield in combat, and a leather facing (although much heavier and cumbersome) increases durability to the extent that a shield can remain usable to at least some extent after many repeated blows from heavy axes that would render an un-faced shield nearly useless with two good blows. (Edited for more precise word choice.)
The pilium is a form of javelin intended to be thrown. The design has two functions...to weight down a shield bearer load if in that kind of use, and to damage the weapon in event that someone were to toss it back at the original owner.@@scholagladiatoria
Also, often ignored, center grip shields give into impact quite a bit when hit anywhere with a bit distance from the boss, which messes with the penetration quite a bit. Tests often do not simulate this, I believe yours did not as well, and show rather results of strap wielded shields which are more fixed in this regard.
@@holyknightthatpwns it might be very slight, I would have to do some calculations, but the arrow’s point being shoved out of line with the direction of the force of the following arrow and its momentum would change the amount of force the arrowhead exerts perpendicular to the shield, lowering the penetration. I imagine it would indeed be slight, even when considering the bending of the arrow that would occur as the arrow attempts to maintain its straight path.
@@AHagridLookalike Oh, that's a good point. I hadn't thought about the lateral motion helping to deflect the arrow. In general I think there should also be more tests against an angled shield, as I doubt projectiles regularly hit them head on
Keep in mind that earlier period shields (scutums or Gallic shields) may not have been designed with arrows particularly in mind at first: slings were very prevalent in warfare in the days of both the Greek and Roman Empires, especially when you take Carthage's Balearic slinger mercenaries into account. Just an interesting thought.
I highly agree here. We tend to think only in terms of javelins and arrows ve shields (if not just arrows) and too often forget about other ranged weapons
@@ameritus9041 This thought actually arose because I recently watched another video (by Invicta, ruclips.net/video/3uDtrwNY0Zk/видео.html) that highlighted the Balearic Slingers and their effectiveness. It was surprising in many ways to have the effectiveness and lethality of slings brought back into my attention.
Most of the tests I have seen involve a missile fired/thrown at a static shield from exactly in front. In reality, a shield was not just a passive barrier. It could be turned to an angle to deflect missiles or blows, and it could be moved up down or sideways to parry. A blow from a weapon hitting the shield edge on woudl react differently from one hitting the shield face on. Also, it obscures the target that the enemy is aiming for, and it can hide the position of the sword hand the person using the shield. Think about most shields as dynamic objects used actively to close one line, deflect or parry attacks, and conceal the weapon hand, and they make more sense.
It's a point. We're so used to firearms, where the missile kind of instantly arrives at the target and you never see its flight, that we forget things like javelins, and even arrows, move slowly enough that you can see and maybe react while they're in flight. Although on a battlefield I reckon chances are you're going to be so busy, a lot of the stuff you won't see coming.
Another thing worth mentioning is that all these tests include a shield that is fixed steady onto a holding device, meaning it can’t move as an arm would when absorbing the force of the blow. When a human holding a shield gets struck on the shield it folds in that direction, because it’s impossible to hold it steady, which also means all the force can’t go directly at the attacked point. It will be absorbed and lessened.
A shield won't always be struck by a perpendicular projectile. Having a shield angled would probably deflect quite a few projectiles and still cover the body quite well.
Battle of Hastings didn't turn in the Normans favor until the Shield Wall broke, then the Bretons were able to loosen their arrows at better angles. So I think Shields do the job in shield walls, I also think with the Battle of Thermopylae the Persians would have just used their archers to pick off the Spartans instead of wasting three days. So I imagine Hoplite Shields work.
Much depends on what kind of bows were being used and at what range. At Hastings at least it was likely the European short bow, not a terribly strong bow. Welsh longbow or Saracen composite bow at close range? Different problem altogether.
@@Riceball01 why yes, you can definitely slide around on top of bodies as well since they are basically frozen during winter: especially in colder climates.
I would speculate that the shield gives you an initial boost to moral and a sense of durability. Using a shield with a spear makes me a feel less vulnerable than just brandishing the spear alone; an issue that I believe would count for something in a battle situation.
Another thing to keep in mind is that these tests tend to be about hitting the shield straight on. Whereas in combat, many times we might see a somewhat oblique hit. An oblique hit to flesh will still cause a wound, but an oblique hit to a shield might deflect even if a straight shot would not
A good validation is found in Homer's Iliad, which isn't necessarily a 100% historical source, but it does indicate how people at the time described the use of arms and armor. Word-search for shield indicates numerous references to characters being struck near/over/under/around the rim of the shield. Also Ulysses is struck through the shield by a spear, but it misses a fatal blow, so spear through shield happens. And in numerous cases of a character fending off a blow or missile it refers to it striking the middle of the shield specifically, indicating the understanding that the reinforced center and the boss specifically are the strong point, where you'd want to receive the blow.
There's more than one type of shield described in Homer's Iliad. Most of them seem to be the 'figure 8' Mycenean-type ox hide shields. Those are well-represented in the artistic record, and don't seem to have metal bosses, but do have a reinforced wooden bar down the centre line. That's probably what they mean by 'the middle'. There's every reason to trust these descriptions, as other elements of contemporary arms and armour described in the same passages, such as 'boars tusk helmets' have been confirmed by the archaeological record from Mycenean Greece. More difficult is the lengthy passage describing the shield made for Achilles by Hephaestus. It is depicted as round and embellished with metal, with decorations depicting country life that are described in detail. Its not entirely clear that all of the Iliad was actually composed by the same person, at the same time, so its possible that differing descriptions of material culture are artefacts of different periods in the poem's evolution. The shield of Achilles may therefore represent another type of early shield, a later type of shield, or just a fantastical, magical shield made by a god for a demigod.
Didn't the Iliad also sometimes talk about layered shields, and even about spears penetrating this layer and the other layer but being stopped by the fourth or fifth layer in?
That steel buckler you are holding is just a "traveler's" frying pan. The tedious thing about them is that you have to remove the handle and the padding when you want to cook something. The great thing about these frying pan is that you can also use them as a shield.
Quite a bit of talk about layering, but one kind of layering not mentioned: So, maybe a hard driven arrow can go through your light-ish shield. Maybe a hard driven arrow can go through your chain shirt. But, maybe that arrow will have a harder time going through your shield AND your chain shirt. Not like you take your armour off before you pick up the shield.
In a battlefield context victory is mostly about averages...if you can increase the average output and survivability of your side then you win. More soldiers nullify the 'lucky strike' effect.
1. They will stop and protect against *random* attacks and small scale shrapnel. Basically acting like modern PPE. 2. They will give the combatants more confidence and more options in melee. Having a shield to hide behind may allow a soldier to hold his position on the line. 3. They are a big board of wood that blocks the view of the enemy of where the attack against them is coming from and where the body is that they are attacking. It is hard for the enemy to follow the movement of the weapons used against them if the shield is in the way. This is especially true if the combatants are close to each other.
I think the angle the shield is struck at plays a big role and perhaps has been overlooked in terms of medieval knightly shields. As far as I am aware medieval shields were not held straight on. Deflecting an arrow or spear is much easier and doesn't require as thick a shield then when trying to stop one head on.
You would have to be superconfident on your ability to deflect an arrow sent at you to try deflecting it off at an angle, that's some John Wick level shit - also, you are presuming one arrow sent at you by one antagonist. In a battlefield situation you would likely have numerous people firing at you. I think most people would just try to hide behind the shield when they see an incoming arrow
Soldiers rarely take to the field naked, with just a shield for defence. Even if it doesn't stop an arrow, pillum, or whatever, it might slow them down enough that your gambison, mail, and other protective clothing will stop them.
I guess we tend to focus on the very powerful late medieval longbows, but remember not all bows or crossbows are that powerful, i guess thats why the welsh and english became famous archers and mercenaries, for example in muslim accounts of fighting the crusaders its said that the Franks"crusaders" were covered in arrows like pincushions but it seemed as it didnt bother them at all, so when you combine armor and the fact that not all shields are the same thickness and not all bows are heavy longbows it gives you a good conclusion i think
What I am reminded is that with wood, the grain direction is important. So with wood you have the way a plank is made along the growth of the trunk upwards is the face and you have the end grain which is the bottom of the plank. If you want your shield to be more resistant to strikes you join end grains together. This is what will make a very impact resistant surface and heavy shield. That is what also results in a shield being heavy as they need to be fairly thick to be robust. Now modern reproduction shields use planks and cross them over on two layers but essentially they split because it is easier to penetrate between the grains.
One way a shield perhaps might be tactically important even though an arrow with a flat trajectory can pass through it is that it protects against longer-ranged lobbed arrows as well as slings and other lighter ranged weapons that skirmishers might use.
Two points in favour of using ANY shield: 1) Maybe you'll get lucky and the longbow arrow will not penetrate (direction, sheer luck etc) 2) I'd happily take a hit from a longbow arrow that penetrated my shield (and lost much of his kinetic energy on the way) vs. a full hit without the shield in between. Even if the arrow came through the shield to wound you, it has much less force, and combined with your armor you won't get injured that much, or even at all. Great video, Matt! 👍
Reminds me of flak jacket I saw in an army surplus store once, that had the interesting message printed on the inside: "This armor *might* save your life!" (emphasis mine)
They also diminish the power of the blow of every weapon that hits them. An arrow that punches through mail and goes 5 inches into your abdomen is going to be much less effective if it has to punch through a wooden and canvas shield before it gets to your mail. Shields don’t have to be invulnerable to be effective; they simply reduce the velocity and momentum of every weapon that hits them before they get to the person holding the shield.
This is a very important point, and is basically the reason modern body armor is effective. It may stop the bullet, but it still feels (and has a similar physiological impact) like getting hit by a bat... that doesn't mean it's not effective. Getting hit by a bat is better than getting shot.
I used to run a tabletop rpg system called True20, where I made it so large shields provided more defense against ranged attacks and smaller shields were better for melee, but D&D 5e doesn't have a great way to represent that without getting too fiddly.
Think one of the things to keep in mind is that when you guys test these shields v. arrows n' bolts we are talking straight hits, imagine a slight off angle and all the suddenly i am not so certain that the shield wont play a large role combined with chainmail and what have you..
This makes a lot of sense and is in line with how modern defenses are rated vs specific threats such as NIJ body armor levels. A specific defense was designed to protect vs specific threats and a defense being engaged by a threat outside that specification does not necessarily mean that that the armor is bad
I'm convinced the main purpose of the pilum is to deprive the enemy of their shields, to reduce their effectiveness. Any actual direct damage to the enemy is just a bonus.
