History teachers: don’t be overly reliant on one source Actual historians: the Bayeux Tapestry, the Bayeux Tapestry, the Bayeux Tapestry, the Bayeux Tapestry, the Bayeux Tapestry, the Bayeux Tapestry, the Bayeux Tapestry, the Bayeux Tapestry, the Bayeux Tapestry, the Bayeux Tapestry, the Bayeux Tapestry...
*Genghis Khan680* If all you got is that one tapestry, that's what you use. Of course actual archeological finds ,haven't proven it wrong so far, so its a good supplement. IDk how many written sources survived, or how much later they were penned.
@@genghiskhan6809 We're missing so much history it isn't funny. The parts we are not missing .. we're not really sure off. Many Reputable sources are decades after the fact, others are obvious propaganda , others are not history at all. More like historical fiction, with a moral lesson at the core. I wont mention pure anecdotal accounts we cannot use, because no one of their contemporaries we have mentions them.
When Scholgladiatoria says "i don't know the answer to that. If you know anything, I'd like to hear it," it's not an admission of ignorance, it's a mortal challenge.
I know this is just a joke, but honestly what I love most about Matt is, it is totally a public admission of ignorance. The best scientists and scholars will never let ego get in the way of good data and facts. It's a cliché at this point but: "Admitting one's ignorance is the first step in acquiring knowledge." -Socrates
@@therustedshank9995 then you are dishonestly assigning stuff to atheism that has nothing to do with rejecting the insane notion of invisible all seeing magical entities of authority, post mortem judgement/rebirth and predetermination...
In armor development you see over and over again them choosing to sacrifice defense over the eyes so they can have better vision. So I think this theory is spot on.
I mean, take the Romans, who were formidable. They could make fully enclosed helmets, no problem, see gladiators. Still chose soldiers to have more open helmets and a big ass shield, because communication and perception is really important.
@@SonsOfLorgar Missing the point, aren't we? The point is that they had the capacity to produce enclosed helmets, and they still made a choice not to for their professional troops and there is likely a reason for that which isn't only "they liked it that way".
I'm pretty sure the norman shield is a descendant of the East roman cavalry shield. In the 8th-9th century "byzantine" cavalry started using teardropped shields with an elongated tip to protect the left leg, and byzantine heavy infantry used both teardropped and triangular shields in the centuries before the development of the "norman kite shield". The Normans travelled far and wide in the century before their rise to prominence in Italy, England and the Holy land (due to primogeniture, ie a lot of younger sons with no prospects of employment or land in their native Normandy) and mercenary work in Constantineopel was one of the things they did (like their viking ancestors before them) where they would have come into contact with east rome ideas of cavalry, the use of combined arms and heavy cavalry (all things employed by the normans in italy and in the conquest of England).
Yep, Varangian Guard. My own personal surmise is that it's a Roman Legionary's shield that has been adapted. Basically they have nubbed it down to what they actually needed.
I would say you are right except it was more predominantly a infantry shield. Likely for the convenience of resting it on the ground while not on the march. Byzantine cavalry teardrop shields are much smaller in than norman ones in art and never usurped the round shield as the main cavalry one.
But if you look at the Bayeux Tapestry, the kite shields are being held most of the time by riders so the leg is not being protected. You can see for yourself.
Glad to hear your use of the correct technical terminology, “funky shape”. This term is frequently used in various historical sources throughout the period.
One thought about the theory that the bosses use was mainly about misdireting the blade. We have a saying in Germany that could be translated to "Oh, just slide down my boss" (Rutsch mir doch den Buckel runter). You could use it as "Get outta here" or "Screw you". Many ppl are using that diss even at current times.
Did thickness of shields stay the same or did they get thicker as lances became more effective? If shields became thicker it would make sense to compensate by making them smaller and thus reduce the overall weight and make the shields less cumbersome.
I would say that as the lances became more effective so did the armour. These two reasons combined drove the abandonment of the shield by the Western European cavalry. But when it comes to the transitional period, let's say between 1250 to 1350 it's hard to say and I curious myself. Good question bro.
Bosses might have been to keep shields from splitting all the way through, acting as a stop for long splits so you'd only lose part of your shield instead of the whole thing immediately.
I'm surprised Matt didn't mention the shape of an officer's badge when talking about the influence of the shield shape. Also, 0:51 that horse being poked at by the knight is like _"Sigh... Seriously?"_
I have to say, that the introduction of the Kite Shield might have (also) a different reason. I am doing Hema Sparring in a club with all sorts of shields. Most of the Guys have viking shields, my wife does have a heater shield, i have got a Kite shield. The point i want to make is, the Kite shield gives a lot of protection for the leading leg. Legs are a good target for spears in the shieldwall. And of course you put your left leg behind the teardrop of the shield. But you can also fairly easy distract spears, by simply twisting your forarm up and down. So you can also protect the legs of the guys next to you. And there is another thing you might have missed, the Kiteshield is not heavier than the viking shields. I got a fairly large kite shield and i end with 4,6Kg, which is common weight for the viking style shields. The curve in the shield gives it more durabillity, so the mass of wood can be reduced. And of course the boss is missing. Another advantage might be, that you can not hook and create an opening in the shieldwall as easy against a strapped shield. In conclusion, there are pleanty of reasons, why they could have introduced the Kite Shield. And i guess, riding a horse can be an even equally good reason for this, cause you can hold the reins better with a strapped shield. But there are so many disadvanteges in this simply by the size of the shield on a horseback. I guess, most of the troops where still walking on their foot.