So the obvious question is: is there much in historical post-battle reports (or archeological data looking at bone injuries) to suggest there were a lot of arm or hand injuries among people using shields? Unfortunately, the absence of anything in the written record might not be a good indicator, as it may have been so understood and accepted as an inevitable consequence of battle that nobody wasted ink reporting it, but archeological evidence seems like it could be a good indicator.
Can you do tests on wicker shields? How much less effective is it over wooden plank shields? The thracians used wicker shields, how good were their shields?
Shield tests are not accurate at all, surviving shields are much more durable and strong than the "shields" being tested. According to sources arrows did not pierce them at all
@@alexmag342 What sources? Whether they were pierced or not depends on the type of shield, angle of attack and weapon used. Tod Cutler has a good series on shield penetration.
not into games myself but “I enjoy just ehh checking out their equipment” while looking at a perfectly rounded computer animated butt was quite fun! Great channel though, really enjoying it!
One time I read an article saying that pillum was used not to primary hurthing the shield user, but to turn the shield into a "dead weight" - sorry for my bad English.
Shields also have an important psychological impact. If you’re a bowman and you have the option to shoot at the infantry formation carrying a bunch of big shields or at the one not carrying any, odds are you’re going to shoot at the one carrying none. A shield may not %100 protect you from incoming fire but any arrow not fired at you is one less to worry about.
Speculation on my part; but if you're going to battle wouldn't you be wearing other armour besides a shield? In this case wouldn't the shield slow the velocity of the incoming missile to the point that it would merely glance or minor dent in the armour you're wearing and greatly increase surviving?
I love how they decribed the shields in the iliad XD. Have you ever red the parcival Epos of Wolfram von Eschenbach? The he he writes quiet pictureful how whole forests were cut down to fill the need for the lances of one duel alone XD.
This is isn't a criticism of yours or tod's tests, but I think it's important to note that there are a few extra things to be considered. With boss gripped shields as opposed to strapped shields, not only would they be thicker, more protective at the center and have a steel boss as you point out, but the sides would be protected by the fact that the shield has a lot of give and wobbles quite a lot when struck at the sides so that would probably reduce the force of the arrow, therefore affecting penetration significantly. Also, just because a gambeson, mail or a shield doesn't stop an arrow by itself, having a gambeson and a shield or the 3 together probably would. The shield potentially reduces the force of the arrow and slows it down so( I would imagine) that reduces the chances of it going through the person underneath, perhaps turning a lethal or debilitating wound into a minor one. While you pilum tests are most likely accurate for the Roman scutum( at which time they were using weaker bows and cross bows compared to the late medieval battlefield) and Tod's testing and mindset are excellent, I don't think Tod's shields are precisely accurate enough analogues for medieval shields, consider .In Ian Mortimer's book, The Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England, it is noted that in late 14th century London, a decent sword would cost 2s and a cheap sword 6d, but a shield would cost 18s. To me, this means that they were a lot more complex than just 15mm wood with something over the top, and had more layers, rawhide and glue, along with something like powdered iron or glass. Consequently , they would be a lot more protective than we seem to think.
unfortunately the bosses on scuta make them stick and not slide as easily as hoped. Yes I have tried on steep grassy banks, still waiting for enough snow to try it on.
I’m an amateur writer and I really appreciate these types of videos, it allows me to accurately portray history or at least as best we can tell. I believe fiction and non fiction writing truly impacts people’s lives and can genuinely change how they look at the world, we have a duty to make sure that any information we portray is accurate else we do a disservice to the men and women who spent their lives with these very topics as a huge concern
Also, note that primarily shields would also be used in hand-to-hand combat, where you just cannot generate the same forces that you'll see with a thrown weapon where the thrower/shooter can take the time to put their full body strength over a long time into the strike. Strikes in close combat will most likely never been from full extension, as you'll be trying to be fast and quick and slip by your opponent's defenses, and also will seldom be struck straight face-on to the shield. Also also, while your gut tells you to hold out a shield flat against incoming missiles (because that gives you the largest occlusion) you'll really be better off angling it so they don't strike it dead on. Even if the bolt/javelin/whatever doesn't skid off from the angle, you'll still be going through maybe root 2 (almost 50%) MORE wood than it would from a perpendicular strike. All these tests against shields propped firmly against an immovable object and struck straight on are interesting, but probably not representative of how most strikes would be intercepted
It's worth mentioning that there is a point in history where the defense against missile troops moves from "your shield" to "your missile troops". In antiquity the options of long range offense were limited to slings and short bows which deliver a lot less penetration power and could be countered with a large shield reasonably well. But we already see the defense against javelins and especially the pila, which pack a lot more of a punch, being first and foremost your own skirmishers screening you against short range missile attacks. To put it short, in a medieval setting having to actually use your shield to defend against incoming arrows in the field is already the worst case scenario but you will still be glad that there is at least something between you and the pointy end of an arrow, even if it won't stop it.
Another note about arrows/spears/etc piercing shields: angle and distance matters too. Sure straight on at 10m a longbow will go through a shield, but what about falling from above from 50m where it hits at an angle?
Pavaise probably will stop firearms of its era, at least the man-portable ones. These Hussite-era gunpowder weapons have relatively short barrels and small calibers, and gunpowder formula and granulation isn't quite there either, making them even less powerful, so even early arquebuses may be defeated by a heavy pavaise. They will also protect you against cannon, but only if it's loaded with shot, a solid ball will obviously go through. Once muskets start to appear in 16th century, pavaise is pretty much gone.
I think a lot of people forget that Todd is using a longbow (or a makeshift longbow) which was a very specific type of bow. Most soldiers would have to defend themselves against bows that weren't of that draw weight
Certainly many bows in ancient Europe or other parts of the world would have been less powerful, and most crossbows were also less powerful than longbows.
You get that velocity with a good 145# yew bow and 64 gram arrows - the estimated low end on draw weights of indentured English archers. The heavy arrows do not perform as well as with a bow of the estimated draw weight of 160#.
@@eirikronaldfossheim Where are you getting this "estimated low end" from? As far as I'm aware, there's not a lot of evidence to go on when it comes to determining the typical draw-weights. Heck, Mike Loades estimated the typical draw weight as being closer to 120lbs. Also, what do you mean by "indentured" English archers? I was under the impression that they voluntarily joined armies to supplement their normal incomes.
@@InSanic13 I also estimate the typical average draw weight to be closer to 125 lb -- in the population as a whole. And Loads' estimate was 120-140 lb. But he is talking about archers in general. For elite archers he goes up to 170 lb. Indentured archers were not the average. You had the Commission of Array, which included everyone able to carry weapons. The entire population were divided into 3 categories - archers, able archers and best archers. The best archers were selected to serve, and then able archers if they didn't have enough best archers. The sources specifically tell us that the strongest and best archers should be selected. They were grouped into companies of 50-100 men and put under a captains, usually an esquire. Also, every man-at-arms had to bring 3 archers each. Men-at-arms would selected archers from their own lands and those that didn't make the cut was still part of the Commission of Array. In other words, men-at-arms got the first pick and had access to the best and the best of the best. When they only needed a few percentages of the entire male population for an invasion force, there is no reason at all to take someone only able to draw 120 lb. They started training at 7 years of age. Why do you think that 20% of the men who trained for strength from the time they reached puberty at 13, were not in command of 140 lb bows when they reached their early twenties? That's what it takes. Only 20 % of them. With the right technique anyone can pick up a 90 lb bow and draw it back. With 6 months of training you can draw a 100lb+ bow. 140lb correspond well with the draw weight of the yew bows from the Mary Rose. Some of the bows were of lower draw weight, however, there were many more bows than there were soldiers onboard, so the lower draw weight of 100-120 was probably intended to be used by the sailors. There were 200 sailors and 185 soldiers on boards. With 250 bows, there was 65 bows more than there was soldiers. The crew of 200 sailors were divided into two watches, but during combat it was all hands on deck. However, yhe ship only needed 100 sailors to sail it. The rest had to help with the cannons and fight alongside the soldiers. They would usually only man one side during battle. 40 men and the gunners were more than enough. This meant that around 60 men could use bows during an engagement. When you subtract that percentage from the total number of recovered bows, you get bows left with a draw weight of 140-160 lb if we accept an elastic stiffness of 7.5. Most of the staves these bows were made of came from Northern Italy. In theory the thinnest bows could have been as heavy as 125-130 lb if they were made of high alpine staves with an elastic stiffness of 9. The soldiers onboard was not part of an elite of soldiers. They were part of the Captain's own indentured soldiers. The Admiral, however, brought 85 extra archers onboard the ship at the eve of battle, the kings own bodyguards, but those men brought their own bows. That's probably why we have found a 185 lb bow loose on deck. If contemporary sources tell us that bows penetrated plate armour of the day, they had to have a draw weight heavy enough to do it. As the author of Gesta pointed out: The arrows penetrated the sides of their helmets at Agincourt. To do that against armour made of low-carbon steel we need a good 140 lb bow and a heavy arrow at around 100 gram+.
Thanks raid shadow legends for keeping our favorite channels alive as RUclips is ridiculous with monetization. Especially when @2:27 "it's also fun just LOOKING at your champion sometimes, and uuuuh... ya know... just checking out their equipment"
one (I think) important note to add: Even if an object(arrow/spear...) penetrates the shield, that act of penetration takes away kinetic energy and the guy behind the shield is usually armored as well. Meaning that additional barrier even when broken through can make the difference for the armor to absorb the impact or not.
a thing to keep in mind is that testing the shield against the english longbow or the roman pilum is that those weapons were generally considered the best in the class for availability for the period so while they would have a higher chance of penetrating a shield more, there were quite a few other groups around that didn't have weapons as capable to that degree- which would mean that shields would still increase in effectiveness against weapons that had less penetrative power when used against these other groups.
Before the video starts, my take is always this: Simulations and tests where shields break or weapons go through them are always ideal situations. A real target is moving around and holding the shield at different angles etc. Shooting a full power arrow at a static shield portrays the ideal conditions that would be hard to find on a battlefield.
A thing to remember about tests showing projectiles etc piercing shields is they aren't being held by a squishy human who does things like move, so the likelihood of penetration would be reduced by unfavourable angles and movement causing glances.
clearly they re for weight training and disciplinary meassures, if the knave spills drink on the knight, he ll carry all the shields back home, both ways, uphill, in the snow
As others have more or less said, it reduces the trauma by one or more steps. Kill to severe wound, severe wound to minor wound, minor wound to no wound. Obviously you could break it down more than that but you get the idea. Great vid. I especially liked the revelation...at least to me on smaller shields being more resistant to damage and thus in some ways offering better protection. :)
If you can find it, Mike Loades had a shield special in "Weapons that made Britain". High speed camera shows a resilience to a variety of weapons, when used to deflect the impact of a weapon, the "spreading" of impact energy becomes clear there. I also like personally the buckler and sword, when wearing some armour, to use it for blocking hits, and use the buckler in the offensive role.
There's also the aspect of visual cover when it comes to larger formations, and then there's a psychological warfare aspect as an enemy wouldn't be able to guess which troops may be carrying a thinner lightweight one vs. a heavier more protective one if they all present the same amount of area and appear similar from the front. They would only be able to make an assumption that shields would provide the same level of protection and encumbrance when that may not be the case.
Takes me back to middle school stick fights. We made armor out of cardboard, chicken wire and paperback books. Plastic snow saucer shields were semi effective. Bamboo garden stakes for arrows
I was told by my Latin teacher that the pylum did not need to fully penetrate a shield, It only needed to stick into a shield to make the shield useless for further use and typically the wood of the pylum would break but not separate from the steel shaft and make a shield completely unwieldy.
One fact is that shields have been used throughout history, which means that they worked. The consequence I see is that for their users of the time, "working" did not necessarily mean "being allproof". In fact, I think this is pretty much a case of "good enough": yes, six arrows went through your shield during that battle, but most likely it slowed them enough for your armor to absorb the remaining energy with ease. Unlike that other arrow that clocked you right on the chest, went through the joupon, the breastplate (curse the smith who made it...) and was thankfully stopped by the gambeson but still left you gagging for breath for a good ten seconds.
I loved this video. Thank you, Matt! You did the topic a lot of justice. With information, passion, and CONTEXT. As someone who loves shields, I was not disappointed in the least. I think you should do a long-form video on pavises! Appearances in art, their different forms, geographical spread, etc. The information on them isn't very accessible!
Might be cool to see a shield made out of expanded metal and plywood. Presumably with the metal on top, with some sort of layer that keeps melee weapons from catching on the shield. It would be interesting to see how it would handle Nd hold up with different thicknesses and hole sizes.
Isn't there also a slowing effect on a spear that goes through a shield? So, would my mediocer armor be more likely to save me from the spear if that spear first went through a shield?
that's also what I thought, any projectile going through a shield would lose at least some of its energy, therefore delivering less into anything behind that shield, so it might not go through the armor or the padding or through the flesh. also I think the amount of deflected projectiles might be higher than we usually think
There's also the other side of carrying a shield. Psychological reasons. Anyone carrying a well-made, decent-looking shield, will feel more comfortable when going into battle. I mean, it raises the user's morale while not making him feel invulnerable because for that you need full plate armour. But any warlord with his wits about him, will make sure his fighters have access to decent shields because it gives them comfort and something to hold onto. Historical example of a weapon carried just to improve morale (a shield may be a defensive tool but let's call it a psychological weapon): during the fighting in the Pacific during World War II, reporters and cameramen serving with the American Marines in the frontline, were risking their necks too. So their commander (editor in uniform) was asking for them to be issued with pistols. The choice fell on pistols because the cameramen were carrying around their cameras and other filming equipment so anythinig bigger would be impractical. I don't really know if they were actually given pistols but the editor's thought process was: no, pistols wouldn't make any difference because they probably didn't have time to train with them, because they were cameramen first and not supposed to fight. However, having a sideweapon at least made them feel less uneasy, it bolstered their morale because in the back of their minds, they had something to shoot back with. Even if they would never use them.
I've always thought of shields like big cushions, good for shock absorption, bits can be damaged and it's still usable, it's cheaper than getting your armour professionally fixed, and slows down the weapon enough so your armour can do its job effectively. With the Scutum, it's very big but fairly thin, so if two Cherusci poke five holes in the top left corner, there's still a lot of shield left to use, as long as anything isn't stuck. Then afterwards it's easy to fix or replace, take the boss off, put it on another and you're golden. I think the Roman Industrial support could have allowed for that. Obvs is different for different shields/bucklers! But maybe goes a way to explain why few shields are made of metal. It's perhaps designed to leave the field very chewed up. Tangential point, I've just read Beowulf, and prior to fighting a fire breathing dragon, Beowulf takes up an entirely Iron shield to protect against the flames. Not sure it would have worked
One function of shields that wasn't covered here and a function that I think is actually really important and perhaps even one of the key reasons they were used is the psychological function of shields. So the idea that people carrying shields feel more protected (whether this is entirely true in practice or not) and because they feel more protected their morale is increased and they are less likely to lose heart and run in combat. And given that particularly in ancient and medieval times the army that broke first psychologically was usually the one that lost, things that boost the staying power of your army can be extremely valuable. So I think the morale boosting/psychological reinforcing effect of carrying a shield could be one of its most important features/benefits. I realize that when testing shields for effectiveness today its hard to measure this aspect or perhaps even for it to come to mind b/c you have to be standing there on the field facing death and dealing with that fear for this morale support to come into play. And obviously that's not something that people shooting arrows and bolts at shields are going to come across and it would be hard to measure objectively anyway - beyond looking at historical battles and perhaps seeing if there was any correlation to armies that carried shields regularly into battle and how they performed from a morale perspective. But even then there are so many variables it would be hard to know. But I was just thinking about it while watching the video and it seems logical to me that the above would be a thing, though again I don't know how it would be tested or confirmed. Moving beyond this comment - great and informative video! Keep up the good work and cheers.
In the Nihayat al-Sul Mamluk Furusiyya manuscript the author talks about what each shield material is useful for and it's weaknesses. What causes most damage to the structure of a wooden shield? : Exposure to fire, thrown stones or blows with the mace. : What are the uses of the wooden shield? : Protection from arrows of both kinds, and javelins and spears. What most injures a leather shield? Blows from swords or maces, thrown daggers and javelins, and being hit by pieces of wood. : What are the uses of the iron shield? : Against the sprayer of fire, blows of the mace and sword, thrusts of lance or dagger, and javelins and both sorts of arrow.
I'd venture to guess that having a shield that was effective against anything but a perfectly aligned thrust or missile weapon more than served its purpose in the majority of cases. Modern armor takes the same approach and parries and blocks in striking arts follow the same idea.
Shields were also used for displaying heraldic devices, painting various symbols (Medusa, Lambda, Legion name), conspicuous consumption (Sutton Hoo Shield).
One fact seems relevant to me about the degree of protection a shield provides against projectiles and this fact is that most of the tests carried out to test this protection are done by placing the shield facing the projectile; now for example the armor of tanks, or, more precisely as regards the subject, the breastplate of a knight, the angle in which the protection is positioned is largely likely to increase the deflection capacity of this one . A fighter who charges a shooter will have all the more tendency to present his shield at an angle as he will not move completely in front or in profile, but rather three-quarter, a walking posture in which he will be able to move forward quickly while by ensuring its steps when the irregularities of the ground and in which it seems to me very easy and natural to protect its body with the three-quarter shield on its front flank. In this case a relatively flat shield would be notably an advantage and in formations as long as the man on the right is a little advanced, the deflection of a projectile towards his left will not risk injuring his colleague on the left. could the shield also be held at an angle towards the sky so as to deflect the projectile upwards? These are some of my thoughts on the subject. Hope this helps solve this mystery ! ;)
Well, bear in mind that competent archers were incredibly rare and incredibly valuable. There was a fascinating quote from a Byzantine/Eastern Roman general quoted in one of John Keegan's books on ancient warfare stating that out of 500 archers, 50 would be good (e.g. about 10%). This would be especially the case with a longbow or an equivalent composite bow because of the draw weight required of a typical warbow. The English were unique in that they required all able-bodies males to partake in mandatory archery practice. And even despite this practice, they never could quite total victory during the Hundred Years War after numerous spectacular victories. The French would eventually recover, whereas the English army was unable to recover after Patay, after the loss of so many skilled archers. You can give anyone a longbow, they will not be a longbowman of the caliber of the soldiers at Agincourt or Crecy. Similarly, the inexorable dominance of the central Asian warriors (Turks, Mongolians) was borne of people who lived a lifestyle devoted to hunting and archery. It would not be an exaggeration to state that a large force of competent archers, however dominant, would have been as exceedingly rare as it was terrifying, at least among sedentary agrarian societies of western Europe. And on foot, they were as easy to rout as any other foot soldiers to a well timed cavalry charge. I think this rarity alone would make shields much more appealing. You can't assume that because bodkins and longbow existed that they were hiding under every bush in the 13th century. There was a reason that forces widely and rapidly adopted the arquebus and the musket despite an inferior range and rate of fire to the longbow - it was principally easier to use for the common soldier and didn't require such specialized upper-body strength.
Your videos are always so valuable. I really enjoy how you break down each individual topic and explain away the common misconceptions that people have about equipment. Keep up the good work!
About the reinforced middle of centre grip shields. If you get hit in the centre line, the shield is more rigid. If the shield get's hit in the sides, it will give a little, and deflection is more likely. Even a slight amount of rotation, and subsequent penetration, would slow down a projectile coming towards your body. I believe the rotation is a big part of the design of centre grip shields, both in how you want to use it, but also in the protective ability of a shield. It should be accounted for when estimating the penetrative ability of missiles.
Are people forgetting how brutal sling stones were? I imagine the shield made dealing with lesser equipped forces significantly easier. Imagine facing slings without a shield. Also its an arms race that shields would of course eventually be on the loosing side. I want to be sure you guys know I love your guys work and truly believe you are doing great work. I think its kinda silly testing the best armor piercing weapons against shields and being surprised they defeat them. I feel like this debate is similar to taking body armor out and shooting it with large caliber armor piercing rounds and being surprised they penetrate of course it will however they are often not the only type weapon they will face and often not the most common.