Consider horses closing at 80Kph, hope you can deflect it, regardless almost everyone ends up on the ground, hit each other legs, you won't be getting up.
All of these suppostitions are great, except I think, the weights; we can't know how heavy they were. Apparently, viking shields were much thinner and lighter than previously thought, by heavy tapering. Also, sometimes, the specific function of an item lends itself to other use, but that doesn't mean it was designed for that multi-purpose, i.e. eating soup out of a kettle-helmet ;)
@@F1ghteR41 Recent research suggests tapering to around 4 millimeters at the edge and a weight well under 3 kg. They were well suited to attacks and deflection and may have been the most important component of the viking weapon set. Understandibly, as armor improves, so does the need for weapons that perform well against armor. I think the 'viking' shield simply didn't combo well with more advanced weaponry, but it worked pretty well with axes, spears and swords for hundreds of years :) It is sad that the Migration era didn't have better book-keeping, or we would have known more, and had fewer guesses ;)
Another couple of points on smaller shields is when you raise the shield to protect your head, if the shields shorter you can look under it to see more of what's happening and also counter attack without the tail getting in the way. And also large shield generally get in the way, both in swinging it around on a horse in cavalry to cavalry combat and in close formation.
I have a thought about both the rounder shields being used by other culture's cavalry and about heater shields getting shorter..and that is that the kite shield would be very hard to bring across a horses neck to defend against an attack from the right. So perhaps Norman cavalry were counting on their momentum to carry them through the enemy, and counting on the horseman to their right in the charge to defend their right side while other cultures still wanted to have the option to bring the shield across the horses neck to deflect blows coming in from the right, either because they were in a melee, or more likely to be slowed. Not that that position would be a comfortable way to defend from a blow, but it could be good to have it as an option.
I think this argument is a good example of specialization vs versatility. Either is good and useful, it just depends on the circumstances and the context.
Good show thanks Matt, interesting presentation and interpretation as usual! One type of shield I’ve not really seen talked about on the various RUclips channels is the long ‘Celtic’ style shield, as typified by the Witham and Battersea examples. Maybe they tend to get lumped in with the Roman scutum style, but it’d be interesting to see an analysis of the development and use of that pattern.
Excellent topic. Thanks. One further difference between European knights and the heavily equipped cavalry from the middle east was the closeness of their formation (often knee to knee - you can see it in the manuscripts). A tight formation made bow use impractical but gave greater shock (particularly vs other cavalry). This focus on the heavy charge with couched lance, including saddles with high pommels and cantles plus stirrups ridden with a straight (braced) leg would have led to using a suitable shield (the kite shield) as smaller more agile shields would have (as Matt points out) provided no advantage as bow use was impractical. Again, as Matt points out, as armour develops, shields get smaller. Dismounted men at arms in war of the roses time did not need/use shields. Longbows arrows were quite capable of going through wooden shields but would not penetrate plate and shield use would severely handicap the use of a poll axe. Matt has already covered buckler use by lighter late medieval troops.
Also it tells of how the normans weren't very interested in melee. Straight legged, sometimes affixed to their seat with a shield of limited mobility were all disadvantages in a straight up fight, but all helped make the sorts of charges the Byzantine marveled at possible. Indeed during the crusades much effort was put into spending the the momentum of a charge either by forcing a pursuit to wind the horses, scattering to split off their mass or finding obstacles to impeded it.
I suspect the shield of that shape was retained for so long because it became part of heraldry and easy to identify who carried it - status and family. On the tilt this made life easy for the audience and in battle may have proclaimed the value of keeping a prisoner alive for ransom.
Kite Shields are carved on the Bab Al-Nasr gate, part of Cairo’s city walls which were built the late 11th century; i.e. they were also used in 11th century Egypt. I suspect the spread of kite shields was mainly Down to fashion, the “Byzantines” (East Romans) started using them in the 10th century, probably as infantry shields ironically, and because the Byzantines were the most powerful state in Europe and the Near East at the time, everyone copied them. In addition many Scandinavians and Englishmen served in the Varangian guards, so they helped spread kite shields to Western Europe.
Maybe the reason the frankish knights didn't carry oblong strapped shields is simply that they didn't think about it. I think we often forget how much hindsight we have, i.e. how many things we think of as pretty evident but which historically took many centuries if not millenia to be discovered / invented. I feel like Tod maybe falls into this trap of being too confident in men of yore's ability to work things out the same way "we" (read : great technicians and craftsmen such as Tod) do.
@LurchTheBastard Agreed; oine of the problems I often see is "weapon X was better than weapon Y because why would people use a weapon that's worse" If the standard in your society is weapon X, you will (as a soldier) will have trained for years to use only weapon X, you do not want to use anything that isn't weapon X in battle, if you teach your children to fight it will be with weapon X, and weapon X will be by far the most readily available. The truth is that it's quite easy to invent a new weapon (anyone with smithing skills can do it on an off day, even if just fun; what's hard is popularising it; if your weapon has not proven itself in the field nobody will want to risk their life using it in battle, and if it's not used in battle it will never have a chance to prove itself, and of course since any serious warrior/soldier has extensive training with their "old" weapon they will almost always be able to do better with the "old" weapon. Bosses on early kite shields may well be a testament to this; there's verry little practical purpose to the "mini boss" but it does make the weapon look a lot like the earlier round shield; perhaps the most important reason it's there is *because* it makes the shield look more familiar to people; maybe (probably) the kite shield was based on byzantine teardrop shields of the era, but by slapping a boss on to it it suddenly looks like it's everyone's good friend the round shield with a new added feature (in the form of a downward extension to protect the leg) instead of looking like some strange shield nobody ever uses in battle.
One other small point regarding strapping: if you fight predominantly on foot, Saxon or Viking style, then a boss-held shield is helpful because it's very mobile and can be shifted around very rapidly, or used offensively. A strapped shield is obviously far more restricted in this context, but if you're fighting from horseback, as the Normans liked to do, then mobility of that shield isn't such a great issue - mainly you're wanting to keep it close, tight and stable. So, I think the shift from fighting on foot to fighting on horseback - in the style the Normans adopted and developed - really is the key.
The face of that poor horse in the painting at the beginning just looked so resigned to his fate of getting speared by a knight. Why was he even being speared? There was no one on his back, much less an enemy combatant lol
I do not believe shields started to fall out of use in the early to the middle of the 15th C just because of armour development. Most plate armour in the early 15th C wasn't made of particularly good quality steel by that time, but still they didn't use their shields. The primary reason was probably the use of two-handed weapons by dismounted men-at-arms. At the battle of Agincourt, as an example, contemporary sources criticized the dismounted French men-at-arms for not using shields, implying that they at least had them to be used when on horseback. The reason had to do with the fact that they had to use lances as pikes to fight the dismounted English men-at-arms who had their own lances, and that required two hands. When the steel quality increased in the middle of the 15th C and onward, they no longer needed them.
Great video! If you do revisit, I'd really like you to further explore the one topic you didn't really touch on: Why, as precisely as we can get, do all the horses look hilarious?
Normans had no heavy cavalry as they used small horses or ponies. On the tapestry look how small the horses are. Even the knights feet are close to the ground. War horses came in later after specific breeding
Not sure if this plays into it, but I work with horses and the shape of the bottom of the Heater Shield looks like it would be easier and faster to move from one side to the other while on horseback. The shape of the bottom would allow the shield to slide between the rider's body and the horse's neck much quicker depending on the location of the threat. Just a thought.
I grew up riding horses a good bit, and this makes perfect sense to me. I’m not sure how you would get that kite shield over to protect your right side while on a horse. Too much horse in the way.
heaters are still pretty large for a long time. (up to about a metre tall) (even targes in the late15th c are 60-78 cm tall) You can get the pointy bit at the bottom over the neck, to the offside, but with a lot of effort. (essentially lifting it over your head) the main thing is to allow the one rein hand to come more towards the middle of the horse and allow to cross the wither a bit, there it is very pleasant. Kites on horseback tend to bash your knee over a long day of riding, the heater is more comfortable to wear on long marches. You particularly start noticing this when going up and down large hills. Strapping the heater on your back is easier (usually done upside down) but also you see them hanging down on the nearside behind the saddle, this works well. You can also lengthen the guige to wear it almost like a satchel, laying on your upper leg, with the top edge (well) under your armpit. This 20 cm shorter height of the shield is a little easier to keep out of the horses' legs, then.
Interesting point about heralds, in Portuguese the word for family herald (Brasão) has a synonym (Escudo da família) which literally means "Family Shield". Also a good further example of knightly shields permeating modern cultures are football teams crest's, which are also a lot of the time(and the traditional ones) the shape of a shield. (And again in portuguese are literally called shields, Chelsea's shield for instance)
The heater shield shape is commonly used in heraldry, but I have no idea when it starts to appear. Perhaps in the later centuries when actual shields started to change shape it was a way to preserve tradition.
It’s also really hard to pick up a shield off the ground, if you drop it, while you are on a horse. Maybe the guy, standing on the ground, that you are attempting to lance, will pick it up for you, if you ask very nicely and say “please.”
Absolutely. You see a lot of other devices like sword knots and pistol lanyards that have a similar function and tend to be more common for cavalry than infantry.