Andreas Bichler has a test of a pavise reconstruction against a 1,200lb horn crossbow. That one is huge: 24.5 kg (54 lbs). Based on weights & dimensions, some 16th-cetury steel shields were around 1.5 to 2 mm thick & could have been of air-cooled medium-carbon steel or possibly better (hardened). Sir John Smythe's shield is close to 1.88 mm (not counting for curve & the non-steel parts). Assuming 1.8 mm & *** steel, that'd be about 160 J to pierce 40 mm with an arrow point by Alan Williams's numbers. So a yew warbow arrow might stick an a little with a close-range perpendicular shot but wouldn't penetrate enough to hurt the person behind. If hardened, which the shield may well have been since Smythe's Greenwich armor was, it would require nearly 220 J to defeat as above. Smythe's shield was a touch under 8lbs, so it's not especially heavy. If hardened, medium-size (21-22in diameter) steel shields could be basically impervious to anything short of a couched lance or gunpowder weapon at a very reasonable weight. They could be proofed against firearms but became awfully heavy then.
One thing I would love to see is a volley shot test against the shields. The safest way I can think of to do that would be to team up with the guys from How Ridiculous, so they can do a gravity drop with a handful of proper period arrows, to drop them onto a proper period shield.
Shields weren't used only for protection though, they played a big part in unit tactics. Most well know for this, is the Romans and Spartans. The battle of thermopylae pass (for example), where the Spartan's short spear and shield technique (that was incorrectly portrayed in the movie), combined with the natural choke point of the pass, ravaged the Persian army. Plus, something most people don't realise, is that most rank and file troops of most nations, were peasents. Back then, you had to buy your own weapons and equipment, the state rarely provided you with anything. So a shield was all you had, unless you were from a rich family, that could afford to have chain mail or plate. You could always tell a soliders social status, by the armour he wore. I'd rather go to war with a shield, than relying on a linen vest or tabard to protect me, even if it wasn't that effective. When push comes to shove, I can shove my shield in your face, make it harder for you to swing your sword at me. Maybe I'll try pushing you with it, and try to knock you off balance. There are many things you can do with a shield, depending on what kind of shield you have, and what sort of weapon you have with it. You try swinging your zweihander at me, when there's a shield wall in your face, and you're all packed in like sardines.
Install Raid for Free ✅ IOS/ANDROID/PC: clcr.me/gPamXq and get a special starter pack💥 Available only for the next 30 days
I would definitely hype Raid for $10,000, too.
@@Oxnate Whatever keeps this channel going. Reviewing new arms and armor can get expensive and time consuming.
maybe have Multi functional Paveses have exist what could be used Standing on the ground against Arrows and Bolts and be used half way descent in Hand to hand combat .
I mean as a Compromise for Crossbow Men .
@@Intranetusa there's better ways to do it. Raid also like using lawyers. Karl at InRangeTV had an interesting interaction with them.
Obviously the shields were to display the logos of your sponsors.
I'm going to make a mercenary company off of that for D&D now.
This raid is sponsored by Shadow Legends!
With heraldry this was often literally true.
I'll rather have youtubers to anounce their sponsors like that. Because at least they are skippable. Or so far they've been...
@@stevenmcclary534 underrated comment"! 😂🤣😂🤣
If Game of Thrones taught me anything, shields are intended to be swung behind your body as a counterweight while you strike
You never know when ninjas might be around. Better be safe and hold your shield behind you just in case, that way you can die from the honorable battleaxe in front of you than the risk of a surprise ninja from behind...... Or they just may be hot and want to die in the shade....
I have tested this manouvre. Lets me trust through plate armor like butter. I can't believe people don't do this more often.
Don't forget to ditch your helmet for that +2 plot armor! Never accept a helmet that covers your face! Gives -5 red shirt malus!
The only scene i can remember that featured a shield was ruclips.net/video/XTi-Y9KNNqk/видео.html
Pretend to be a ninja turtle.
Also worth noting that most historical bows were not 160 pound longbows or 1000 pound crossbows nor most javelins pila.
Absolutely, yes. True.
Yeah, getting even a fraction of an army's worth of men who can draw a 100+lb bow, or the industry to manufacture a several hundred pound crossbow was an accomplishment rarely done in mass. Plus, getting stabbed in the arm still has a higher survival rate than the torso, even with infections.
Great historical example comes from the "The history of the wars" or "the wars" by Procopius (somewhere around the 6th century, but obviously you find free translations online just as easy). In book I, at some point he compares Eastern Roman and Persian archery and their equipment:
"...especially among the Persians they were falling by the arrows in great numbers. For while their missiles were incomparably more frequent, since the Persians are almost all bowmen and they learn to make their shots much more rapidly than any other men, still the bows which sent the arrows were weak and not very tightly strung, so that their missiles, hitting a corselet, perhaps, or helmet or shield of a[n Eastern] Roman warrior, were broken off and had no power to hurt the man who was hit. The Roman bowmen are always slower indeed, but inasmuch as their bows are extremely stiff and very tightly strung, and one might add that they are handled by stronger men, they easily slay much greater numbers of those they hit than do the Persians, for no armour proves an obstacle to the force of their arrows."
@@louisvictor3473 Anna Comnemna says a similar thing about the Seljuk Turks with their horse archers with composite bows and the Crusaders with crossbows during the 1st Crusade. She described knights absolutely covered in arrows stuck in shields and mail that failed to penetrate while finding the penetration power of crossbows shocking.
Interesting fact I came across recently is that Byzantine military manuals recommended that horse archers should NOT be armed with very heavy bows, that speed of shooting (and therefore volume of arrow fire) is a preferable trait on the battlefield to the greater range etc of more powerful bows.
Its all about layers, even if the missile goes through the shield it'll have lost a signifiant portion of its kinetic energy. Now the missile has to penetrate the body armour (if used) and even the under layer of garments or gambison with less energy. What could've been a major wound could be reduced to a minor wound or even totally negated.
Not only the speed of the projectile will be reduced when going through each layer, the tip can also be blunted/deformed, and the angle of the projectile can change too... IMO this can make all the difference in many cases, ie needle arrow VS mail shirt. And finally of course, a shield would be useful in hand to hand fight, especially against people that might use anti-armor weapons.
My thoughts as well. I understood shields to be generally to be a less weighty form of protection (like armour) with the draw back of having to actively use it. On the battle field, it is equivalent to having more armour against one direction (i.e. towards the missiles) without having to sacrifice too much mobility (since you can also discard it once it is too damaged/weighed down as opposed to stuff strapped to you).
I was going to write the same, until I saw your comment.
In addition, I suspect importantly, if the shield was ruined, had spears and arrows stuck in it, or otherwise became cumbersome, it was easily discarded. Even if a spear or arrow penetrated the shield and armor, and even if it caused a non-lethal wound, ditching the shield would remove the spear. Meanwhile, ditching body armor really wasn't an option. Just not having to spend the battle with a bunch of arrows and spears stuck to your armor would be more than worth it. For support, while I'm sure shields were retrieved and repaired after battle, it's clear that the Vikings treated shields as partly disposable, as warrior graves usually contain several shields.
It's easy to forget that warriors and soldiers of past times were rational professionals, whose lives depended on their equipment. They knew that even slight benefits added up, and carefully weight the cost/benefit of every piece. If a shield improved their chances by 10%, while not causing any significant disadvantage, they'd use a shield.
Don't forget, also, that for the most part, fighters holding shields weren't just hiding behind them standing still waiting for something to puncture their shields. Shields would have been in constant motion and the odds of a sword or arrow striking one from straight-on perpendicular are very small. The shield would most likely have been struck a glancing blow.
Let us not forget that the shield was a hugely useful attack weapon that could be used to leverage your close combat foe off balance or even used as a blunt weapon to dispatch a downed foe. The usefulness of shields is woefully understimated.
came here to say this
Even when the shield is pierced, it's going to slow down the missile signiffenely. It might not be lethal anymore by the time it went through
Especially given what we've learned about the protective value of common textile armors; that itself isn't taking into acount rigid, or semi-rigid, metallic armors worn over the textile armor.
@Projected Senator Raymond Foster i'd say it's pretty likely
I think it is important to account for what the shield is used with. For example, even if the shield can't stop a longbow arrow, the mail can't stop it and the padded jacket can't stop it, but all three combined just might. Layers of protection.
@Projected Senator Raymond Foster Depends on the shield. Typically the larger a shield became, the thinner it had to be to avoid becoming too heavy. The Roman scutum for example was made from very thin plywood. It would have offered minimal protection from longbows and crossbows, especially at close range. Luckily for the Romans, bows of their time period were much weaker.
Signiffenely
"Checking out their... Equipment." *rotates screen on scantily clad champion* Sneaky Matt
"Handling the butt" finally snaps into place!
Yes, many champions in that game are quite equipped!
I saw what he did there
They obviously don't protect you against Shadow Legends..
Yeah they’re really bad. They collect user data to sell and get more access than they should to other information.
@@seanmarkham6965 I wish there was an easier way for small channels to make money. Forcing ads is like the only way to make money on RUclips.
@Ian Terry Roy MacLeod lmao, that advert is shocking tho that's bad enough
@Ian Terry Roy MacLeod Why not a front for Ohrana instead?
But you can view your heroes & examine their equiptment, video cuts to a barely dressed young lady with no armour, few weapons, but quite impressive equiptment.
It's like modern body armor. Yes there are rounds that will penetrate body armor depending on the level you're wearing but it doesn't mean it isn't worth wearing.
Modern body armour works great, as long as the other person shoots it. There are plenty of areas left uncovered that if hit there, you’re going to be out of action. Not saying it’s not worth having, just that you’d better keep your first aid skills sharp as well.
I’m of the better to have and not need camp, but every time it goes on it shines a light on how relatively unfit I am nowadays.
Body armours’ primary function, as far as I’m concerned, is to help you survive on your way to cover.
@Kshitij Raj a properly fitted plate/carrier should cover from clavicle to belly button, and from nipple to nipple on the front. On the back it should be 2” down from your most prominent vertebrae (look down, and starting from the base of your skull feel downward. It’s the one that sticks out most) to just above the small of your back. Since most people buy the same size plate front and back, the back plates upper location is the important one. This is more that half of your torso, if you’re facing perpendicular to the target. It’s also the reason modern shooting stances are how they are.
If a person is going to wear plates, they should be wearing side plates as well.
m.ruclips.net/video/PO_8GGluIOM/видео.html
That’s a good resource for this kind of talk.