The Norman war style of pop up castles with highly mobile horse mounted forces to control the surrounding area sounds like modern Afghanistan warfare. Forward Operating Base (FOB) with a small ish force that patrols the area they want to control. Didn’t work in Afghanistan though, can’t go on a holiday there at the moment.
Here in Austria - and in other countries aswell - we still have heraldic signs for towns, cities, departments and counties shaped like heatershields. For example every Austrian car carries the heraldic symbol of the county it is registered in. Or sometimes you can find signs of former guilds on old workshops or factory buildings - those show the characteristic shield shape too.
Thanks Matt. Just finishing off my own ‘heater’ shield at the mo. Have come across reference for a few different variations of strapping - upper and lower diagonal as well as a crossed strap type centre grip. Were these for use in different combat forms perhaps? Would love a follow up video demonstrating different guards etc.
@NeverTrustATory You're making a heater shield? Pleeeeeeeease make one for me. I love the heater shield shape because if you turn it upside-down it resembles a Gothic window.
A thought about the boss, as someone who has done a little bit of woodworking. You have a large, flat or curved wooden plane. That doesn't have a huge amount of stability; even modern 3/4 inch plywood tends to warp if you are not careful about how it is supported. The boss in the middle might be important structurally. It could be that creating essentially a ring of wood around a rigid piece of metal helped the wood last longer, either talking about weathering with changes in temperature and humidity, or actually in use. You could almost think of it as halving the dimensions of the plane in each direction, creating a more stable structure. You are dealing with wood about 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch thick; you could imagine taking a span the width of a shield and breaking it by striking it really hard. Now if you place a metal support down the middle and try breaking one of the wings, you will have to strike it a lot harder to break it. It might be that the boss was a way to provide a significant amount of structural support to the shield by adding very little metal and very little weight. It also means that if you do want to try to break through the shield through sheer force, you can't just aim at the middle and wail away. It forces an aggressor to be a bit more careful if they are considering that option, both because of the hunk of metal and because the wood immediately around it will be benefiting the most from that hunk of metal. I'm not someone who has done any martial arts; I'm just trying to think through the construction process, since I think there was some practical purpose to putting more weight in metal on an object that was very likely to break. Of course it would take some experimentation to see if this hypothesis holds any water at all; it could just as easily be that making the wood less flexible makes it more prone to breaking.
maybe the answer to why Kites were that shape is also in the Tapestry: it was effective both on horseback AND on foot. Where shock cavalry was a relatively new thing, I can see the possibility that a typical cavalryman would still expect to often enough dismount and fight on foot in the "standard" (viking/dane/saxon) way.
With the kite shield on foot I could see bracing the longer part against the knee and or leg with the bottom “point” touching the ground Or from horseback pulling the shield in tight up against the body and the curve lower down fitting against the knee and the upper part bracing against the shoulder. More leverage is never a bad thing especially when someone is trying to impale you.
Looking at the Bayeux tapestry, particularly at 11:32 a lot of the mounted knights are holding their left/shield arms up, with the point teardrop pointing back behind them. From the perspective of a wielder of your shield , your example shield's arm straps go lower-left to upper-right for a right-handed person to put their left hand through the lower-left strap and then grasp the upper-right strap, but these shields seem to be the have the straps arranged differently to allow them to hold the shield like that. It seems a waste of shield to have it hanging off the back like that. The mounted men at 11:32 seem to have a form of square-shaped chest harness, maybe it's some kind of harness to attach to the shield to support some of its weight? Likewise, in the piece of art at 26:32 there are infantry holding their shields in a similar manner, with their forearm completely vertical, and with straps held by the hand in the top-center of the shield, and not held away from the user at all, but seeming to lean on the left shoulder. Medieval art often has an odd use of scale and perspective, but it is interesting that both that artwork and the Bayeux tapestry depict that counter-intuitive style of holding the shield.
One thing I discovered is running the cuts and stances from the end of MS I33 buckler they all worked really well with the Heater shield, it was a really fun discovery.
Having watched the video, there is one thing that occurred to me about strapped versus centre grip. I'd think that people with strapped shields would be better at receiving heavy blows than those holding centre grip. The centre grip puts the force of the blow through the wrist. If it's not going straight on to the wrist and forearm, that's a pretty weak joint.
on the other hand, a boss gripped shield generally results in less force being transferred to the arm as boss gripped shields can be held more loosely and can generally be more effectively maniplulated to deflect instead of catch enemy blows as well as allowing for blws to be caught early to prevent them from coming through at full force. (all this is on foot, i should add) Strapped shields (and/or their equivalents) have been around since antiquity as well (famously; the Aspis of the ancient Greeks) but seem to have generally been less desirable before "new developments" in cavalry really got going. The Aspis however does give a good example of what you said; Greek Hoplites used the fact that it was better supported by the arm (and shoulder) to great effect; their heavy infantry were some of the most feared in the world in no small part due to their nigh-inpenetrable wall of shields.
I always just assumed it was a combination of fashion and function. The kite shields were getting too big and they might have flattened the top to help soldiers have a more clear view when they peeked over the top.
Superb video ! For a long time I couldn't tell which shields were boss gripped ans which had straps! Sometimes (in movies) even the Scuta are shown being held with straps and I believe that the Scuta were in fact all boss gripped ! About your suggestion that boss gripped was replaced by straps in order for the knight to be able to grip reins: here's a thought... a) notice the 45º degree arm angle: it would be very difficult to grip reins pulled to the left hand side and... b) even more difficult to move them around properly in in order to send commands to the horse given the fixed shield position and given its weight ! My suggestion: a) a boss gripping style would tire the knight's arm very quickly; b) a strap handling allows an easier movement of rotation around the vertical axis. What do you think about this?
In 1000 years the historians will look at artwork from our time and explain that we fought with giant robots called Gundam. Then they’ll say, they can’t explain why just the Japanese did this...
If they come across clickbait thumbnails they will wonder how we had flying aircraft carriers hover tanks with twins guns and most of all why everyone has their gaping open did we lose the ability to shut our mouths
The Norman shield was around when most foot soldiers were using mostly round centre grip boss shields and these in their later guises had been quite thin and light (thin linden planking + raw hide), and large enough to cover the entire fore arm. The Norman shield clearly has advantages on horse back (and doubtless be great for archers too). But soldiers would still need to fight on foot against opponents still using big light round centre grip boss shields. Interesting some iconagraphies show the holding staps with the forearm vertical to the shield and the hand placed roughly were the shield boss would be (or just above). So this hints to me, that the big upper curve was there to help it fight a partly like a round shield. You cannot do door hinge like moves, but you could still punch the upper round edge into the opponent to bash his shield out of the way while cutting with the sword. And the now has a bigger gaurd so you don't need to cover the hands as much as you do with a viking type sword. So conclusion, compared to a round shield, vastly superior on horse back, copes perfectly fine on foot. The Boss, I find helps to avoid my shield blocking on someone elses. You can slide and apply preasure were you want with greater ease (even if the lack of door movement might make it less useful). So I can see a logical evolution in the style of combat leading to this shield. The later heater types with flat top edge makes perfect sense, doubtless big round centre grip shields were all but gone by then and soldiers were better protected with better gaurded swords.
You should demonstrate the opponent's view of each of those shields while equipped with the appropriate headgear and weapons. The heater makes even more sense when I imagine you wearing something like an open-faced sallet. The gap between the shield and the helm can be adjusted in a fraction of a second to maximize coverage, allow visibility at different angles, etc.
I think another thing to consider about the reason behind slicing off the top of the heater is perhaps the common use of open faced nasal helms in around the period of the Normans. As full face helms capable of glancing a blow began to appear, you also see less need for the rounded top to protect your cheek/ear. However, full faced helms limiting vision is also another reason to use the flat topped design to further open up visibility so certainly correct there!
25:04 It looks like if you were to hold a kite shield like that, the bottom wouldn't provide much leg/horse protection anymore, so that might be a reason why the shape of the top part only changes once adequate leg armour becomes more common.
Thanks as always for a very interesting and engaging video! There are two glaring questions that remain unanswered, though: 1) Why did the shield retain the tail, even when it was becoming smaller and smaller? The long tail was an advantage as long as your legs were unprotected; why did they keep it even when the shield became too small to fulfil that function? Why not square or rounded? 2) The even bigger question: why did foot soldiers also abandon the boss-gripped round shield and adopt the kite/heater shield? As various modern experiments have shown, especially for foot soldiers the boss-gripped shield has significant advantages over the strapped-on shield (maneuverability, reach etc.). Size can't have been the reason, since the Romans used huge boss-gripped shields. So why did infantry start using the strap-on kie and heater shields? Does it have something to do with formation fighting (see the Greek hoplite phalanx)?
1) probably for the same reason it took so long for the flat top to appear; but also because it remained a relatively convenient shape for use on horseback; the tail would still protect your crotch (relatively poorly armored part) better than square or round shields could. 2) iirc there are some examples of kite/heater shields with grips (usually no boss because the curved shape makes that somewhat unnecessary) but also because in the time of full plate armor the weapons faced were often powerful two haded weapons made to hurt armored opponents; taking the full force of a polehammer swing is far more manageable when the shield is strapped to your arm than when you are just holding on to a grip. (powerful attacks to the shield can damage your wrist and/or make you drop the shield, a strapped shield will stay on no matter what)
Thanks for the video. I found it very interesting. One more advantage of the Kite Shield is the physics. Using the long Kite shield on horse back would adsorbed the blow of a lace better than a small shield. The forces would be distrusted over a larger area in contact by the shield. These areas could included the shoulder, the leg and even the horse's body. You might be able to brace the Kite Shield in away that the horse takes most of the impact.
Good video as always. as to why the 'Kite' shield was shortened; go to a RUclips video by Modern History TV the presenter (I forgot his name) does talk a bit about mounted fighting. His view is that the bottom of the Kite shield often banged into the lower leg while riding & fighting & he experienced it himself while practicing with the Kite shield. So shortening the shield & adding leg protection solved that problem; though it was a little more expensive.