@Kshitij Raj the point of either armours is to keep you alive. Getting a wound in the olde tymes was much more likely to go septic. They needed more coverage to help keep that from happening.
Getting shot in the arm/legs is survivable, with medical attention. The neck/face/head is a small fast moving target.
A spear or a sword leaves a much bigger wound, typically, but is also much easier to protect against. Look at the weight of a full plate harness (the best protection before firearms) vs what the average US infantryman is required to carry. Believe it or not, the plate weighs less, depending on SOP. That’s one of the reasons you see the folks that have more freedom of choice in their loadout choose to forego the flak aspect.
Of course if you have an MRAP, your armour is something that a knight could only dream of having. Heck even 20th century soldiers would be envious.
@@nathanielkidd2840 It covers the most vital areas. Most people aim for center mass also. Just like medieval armor, it doesn't cover everything but it improves your odds. Naturally mobility is important as well but a well fit , quality piece of modern rifle plates should have minimal impact on mobility.
@Velsen Fest that’s what the flak is for. The plates are for bullets aimed at you.
Shields do work.
At Poitiers for example the French men at arms were imperivous to the English arrows because they were "well pavised". As you said shields come in a variety of constructions.
Some are just wood boards and covedred in painted linen, yes, but a lot, and I mean a lot, of surviving originals are covered in rawhide, often both inside and outside, which increase massively their stopping power. Some even in their gesso cover have crushed iron ore or glass, put over the rawhide, which would make them even sturdier.
And these are hand held shields, not siege stuff like the large pavises.
They seem to be far more common at least in survivals, than the ones that are just poplar boards and painted linen. It seems that the norm, for hand held shields, be it infantry, cavalry, siege, is that they are covered in some rawhide and then covered in gesso, and maybe the gesso itself is "reinforced" by hardening mediums such as iron ore or glass.
Those are the kind of shieds that we should be testing, really :D.
Thanks and yes I totally agree. I feel like medieval shields are not being tested fairly. However I don't think Roman era shields are being treated particularly unfairly, just that the pilum is a very specialised weapon explicitly for penetrating shields (and therefore implying that normal javelins would not).
Untill they got flanked by Oxford.
@@scholagladiatoria Agreed. Shields are a hugely understudied subject which deserve muuuuuch more attention. More than armour, actually.
Viking Weapons and Combat Techniques, by William R. Short, does touch somewhat on the performance in practical tests of various "facing layers" on the round shield popular in Scandinavia at the time, although the commentary is focused primarily on the effect of the blow on the shield itself, rather than the effect of the shield on the blow (if that distinction makes sense). It's been a few years since I read it, but the results stuck with me.
Apparently, even a single layer of linen glued to the face can significantly extend the useful life of a shield in combat, and a leather facing (although much heavier and cumbersome) increases durability to the extent that a shield can remain usable to at least some extent after many repeated blows from heavy axes that would render an un-faced shield nearly useless with two good blows.
(Edited for more precise word choice.)
The pilium is a form of javelin intended to be thrown. The design has two functions...to weight down a shield bearer load if in that kind of use, and to damage the weapon in event that someone were to toss it back at the original owner.@@scholagladiatoria
Also, often ignored, center grip shields give into impact quite a bit when hit anywhere with a bit distance from the boss, which messes with the penetration quite a bit.
Tests often do not simulate this, I believe yours did not as well, and show rather results of strap wielded shields which are more fixed in this regard.
Also haven’t seen test with a moving target which will drastically change results.
@@Drahko12 besides the thrower missing more often, how do you expect a moving target would effect the penetration?
@@holyknightthatpwns it might be very slight, I would have to do some calculations, but the arrow’s point being shoved out of line with the direction of the force of the following arrow and its momentum would change the amount of force the arrowhead exerts perpendicular to the shield, lowering the penetration. I imagine it would indeed be slight, even when considering the bending of the arrow that would occur as the arrow attempts to maintain its straight path.
@@AHagridLookalike Oh, that's a good point. I hadn't thought about the lateral motion helping to deflect the arrow.
In general I think there should also be more tests against an angled shield, as I doubt projectiles regularly hit them head on
@@holyknightthatpwns agreed, friend!
Keep in mind that earlier period shields (scutums or Gallic shields) may not have been designed with arrows particularly in mind at first: slings were very prevalent in warfare in the days of both the Greek and Roman Empires, especially when you take Carthage's Balearic slinger mercenaries into account. Just an interesting thought.
I highly agree here. We tend to think only in terms of javelins and arrows ve shields (if not just arrows) and too often forget about other ranged weapons
@@ameritus9041 This thought actually arose because I recently watched another video (by Invicta, ruclips.net/video/3uDtrwNY0Zk/видео.html) that highlighted the Balearic Slingers and their effectiveness. It was surprising in many ways to have the effectiveness and lethality of slings brought back into my attention.
@@thomasjackson8737 sounds interesting
@@ameritus9041 I found the vid and added the link to the other reply
Most of the tests I have seen involve a missile fired/thrown at a static shield from exactly in front. In reality, a shield was not just a passive barrier. It could be turned to an angle to deflect missiles or blows, and it could be moved up down or sideways to parry. A blow from a weapon hitting the shield edge on woudl react differently from one hitting the shield face on. Also, it obscures the target that the enemy is aiming for, and it can hide the position of the sword hand the person using the shield. Think about most shields as dynamic objects used actively to close one line, deflect or parry attacks, and conceal the weapon hand, and they make more sense.
Also some warriors had 'Shield Bearers" to protect them
It's a point. We're so used to firearms, where the missile kind of instantly arrives at the target and you never see its flight, that we forget things like javelins, and even arrows, move slowly enough that you can see and maybe react while they're in flight. Although on a battlefield I reckon chances are you're going to be so busy, a lot of the stuff you won't see coming.
Another thing worth mentioning is that all these tests include a shield that is fixed steady onto a holding device, meaning it can’t move as an arm would when absorbing the force of the blow.
When a human holding a shield gets struck on the shield it folds in that direction, because it’s impossible to hold it steady, which also means all the force can’t go directly at the attacked point. It will be absorbed and lessened.
A shield won't always be struck by a perpendicular projectile. Having a shield angled would probably deflect quite a few projectiles and still cover the body quite well.
2:26 "Sometimes it's fun to just look at your champions, and eh.... You know... Check out their equipment." 😂
Notice he had a warmaiden up when doing that.... doubt it would be the same if he had a deathknight up!
Shields are for protecting you against Raid Shadow legends.
“What were shields actually for?”
Answer: Depends on the context.
Thanks, now I don't have to watch the video! :D
To stop pommels
Wall hangers....
Serving food on.
It's always this reason in his video
To be carried home on?
For protecting your black soup.
as a counterweight when sprinting
Thank you for a genuine laugh out loud.
Battle of Hastings didn't turn in the Normans favor until the Shield Wall broke, then the Bretons were able to loosen their arrows at better angles. So I think Shields do the job in shield walls, I also think with the Battle of Thermopylae the Persians would have just used their archers to pick off the Spartans instead of wasting three days. So I imagine Hoplite Shields work.
Much depends on what kind of bows were being used and at what range. At Hastings at least it was likely the European short bow, not a terribly strong bow. Welsh longbow or Saracen composite bow at close range? Different problem altogether.
@@oldschooljeremy8124 "European short bow" is not a thing. There is just an assumption that non-Welsh bows were weak, without much to back that up.
Yes, good point, that's why we have all of that art depicting not-things and assumptions rather than actual weapons.
Some aspis were kinda op for their time, having a sheet of bronze on top of the wood.
@@MinSredMash “without anything to back it up.” Anything non-welsh is weak. QED.
Shields make good sleds for dragging equipment & corpses I'm told.
Not to mention sledding in the snow.
@@Riceball01 why yes, you can definitely slide around on top of bodies as well since they are basically frozen during winter: especially in colder climates.
Why do that when you can summon Tenser’s Floating Disc?
Wait what were we talking about... ?
@@shoeberrypie I think we were supposed to be wargaming. 🤔
Protection from sling stones? Seems to me that was enough reason to carry a shield in battle for most of history.
Sling stones are just as crap-your-pants terrifying as bullets so I don’t blame them 😭
I would speculate that the shield gives you an initial boost to moral and a sense of durability. Using a shield with a spear makes me a feel less vulnerable than just brandishing the spear alone; an issue that I believe would count for something in a battle situation.
Another thing to keep in mind is that these tests tend to be about hitting the shield straight on. Whereas in combat, many times we might see a somewhat oblique hit. An oblique hit to flesh will still cause a wound, but an oblique hit to a shield might deflect even if a straight shot would not
A good validation is found in Homer's Iliad, which isn't necessarily a 100% historical source, but it does indicate how people at the time described the use of arms and armor. Word-search for shield indicates numerous references to characters being struck near/over/under/around the rim of the shield. Also Ulysses is struck through the shield by a spear, but it misses a fatal blow, so spear through shield happens. And in numerous cases of a character fending off a blow or missile it refers to it striking the middle of the shield specifically, indicating the understanding that the reinforced center and the boss specifically are the strong point, where you'd want to receive the blow.
There's more than one type of shield described in Homer's Iliad. Most of them seem to be the 'figure 8' Mycenean-type ox hide shields. Those are well-represented in the artistic record, and don't seem to have metal bosses, but do have a reinforced wooden bar down the centre line. That's probably what they mean by 'the middle'. There's every reason to trust these descriptions, as other elements of contemporary arms and armour described in the same passages, such as 'boars tusk helmets' have been confirmed by the archaeological record from Mycenean Greece. More difficult is the lengthy passage describing the shield made for Achilles by Hephaestus. It is depicted as round and embellished with metal, with decorations depicting country life that are described in detail. Its not entirely clear that all of the Iliad was actually composed by the same person, at the same time, so its possible that differing descriptions of material culture are artefacts of different periods in the poem's evolution. The shield of Achilles may therefore represent another type of early shield, a later type of shield, or just a fantastical, magical shield made by a god for a demigod.
Didn't the Iliad also sometimes talk about layered shields, and even about spears penetrating this layer and the other layer but being stopped by the fourth or fifth layer in?
"sometimes it's just fun to look at your champions and look at their equipment"
.....or lack thereof?
i'd wanna see my champions without their.. equipment ;) jkjk... unless 👀👀
@@xirensixseo the 34th Rule of the Internet is a pathway to many abilities some would consider to be... unnatural
Arrows can go through shields but generally speaking you are safer with a shield
That steel buckler you are holding is just a "traveler's" frying pan.