Because strapped shield can accommodate the use of a bow 🏹, and also give use to the reins, but combat horses were controlled by leg and body contact with the horse to tell your horse what you want to do. This gives you options for attack and defense while still being in control of direction. Reins give you finer control for circling and reverse where you need your horse to back up,or tight wheeling turns.
Regarding the flattening of the top of the kite shield: that broadly coincides with the development of full faced and then enclosed helmets, giving much improved protection to the face. This allowed the top of the shield to be flattened. Just my opinion, having done historical reenactment and jousting (11th to 14th century armour and equipment), I offer a little practical insight. Oh, and lots of discussions with academics on the subject, too. The broad consensus is that (and this is possibly stating the obvious), as Mat alludes to, as armour improved and covered more of the body, , the shield became progressively less important for defence.
Was the shield made thicker as it was made smaller? Can imagine that a more robust shield might have been asked for to protect better against things like a couched lance (and a bit later all the polearms), and a size reduction preventing it from being too heavy.
Round shields don't hang in the water on the side of a longship, but they also don't protect your leg on horseback. Once battle moved inland, the practicality of the shield changed
When kite shields are depicted on the sides of ships, e.g. like on the Bayeux Tapestry, they’re placed sideways with the bottom pointing to the stern of the ships.
I suspect that kite shield has been shortened on the bottom side for the following secondary reason: it was much easier to move shield from left side to right (and vise versa) in order to protect body from attack during melee fight when opponents are on both sides.
I would say that another reason for the shortening of the heater shield is a recognition that in a melee or close combat horsed situation where it might be necessary to suddenly twist and change the shield from outside to inside, a longer shield would find the horse's neck an obstacle. Especially with increased archery use, the rider never really knew where a missile would come from, unlike in jousting or charge against static foes.
It's interesting to note though, that around the same time as the Norman "hegemony" after the battle of Hastings, the Ottonian and Salian Franks seem to be employing the same kind of mobile cavalry forces that the Normans had, but with round centre gripped shields.
@@pointdironie5832 Yes, and the Ottonians were not specifically "Franks" either, given that they were Saxon. I was generalizing. The point is that the Ottonian and Salian dynasties were contemporary to the Normans, and both before and after The battle of Hastings, they still used round centre-gripped shields with their cavalry, and used their cavalry in a similar manner as the Normans did for quite some time.
My theory on bossed kite shields is that the first generation was probably boss-gripped with the addition of the guige for greater ease in carrying/transporting the shield. Then, due to the size and greater weight of the teardrop shape they shifted quickly to strapping for greater ease of use. Having some experience in using both types of grip I can attest that strapped shields are less tiring and easier to control.
I think one of the reasons there's a cut out at the front corner of the shield is not just for jousting. But also to hold the forward end of the sword to parry with. As a defensive tactic, the shield plus sword held in a diamond like angle can be lifted or moved to the side to block attacks, and not really fully upon just your sword arm, but on both arms and the sturdy wall of a shield to hold the tip/end of the sword from falling away.
Did heater shields with pointed tops, or the "Two engrailed top", (like the Hylian Shield from The Legend of Zelda for example) exist historically or is that a Victorian/fantasy invention? I think I heard it originated from heraldry on Swiss coinage in the 19th Century.
East Rome had these type o shield. triangular, slightly domed (basically a long heater shield), with either flat or pointed top. They also used them for Infantry.
I imagine another reason for the slice of the rounded bit off the top of the shield could also be because of the greater amount of protection allowed to the head by the more fully-closed helms or great helms that gradually started to become more common during the 13th and 14th centuries. In addition to helping compensate for the reduced vision that those helms have.
Just an idea, but I think perhaps maybe Carolingian cavalrymen did not “charge” in the same manner that maybe Normans did. As opposed to a large-scale concentrated charge in formation at top speed, they would more quickly gallop in and out with the intent to skirmish.
@@georgethompson1460 isn’t that just cavalry? I’ve never been made aware of a concrete distinction, I thought any sort of mounted soldier could just be referred to as cavalry.
The removal of that top curve also comes around the time helmets were getting better. Moving away from a simple conical helm and towards the great helm, and later barbutes and pig snouts. Removing the need for facial protection. Which I think defends your initial argument.
When I was a kid, I made shields out of thin plywood. I found the heater shape to be the best to fit to body shape,good protection, while staying out of the way. Round or rectangle just didn't work as well.
As a more general point, the taper towards the bottom of the kite shield reduces the mass there, at a distance from the grip, giving improved manoeuverability compared with anything shaped more like a Roman scutum.
Your thoughts on the shape of the top of the heater shield makes a lot of sense especially when you think the normans (and many others by that time) were also wearing full helms, like the bucket great helms, when charging on horseback.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
History teachers: don’t be overly reliant on one source
Actual historians: the Bayeux Tapestry, the Bayeux Tapestry, the Bayeux Tapestry, the Bayeux Tapestry, the Bayeux Tapestry, the Bayeux Tapestry, the Bayeux Tapestry, the Bayeux Tapestry, the Bayeux Tapestry, the Bayeux Tapestry, the Bayeux Tapestry...
@@Meevious BIG META XD
*Genghis Khan680*
If all you got is that one tapestry, that's what you use. Of course actual archeological finds ,haven't proven it wrong so far, so its a good supplement.
IDk how many written sources survived, or how much later they were penned.
@@Meevious 😂😂😂😂
@@peterwall8191 That is true.
@@genghiskhan6809
We're missing so much history it isn't funny. The parts we are not missing .. we're not really sure off. Many Reputable sources are decades after the fact, others are obvious propaganda , others are not history at all. More like historical fiction, with a moral lesson at the core.
I wont mention pure anecdotal accounts we cannot use, because no one of their contemporaries we have mentions them.
When Scholgladiatoria says "i don't know the answer to that. If you know anything, I'd like to hear it," it's not an admission of ignorance, it's a mortal challenge.
The question is, are we brave enough to begin the quest?
I know this is just a joke, but honestly what I love most about Matt is, it is totally a public admission of ignorance. The best scientists and scholars will never let ego get in the way of good data and facts. It's a cliché at this point but: "Admitting one's ignorance is the first step in acquiring knowledge." -Socrates
@@-Zevin- which is the most simple fact to why religions constitute a criminal threat to humanity as a species
@@SonsOfLorgar I dunno man, at the risk of starting a political debate atheism seems to have done more damage to society than religion
@@therustedshank9995 then you are dishonestly assigning stuff to atheism that has nothing to do with rejecting the insane notion of invisible all seeing magical entities of authority, post mortem judgement/rebirth and predetermination...
0:55 the horse is like wtf man I don't even have a knight on my back, worse day of my life
A smart horse, to throw off the big target on his back, but still getting lanced LOL
Yeah, now I want to know the context of that depiction, Matt!
@@RealZeratul it's a horse with no name but not from America
Wow I blew right by that first time 'round, but what you pointed out is too true 😂
Poor horsey
Duh, they wanted to make sure we could tell Knights apart from Vikings or Romans in a movie.
If their is all of those three in the same movie. I kind of wounder what the scriptwriter did. when the class had history.
@@exploatores Scriptwriters don't care about history, but they're kind of wondering what you did while everyone else was in English class.
From what I know the Egyptians had a scutum just less curved and sub Saharan tribes had a wooden like surfboard shield
@@ashleyoasis7948 I believe most of the sub-saharan ones were made of hide, rather than wood.
Big brain energy
In armor development you see over and over again them choosing to sacrifice defense over the eyes so they can have better vision. So I think this theory is spot on.
I mean, take the Romans, who were formidable. They could make fully enclosed helmets, no problem, see gladiators. Still chose soldiers to have more open helmets and a big ass shield, because communication and perception is really important.
And gladiators were entertainers comparable to WWE, not soldiers.
@@SonsOfLorgar Missing the point, aren't we? The point is that they had the capacity to produce enclosed helmets, and they still made a choice not to for their professional troops and there is likely a reason for that which isn't only "they liked it that way".
@@louisvictor3473 yeah, I see where I misunderstood your comment XD
@@SonsOfLorgar Shite happens, no biggie.
The reason for strapped shields is because they realized over many centuries of development that you must stay strapped or get clapped.
Fuck you got me there kkkkkk
I'm pretty sure the norman shield is a descendant of the East roman cavalry shield. In the 8th-9th century "byzantine" cavalry started using teardropped shields with an elongated tip to protect the left leg, and byzantine heavy infantry used both teardropped and triangular shields in the centuries before the development of the "norman kite shield". The Normans travelled far and wide in the century before their rise to prominence in Italy, England and the Holy land (due to primogeniture, ie a lot of younger sons with no prospects of employment or land in their native Normandy) and mercenary work in Constantineopel was one of the things they did (like their viking ancestors before them) where they would have come into contact with east rome ideas of cavalry, the use of combined arms and heavy cavalry (all things employed by the normans in italy and in the conquest of England).
Yep, Varangian Guard.
My own personal surmise is that it's a Roman Legionary's shield that has been adapted. Basically they have nubbed it down to what they actually needed.
Good catch! It seems that these "tear-drop" shaped shields were also adopted by Slavs and popularised across Eastern and Central Europe.
I would say you are right except it was more predominantly a infantry shield. Likely for the convenience of resting it on the ground while not on the march. Byzantine cavalry teardrop shields are much smaller in than norman ones in art and never usurped the round shield as the main cavalry one.
But if you look at the Bayeux Tapestry, the kite shields are being held most of the time by riders so the leg is not being protected. You can see for yourself.
Thank you! I was just about to go on a rant about the same but, you summed it up quite nicely! 👍
0:52
horse on the right is so very sad.
(also someone could totally make a meme of that drawing)
well it is being lanced
Yeah and a bit pudgy too :-)
Dont let your memes be dreams, my dude. Shadilay.
big chunga
Lol I thought the same thing
“Y Tho?”