The tedious thing about them is that you have to remove the handle and the padding when you want to cook something. The great thing about these frying pan is that you can also use them as a shield.
Lookah likeah a wok.
Quite a bit of talk about layering, but one kind of layering not mentioned: So, maybe a hard driven arrow can go through your light-ish shield. Maybe a hard driven arrow can go through your chain shirt. But, maybe that arrow will have a harder time going through your shield AND your chain shirt. Not like you take your armour off before you pick up the shield.
In a battlefield context victory is mostly about averages...if you can increase the average output and survivability of your side then you win. More soldiers nullify the 'lucky strike' effect.
Or to put it technically, it mitigates the impact of outliers to the average outcome.
1. They will stop and protect against *random* attacks and small scale shrapnel. Basically acting like modern PPE.
2. They will give the combatants more confidence and more options in melee. Having a shield to hide behind may allow a soldier to hold his position on the line.
3. They are a big board of wood that blocks the view of the enemy of where the attack against them is coming from and where the body is that they are attacking. It is hard for the enemy to follow the movement of the weapons used against them if the shield is in the way. This is especially true if the combatants are close to each other.
All I've got to say is that there is no armor as good as plot armor.
I think the angle the shield is struck at plays a big role and perhaps has been overlooked in terms of medieval knightly shields. As far as I am aware medieval shields were not held straight on. Deflecting an arrow or spear is much easier and doesn't require as thick a shield then when trying to stop one head on.
You would have to be superconfident on your ability to deflect an arrow sent at you to try deflecting it off at an angle, that's some John Wick level shit - also, you are presuming one arrow sent at you by one antagonist. In a battlefield situation you would likely have numerous people firing at you.
I think most people would just try to hide behind the shield when they see an incoming arrow
@@dzonbrodi514 All you would have to do to deflect an arrow is hold the shield statically at an angle and hide behind it. No John Wicking necessary.
@@flyingfox09 what if they aim for the place where you are not holding the shield?
@@dzonbrodi514 then they should miss since most of your body should be behind your shield in the first place.
Soldiers rarely take to the field naked, with just a shield for defence. Even if it doesn't stop an arrow, pillum, or whatever, it might slow them down enough that your gambison, mail, and other protective clothing will stop them.
I guess we tend to focus on the very powerful late medieval longbows, but remember not all bows or crossbows are that powerful, i guess thats why the welsh and english became famous archers and mercenaries, for example in muslim accounts of fighting the crusaders its said that the Franks"crusaders" were covered in arrows like pincushions but it seemed as it didnt bother them at all, so when you combine armor and the fact that not all shields are the same thickness and not all bows are heavy longbows it gives you a good conclusion i think
What I am reminded is that with wood, the grain direction is important. So with wood you have the way a plank is made along the growth of the trunk upwards is the face and you have the end grain which is the bottom of the plank. If you want your shield to be more resistant to strikes you join end grains together. This is what will make a very impact resistant surface and heavy shield. That is what also results in a shield being heavy as they need to be fairly thick to be robust.
Now modern reproduction shields use planks and cross them over on two layers but essentially they split because it is easier to penetrate between the grains.
One way a shield perhaps might be tactically important even though an arrow with a flat trajectory can pass through it is that it protects against longer-ranged lobbed arrows as well as slings and other lighter ranged weapons that skirmishers might use.
Question: what were shields actually for?"
Answer: "Onions..."
Onions? Shields taste better if they are carmelized?
2:27 Actually had me rolling
LOL, I had skipped the ad, but I shouldn't have.
Ya ... "just looking .... at your champions.. and checking out the equipment... "🤫😇
Equipment ... right .. nice save/avoiding moderate 😏👍
@@jasondoe2596 - Scholaembeddedadvertisia
He's cleverly looking for ways to get you to actually watch the commercials!
oh my god... not even matt easton managed to escape from RAID SHADOW LEGENDS
Ehh, Matt's been into silly legends for a few months now, if I remember correctly.
the cash is good for bending the knee.
brandon hererra bought the materials for his firearm buisness with raid. kinda wild
Raid ad ends at 3:50
ty
Wow this was a long ad.
@@simonreichel7296 More money most likely.
Making history videos aren't cheap I guess.
Thank you. Most obnoxious supporter of channels, by far.
I'd sell out for $10,000, too.
Two points in favour of using ANY shield:
1) Maybe you'll get lucky and the longbow arrow will not penetrate (direction, sheer luck etc)
2) I'd happily take a hit from a longbow arrow that penetrated my shield (and lost much of his kinetic energy on the way) vs. a full hit without the shield in between. Even if the arrow came through the shield to wound you, it has much less force, and combined with your armor you won't get injured that much, or even at all.
Great video, Matt! 👍
protected =/= immune, hardly difficult to grasp
Its all about penetration and context.....
@@Colonel_Overkill It's important to test if greased shaft really penetrates deeper.
also resistant =/= -proof
Non-immune =/= un-protected.
Reminds me of flak jacket I saw in an army surplus store once, that had the interesting message printed on the inside: "This armor *might* save your life!" (emphasis mine)
They also diminish the power of the blow of every weapon that hits them. An arrow that punches through mail and goes 5 inches into your abdomen is going to be much less effective if it has to punch through a wooden and canvas shield before it gets to your mail. Shields don’t have to be invulnerable to be effective; they simply reduce the velocity and momentum of every weapon that hits them before they get to the person holding the shield.
This is a very important point, and is basically the reason modern body armor is effective. It may stop the bullet, but it still feels (and has a similar physiological impact) like getting hit by a bat... that doesn't mean it's not effective. Getting hit by a bat is better than getting shot.
I used to run a tabletop rpg system called True20, where I made it so large shields provided more defense against ranged attacks and smaller shields were better for melee, but D&D 5e doesn't have a great way to represent that without getting too fiddly.
Gurps had two hit point values for each type of shield, one for penetration, another for destruction. And those varied based on materiel.
Think one of the things to keep in mind is that when you guys test these shields v. arrows n' bolts we are talking straight hits, imagine a slight off angle and all the suddenly i am not so certain that the shield wont play a large role combined with chainmail and what have you..
This makes a lot of sense and is in line with how modern defenses are rated vs specific threats such as NIJ body armor levels. A specific defense was designed to protect vs specific threats and a defense being engaged by a threat outside that specification does not necessarily mean that that the armor is bad
I'm convinced the main purpose of the pilum is to deprive the enemy of their shields, to reduce their effectiveness. Any actual direct damage to the enemy is just a bonus.
Yup it was meant to stick to shields and weigh them down, and break if removed to prevent it being thrown back
@@alexmag342 The pilum was designed to bend/break after impact with anything, really.
So the obvious question is: is there much in historical post-battle reports (or archeological data looking at bone injuries) to suggest there were a lot of arm or hand injuries among people using shields? Unfortunately, the absence of anything in the written record might not be a good indicator, as it may have been so understood and accepted as an inevitable consequence of battle that nobody wasted ink reporting it, but archeological evidence seems like it could be a good indicator.
Can you do tests on wicker shields? How much less effective is it over wooden plank shields? The thracians used wicker shields, how good were their shields?
I for one would be very interested in learning more about the performance of wicker in this regard.
me three
2:28 I like checking out the ‘equipment’ too... 😂
What were shields made for? For stopping pommels obviously. Being ended rightfully must be quite embarrassing.
I doubt that. Everyone knew that pommels could not be stopped by anything before they tasted flesh.
@@louisvictor3473 What about MACHICOLATIONS?
@@aratus1622 Those are literally holes :v
Better the shield gets penetrated or smashed than the one holding it.
Shield tests are not accurate at all, surviving shields are much more durable and strong than the "shields" being tested.
According to sources arrows did not pierce them at all
@@alexmag342 What sources? Whether they were pierced or not depends on the type of shield, angle of attack and weapon used. Tod Cutler has a good series on shield penetration.
not into games myself but “I enjoy just ehh checking out their equipment” while looking at a perfectly rounded computer animated butt was quite fun! Great channel though, really enjoying it!
One time I read an article saying that pillum was used not to primary hurthing the shield user, but to turn the shield into a "dead weight" - sorry for my bad English.
Please see my series of videos on this topic :-)
@@scholagladiatoria I didn't know there was a series, I'll look for it right now. Thanks!
Shields also have an important psychological impact. If you’re a bowman and you have the option to shoot at the infantry formation carrying a bunch of big shields or at the one not carrying any, odds are you’re going to shoot at the one carrying none. A shield may not %100 protect you from incoming fire but any arrow not fired at you is one less to worry about.
Speculation on my part; but if you're going to battle wouldn't you be wearing other armour besides a shield? In this case wouldn't the shield slow the velocity of the incoming missile to the point that it would merely glance or minor dent in the armour you're wearing and greatly increase surviving?
Like in the Iliad, a spear stopped by a shield 9 oxen hides thicc (aka special. Why els write about it?)
I love how they decribed the shields in the iliad XD. Have you ever red the parcival Epos of Wolfram von Eschenbach?
The he he writes quiet pictureful how whole forests were cut down to fill the need for the lances of one duel alone XD.
This is isn't a criticism of yours or tod's tests, but I think it's important to note that there are a few extra things to be considered. With boss gripped shields as opposed to strapped shields, not only would they be thicker, more protective at the center and have a steel boss as you point out, but the sides would be protected by the fact that the shield has a lot of give and wobbles quite a lot when struck at the sides so that would probably reduce the force of the arrow, therefore affecting penetration significantly.
Also, just because a gambeson, mail or a shield doesn't stop an arrow by itself, having a gambeson and a shield or the 3 together probably would.
The shield potentially reduces the force of the arrow and slows it down so( I would imagine) that reduces the chances of it going through the person underneath, perhaps turning a lethal or debilitating wound into a minor one.
While you pilum tests are most likely accurate for the Roman scutum( at which time they were using weaker bows and cross bows compared to the late medieval battlefield) and Tod's testing and mindset are excellent, I don't think Tod's shields are precisely accurate enough analogues for medieval shields, consider .In Ian Mortimer's book, The Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England, it is noted that in late 14th century London, a decent sword would cost 2s and a cheap sword 6d, but a shield would cost 18s. To me, this means that they were a lot more complex than just 15mm wood with something over the top, and had more layers, rawhide and glue, along with something like powdered iron or glass. Consequently , they would be a lot more protective than we seem to think.
Not addressed here is the use of shields as sleds during combat. This is why having the high ground was so important!
The highest ground gave you the fastest and furthest ride.
unfortunately the bosses on scuta make them stick and not slide as easily as hoped.
Yes I have tried on steep grassy banks, still waiting for enough snow to try it on.
@@adamrudling1339 grab an aspis, that looks like it would slide well
@@adamrudling1339 you must balance on the boss, and spin around like a beyblades. It's the context they were designed for
Well it works in Willow
I’m an amateur writer and I really appreciate these types of videos, it allows me to accurately portray history or at least as best we can tell. I believe fiction and non fiction writing truly impacts people’s lives and can genuinely change how they look at the world, we have a duty to make sure that any information we portray is accurate else we do a disservice to the men and women who spent their lives with these very topics as a huge concern
Also, note that primarily shields would also be used in hand-to-hand combat, where you just cannot generate the same forces that you'll see with a thrown weapon where the thrower/shooter can take the time to put their full body strength over a long time into the strike. Strikes in close combat will most likely never been from full extension, as you'll be trying to be fast and quick and slip by your opponent's defenses, and also will seldom be struck straight face-on to the shield.
Also also, while your gut tells you to hold out a shield flat against incoming missiles (because that gives you the largest occlusion) you'll really be better off angling it so they don't strike it dead on. Even if the bolt/javelin/whatever doesn't skid off from the angle, you'll still be going through maybe root 2 (almost 50%) MORE wood than it would from a perpendicular strike. All these tests against shields propped firmly against an immovable object and struck straight on are interesting, but probably not representative of how most strikes would be intercepted
It's worth mentioning that there is a point in history where the defense against missile troops moves from "your shield" to "your missile troops". In antiquity the options of long range offense were limited to slings and short bows which deliver a lot less penetration power and could be countered with a large shield reasonably well. But we already see the defense against javelins and especially the pila, which pack a lot more of a punch, being first and foremost your own skirmishers screening you against short range missile attacks. To put it short, in a medieval setting having to actually use your shield to defend against incoming arrows in the field is already the worst case scenario but you will still be glad that there is at least something between you and the pointy end of an arrow, even if it won't stop it.
Another note about arrows/spears/etc piercing shields: angle and distance matters too. Sure straight on at 10m a longbow will go through a shield, but what about falling from above from 50m where it hits at an angle?
Pavaise probably will stop firearms of its era, at least the man-portable ones. These Hussite-era gunpowder weapons have relatively short barrels and small calibers, and gunpowder formula and granulation isn't quite there either, making them even less powerful, so even early arquebuses may be defeated by a heavy pavaise. They will also protect you against cannon, but only if it's loaded with shot, a solid ball will obviously go through.
Once muskets start to appear in 16th century, pavaise is pretty much gone.
I think a lot of people forget that Todd is using a longbow (or a makeshift longbow) which was a very specific type of bow. Most soldiers would have to defend themselves against bows that weren't of that draw weight
Certainly many bows in ancient Europe or other parts of the world would have been less powerful, and most crossbows were also less powerful than longbows.
You get that velocity with a good 145# yew bow and 64 gram arrows - the estimated low end on draw weights of indentured English archers. The heavy arrows do not perform as well as with a bow of the estimated draw weight of 160#.
@@eirikronaldfossheim Where are you getting this "estimated low end" from? As far as I'm aware, there's not a lot of evidence to go on when it comes to determining the typical draw-weights. Heck, Mike Loades estimated the typical draw weight as being closer to 120lbs. Also, what do you mean by "indentured" English archers? I was under the impression that they voluntarily joined armies to supplement their normal incomes.
@@InSanic13 I also estimate the typical average draw weight to be closer to 125 lb -- in the population as a whole. And Loads' estimate was 120-140 lb. But he is talking about archers in general. For elite archers he goes up to 170 lb.
Indentured archers were not the average. You had the Commission of Array, which included everyone able to carry weapons. The entire population were divided into 3 categories - archers, able archers and best archers. The best archers were selected to serve, and then able archers if they didn't have enough best archers. The sources specifically tell us that the strongest and best archers should be selected. They were grouped into companies of 50-100 men and put under a captains, usually an esquire. Also, every man-at-arms had to bring 3 archers each. Men-at-arms would selected archers from their own lands and those that didn't make the cut was still part of the Commission of Array. In other words, men-at-arms got the first pick and had access to the best and the best of the best. When they only needed a few percentages of the entire male population for an invasion force, there is no reason at all to take someone only able to draw 120 lb. They started training at 7 years of age. Why do you think that 20% of the men who trained for strength from the time they reached puberty at 13, were not in command of 140 lb bows when they reached their early twenties? That's what it takes. Only 20 % of them. With the right technique anyone can pick up a 90 lb bow and draw it back. With 6 months of training you can draw a 100lb+ bow.
140lb correspond well with the draw weight of the yew bows from the Mary Rose. Some of the bows were of lower draw weight, however, there were many more bows than there were soldiers onboard, so the lower draw weight of 100-120 was probably intended to be used by the sailors. There were 200 sailors and 185 soldiers on boards. With 250 bows, there was 65 bows more than there was soldiers. The crew of 200 sailors were divided into two watches, but during combat it was all hands on deck. However, yhe ship only needed 100 sailors to sail it. The rest had to help with the cannons and fight alongside the soldiers. They would usually only man one side during battle. 40 men and the gunners were more than enough. This meant that around 60 men could use bows during an engagement. When you subtract that percentage from the total number of recovered bows, you get bows left with a draw weight of 140-160 lb if we accept an elastic stiffness of 7.5. Most of the staves these bows were made of came from Northern Italy. In theory the thinnest bows could have been as heavy as 125-130 lb if they were made of high alpine staves with an elastic stiffness of 9. The soldiers onboard was not part of an elite of soldiers. They were part of the Captain's own indentured soldiers. The Admiral, however, brought 85 extra archers onboard the ship at the eve of battle, the kings own bodyguards, but those men brought their own bows. That's probably why we have found a 185 lb bow loose on deck.
If contemporary sources tell us that bows penetrated plate armour of the day, they had to have a draw weight heavy enough to do it. As the author of Gesta pointed out: The arrows penetrated the sides of their helmets at Agincourt. To do that against armour made of low-carbon steel we need a good 140 lb bow and a heavy arrow at around 100 gram+.
Thanks raid shadow legends for keeping our favorite channels alive as RUclips is ridiculous with monetization. Especially when @2:27 "it's also fun just LOOKING at your champion sometimes, and uuuuh... ya know... just checking out their equipment"
one (I think) important note to add: Even if an object(arrow/spear...) penetrates the shield, that act of penetration takes away kinetic energy and the guy behind the shield is usually armored as well. Meaning that additional barrier even when broken through can make the difference for the armor to absorb the impact or not.
a thing to keep in mind is that testing the shield against the english longbow or the roman pilum is that those weapons were generally considered the best in the class for availability for the period so while they would have a higher chance of penetrating a shield more, there were quite a few other groups around that didn't have weapons as capable to that degree- which would mean that shields would still increase in effectiveness against weapons that had less penetrative power when used against these other groups.
Before the video starts, my take is always this: Simulations and tests where shields break or weapons go through them are always ideal situations. A real target is moving around and holding the shield at different angles etc. Shooting a full power arrow at a static shield portrays the ideal conditions that would be hard to find on a battlefield.
A thing to remember about tests showing projectiles etc piercing shields is they aren't being held by a squishy human who does things like move, so the likelihood of penetration would be reduced by unfavourable angles and movement causing glances.
clearly they re for weight training
and disciplinary meassures, if the knave spills drink on the knight, he ll carry all the shields back home, both ways, uphill, in the snow
As others have more or less said, it reduces the trauma by one or more steps. Kill to severe wound, severe wound to minor wound, minor wound to no wound. Obviously you could break it down more than that but you get the idea. Great vid. I especially liked the revelation...at least to me on smaller shields being more resistant to damage and thus in some ways offering better protection. :)
If you can find it, Mike Loades had a shield special in "Weapons that made Britain". High speed camera shows a resilience to a variety of weapons, when used to deflect the impact of a weapon, the "spreading" of impact energy becomes clear there.
I also like personally the buckler and sword, when wearing some armour, to use it for blocking hits, and use the buckler in the offensive role.
There's also the aspect of visual cover when it comes to larger formations, and then there's a psychological warfare aspect as an enemy wouldn't be able to guess which troops may be carrying a thinner lightweight one vs. a heavier more protective one if they all present the same amount of area and appear similar from the front. They would only be able to make an assumption that shields would provide the same level of protection and encumbrance when that may not be the case.
I thought this was going to my super obvious, but you made some solid points and made me think differently about shields. Good work old chap!
Takes me back to middle school stick fights. We made armor out of cardboard, chicken wire and paperback books. Plastic snow saucer shields were semi effective. Bamboo garden stakes for arrows
I was told by my Latin teacher that the pylum did not need to fully penetrate a shield, It only needed to stick into a shield to make the shield useless for further use and typically the wood of the pylum would break but not separate from the steel shaft and make a shield completely unwieldy.
You should do some tests with the shields at different angles and see if that causes the projectiles deflect off
One fact is that shields have been used throughout history, which means that they worked.
The consequence I see is that for their users of the time, "working" did not necessarily mean "being allproof".
In fact, I think this is pretty much a case of "good enough": yes, six arrows went through your shield during that battle, but most likely it slowed them enough for your armor to absorb the remaining energy with ease. Unlike that other arrow that clocked you right on the chest, went through the joupon, the breastplate (curse the smith who made it...) and was thankfully stopped by the gambeson but still left you gagging for breath for a good ten seconds.
Maybe people just gave their troops shields to make convincing them to march towards the enemy easier.
I loved this video. Thank you, Matt! You did the topic a lot of justice. With information, passion, and CONTEXT. As someone who loves shields, I was not disappointed in the least.
I think you should do a long-form video on pavises! Appearances in art, their different forms, geographical spread, etc. The information on them isn't very accessible!
Might be cool to see a shield made out of expanded metal and plywood.
Presumably with the metal on top, with some sort of layer that keeps melee weapons from catching on the shield.
It would be interesting to see how it would handle Nd hold up with different thicknesses and hole sizes.
Isn't there also a slowing effect on a spear that goes through a shield? So, would my mediocer armor be more likely to save me from the spear if that spear first went through a shield?
that's also what I thought, any projectile going through a shield would lose at least some of its energy, therefore delivering less into anything behind that shield, so it might not go through the armor or the padding or through the flesh.
also I think the amount of deflected projectiles might be higher than we usually think
There's also the other side of carrying a shield.
Psychological reasons.
Anyone carrying a well-made, decent-looking shield, will feel more comfortable when going into battle.
I mean, it raises the user's morale while not making him feel invulnerable because for that you need full plate armour.
But any warlord with his wits about him, will make sure his fighters have access to decent shields because it gives them comfort and something to hold onto.
Historical example of a weapon carried just to improve morale (a shield may be a defensive tool but let's call it a psychological weapon):
during the fighting in the Pacific during World War II, reporters and cameramen serving with the American Marines in the frontline, were risking their necks too.
So their commander (editor in uniform) was asking for them to be issued with pistols.
The choice fell on pistols because the cameramen were carrying around their cameras and other filming equipment so anythinig bigger would be impractical.
I don't really know if they were actually given pistols but the editor's thought process was: no, pistols wouldn't make any difference because they probably didn't have time to train with them, because they were cameramen first and not supposed to fight.
However, having a sideweapon at least made them feel less uneasy, it bolstered their morale because in the back of their minds, they had something to shoot back with. Even if they would never use them.
I've always thought of shields like big cushions, good for shock absorption, bits can be damaged and it's still usable, it's cheaper than getting your armour professionally fixed, and slows down the weapon enough so your armour can do its job effectively.
With the Scutum, it's very big but fairly thin, so if two Cherusci poke five holes in the top left corner, there's still a lot of shield left to use, as long as anything isn't stuck. Then afterwards it's easy to fix or replace, take the boss off, put it on another and you're golden. I think the Roman Industrial support could have allowed for that.
Obvs is different for different shields/bucklers! But maybe goes a way to explain why few shields are made of metal. It's perhaps designed to leave the field very chewed up.
Tangential point, I've just read Beowulf, and prior to fighting a fire breathing dragon, Beowulf takes up an entirely Iron shield to protect against the flames. Not sure it would have worked
One function of shields that wasn't covered here and a function that I think is actually really important and perhaps even one of the key reasons they were used is the psychological function of shields. So the idea that people carrying shields feel more protected (whether this is entirely true in practice or not) and because they feel more protected their morale is increased and they are less likely to lose heart and run in combat. And given that particularly in ancient and medieval times the army that broke first psychologically was usually the one that lost, things that boost the staying power of your army can be extremely valuable. So I think the morale boosting/psychological reinforcing effect of carrying a shield could be one of its most important features/benefits. I realize that when testing shields for effectiveness today its hard to measure this aspect or perhaps even for it to come to mind b/c you have to be standing there on the field facing death and dealing with that fear for this morale support to come into play. And obviously that's not something that people shooting arrows and bolts at shields are going to come across and it would be hard to measure objectively anyway - beyond looking at historical battles and perhaps seeing if there was any correlation to armies that carried shields regularly into battle and how they performed from a morale perspective. But even then there are so many variables it would be hard to know. But I was just thinking about it while watching the video and it seems logical to me that the above would be a thing, though again I don't know how it would be tested or confirmed.
Moving beyond this comment - great and informative video! Keep up the good work and cheers.
In the Nihayat al-Sul Mamluk Furusiyya manuscript the author talks about what each shield material is useful for and it's weaknesses.
What causes most damage to the structure of a wooden shield?
: Exposure to fire, thrown stones or blows with the mace.
: What are the uses of the wooden shield?
: Protection from arrows of both kinds, and javelins and spears.
What most injures a leather shield?
Blows from swords or maces, thrown daggers and javelins, and being hit by pieces of wood.
: What are the uses of the iron shield?
: Against the sprayer of fire, blows of the mace and sword, thrusts of lance or dagger, and javelins and both sorts of arrow.
I'd venture to guess that having a shield that was effective against anything but a perfectly aligned thrust or missile weapon more than served its purpose in the majority of cases. Modern armor takes the same approach and parries and blocks in striking arts follow the same idea.
People hate on Raid but i like them. I dont play them but I like the fact that they support creators on youtube specially during the pandemic.
"Not always the case" is far preferable to "being stuck like a pig"
Shields were also used for displaying heraldic devices, painting various symbols (Medusa, Lambda, Legion name), conspicuous consumption (Sutton Hoo Shield).
One fact seems relevant to me about the degree of protection a shield provides against projectiles and this fact is that most of the tests carried out to test this protection are done by placing the shield facing the projectile; now for example the armor of tanks, or, more precisely as regards the subject, the breastplate of a knight, the angle in which the protection is positioned is largely likely to increase the deflection capacity of this one . A fighter who charges a shooter will have all the more tendency to present his shield at an angle as he will not move completely in front or in profile, but rather three-quarter, a walking posture in which he will be able to move forward quickly while by ensuring its steps when the irregularities of the ground and in which it seems to me very easy and natural to protect its body with the three-quarter shield on its front flank. In this case a relatively flat shield would be notably an advantage and in formations as long as the man on the right is a little advanced, the deflection of a projectile towards his left will not risk injuring his colleague on the left. could the shield also be held at an angle towards the sky so as to deflect the projectile upwards? These are some of my thoughts on the subject. Hope this helps solve this mystery ! ;)
Well, bear in mind that competent archers were incredibly rare and incredibly valuable. There was a fascinating quote from a Byzantine/Eastern Roman general quoted in one of John Keegan's books on ancient warfare stating that out of 500 archers, 50 would be good (e.g. about 10%). This would be especially the case with a longbow or an equivalent composite bow because of the draw weight required of a typical warbow. The English were unique in that they required all able-bodies males to partake in mandatory archery practice. And even despite this practice, they never could quite total victory during the Hundred Years War after numerous spectacular victories. The French would eventually recover, whereas the English army was unable to recover after Patay, after the loss of so many skilled archers. You can give anyone a longbow, they will not be a longbowman of the caliber of the soldiers at Agincourt or Crecy. Similarly, the inexorable dominance of the central Asian warriors (Turks, Mongolians) was borne of people who lived a lifestyle devoted to hunting and archery. It would not be an exaggeration to state that a large force of competent archers, however dominant, would have been as exceedingly rare as it was terrifying, at least among sedentary agrarian societies of western Europe. And on foot, they were as easy to rout as any other foot soldiers to a well timed cavalry charge. I think this rarity alone would make shields much more appealing. You can't assume that because bodkins and longbow existed that they were hiding under every bush in the 13th century. There was a reason that forces widely and rapidly adopted the arquebus and the musket despite an inferior range and rate of fire to the longbow - it was principally easier to use for the common soldier and didn't require such specialized upper-body strength.
"I've been very lucky many many years ago when I was teaching in Scotland... Was it Scotland? I think it was England..."
You've just made an enemy for life!
Your videos are always so valuable. I really enjoy how you break down each individual topic and explain away the common misconceptions that people have about equipment. Keep up the good work!
About the reinforced middle of centre grip shields. If you get hit in the centre line, the shield is more rigid. If the shield get's hit in the sides, it will give a little, and deflection is more likely. Even a slight amount of rotation, and subsequent penetration, would slow down a projectile coming towards your body.
I believe the rotation is a big part of the design of centre grip shields, both in how you want to use it, but also in the protective ability of a shield. It should be accounted for when estimating the penetrative ability of missiles.
Are people forgetting how brutal sling stones were? I imagine the shield made dealing with lesser equipped forces significantly easier. Imagine facing slings without a shield. Also its an arms race that shields would of course eventually be on the loosing side. I want to be sure you guys know I love your guys work and truly believe you are doing great work. I think its kinda silly testing the best armor piercing weapons against shields and being surprised they defeat them. I feel like this debate is similar to taking body armor out and shooting it with large caliber armor piercing rounds and being surprised they penetrate of course it will however they are often not the only type weapon they will face and often not the most common.
Andreas Bichler has a test of a pavise reconstruction against a 1,200lb horn crossbow. That one is huge: 24.5 kg (54 lbs). Based on weights & dimensions, some 16th-cetury steel shields were around 1.5 to 2 mm thick & could have been of air-cooled medium-carbon steel or possibly better (hardened). Sir John Smythe's shield is close to 1.88 mm (not counting for curve & the non-steel parts). Assuming 1.8 mm & *** steel, that'd be about 160 J to pierce 40 mm with an arrow point by Alan Williams's numbers. So a yew warbow arrow might stick an a little with a close-range perpendicular shot but wouldn't penetrate enough to hurt the person behind. If hardened, which the shield may well have been since Smythe's Greenwich armor was, it would require nearly 220 J to defeat as above. Smythe's shield was a touch under 8lbs, so it's not especially heavy. If hardened, medium-size (21-22in diameter) steel shields could be basically impervious to anything short of a couched lance or gunpowder weapon at a very reasonable weight. They could be proofed against firearms but became awfully heavy then.
One thing I would love to see is a volley shot test against the shields. The safest way I can think of to do that would be to team up with the guys from How Ridiculous, so they can do a gravity drop with a handful of proper period arrows, to drop them onto a proper period shield.
Shields weren't used only for protection though, they played a big part in unit tactics. Most well know for this, is the Romans and Spartans. The battle of thermopylae pass (for example), where the Spartan's short spear and shield technique (that was incorrectly portrayed in the movie), combined with the natural choke point of the pass, ravaged the Persian army.
Plus, something most people don't realise, is that most rank and file troops of most nations, were peasents. Back then, you had to buy your own weapons and equipment, the state rarely provided you with anything. So a shield was all you had, unless you were from a rich family, that could afford to have chain mail or plate. You could always tell a soliders social status, by the armour he wore.
I'd rather go to war with a shield, than relying on a linen vest or tabard to protect me, even if it wasn't that effective. When push comes to shove, I can shove my shield in your face, make it harder for you to swing your sword at me. Maybe I'll try pushing you with it, and try to knock you off balance. There are many things you can do with a shield, depending on what kind of shield you have, and what sort of weapon you have with it.
You try swinging your zweihander at me, when there's a shield wall in your face, and you're all packed in like sardines.