Sir knight! What kind of shield do you want? Knight: The funky one.
Glad to hear your use of the correct technical terminology, “funky shape”. This term is frequently used in various historical sources throughout the period.
I love heater shields because turned upside down they resemble the pointed arches of Gothic architecture.
One thought about the theory that the bosses use was mainly about misdireting the blade.
We have a saying in Germany that could be translated to "Oh, just slide down my boss" (Rutsch mir doch den Buckel runter).
You could use it as "Get outta here" or "Screw you".
Many ppl are using that diss even at current times.
0:54 poor horse on the right be like "why you poking me?"
🤣
Or more like "You're new at this, huh?"
Did thickness of shields stay the same or did they get thicker as lances became more effective? If shields became thicker it would make sense to compensate by making them smaller and thus reduce the overall weight and make the shields less cumbersome.
I would say that as the lances became more effective so did the armour. These two reasons combined drove the abandonment of the shield by the Western European cavalry.
But when it comes to the transitional period, let's say between 1250 to 1350 it's hard to say and I curious myself. Good question bro.
Very late here, but those jousting shields were constructed like butcher blocks...grain outward
Heraldry look better on heatershields than than kiteshields :)
That's cause heraldry was designed to be put on heaters and not kites
Iberian style shields are better fitted because of the rounded bottom gives more space
SOD Off!
The kite shield is superior in EVERY way!
@@joejoelesh1197 calm down, Shad..
That's a legitimately good reason.
02:40 Shields like that is mentioned in mid to late 10th C in Byzantine manuals like Praecepta Militaria.
Normans "coming in contact with" other cultures:
::looking at corpses:: -They might be heathens but you have to admit... this is a nice shield
- King Harold Godwinson
Bosses might have been to keep shields from splitting all the way through, acting as a stop for long splits so you'd only lose part of your shield instead of the whole thing immediately.
I'm surprised Matt didn't mention the shape of an officer's badge when talking about the influence of the shield shape.
Also, 0:51 that horse being poked at by the knight is like _"Sigh... Seriously?"_
Wasn't the long strapped shield used by Byzantine Cataphractoi some time before it was adopted by Normans?
I have to say, that the introduction of the Kite Shield might have (also) a different reason. I am doing Hema Sparring in a club with all sorts of shields. Most of the Guys have viking shields, my wife does have a heater shield, i have got a Kite shield. The point i want to make is, the Kite shield gives a lot of protection for the leading leg. Legs are a good target for spears in the shieldwall. And of course you put your left leg behind the teardrop of the shield. But you can also fairly easy distract spears, by simply twisting your forarm up and down. So you can also protect the legs of the guys next to you. And there is another thing you might have missed, the Kiteshield is not heavier than the viking shields. I got a fairly large kite shield and i end with 4,6Kg, which is common weight for the viking style shields. The curve in the shield gives it more durabillity, so the mass of wood can be reduced. And of course the boss is missing. Another advantage might be, that you can not hook and create an opening in the shieldwall as easy against a strapped shield.
In conclusion, there are pleanty of reasons, why they could have introduced the Kite Shield. And i guess, riding a horse can be an even equally good reason for this, cause you can hold the reins better with a strapped shield. But there are so many disadvanteges in this simply by the size of the shield on a horseback. I guess, most of the troops where still walking on their foot.
This isnt necessarily an or. It is probably both.
@@wierdalien1 i agree on this
Consider horses closing at 80Kph, hope you can deflect it, regardless almost everyone ends up on the ground, hit each other legs, you won't be getting up.
All of these suppostitions are great, except I think, the weights; we can't know how heavy they were. Apparently, viking shields were much thinner and lighter than previously thought, by heavy tapering. Also, sometimes, the specific function of an item lends itself to other use, but that doesn't mean it was designed for that multi-purpose, i.e. eating soup out of a kettle-helmet ;)
@@F1ghteR41 Recent research suggests tapering to around 4 millimeters at the edge and a weight well under 3 kg. They were well suited to attacks and deflection and may have been the most important component of the viking weapon set. Understandibly, as armor improves, so does the need for weapons that perform well against armor. I think the 'viking' shield simply didn't combo well with more advanced weaponry, but it worked pretty well with axes, spears and swords for hundreds of years :) It is sad that the Migration era didn't have better book-keeping, or we would have known more, and had fewer guesses ;)
I'd love to see a future video on the other shields used by knights.
Another couple of points on smaller shields is when you raise the shield to protect your head, if the shields shorter you can look under it to see more of what's happening and also counter attack without the tail getting in the way. And also large shield generally get in the way, both in swinging it around on a horse in cavalry to cavalry combat and in close formation.
I have a thought about both the rounder shields being used by other culture's cavalry and about heater shields getting shorter..and that is that the kite shield would be very hard to bring across a horses neck to defend against an attack from the right. So perhaps Norman cavalry were counting on their momentum to carry them through the enemy, and counting on the horseman to their right in the charge to defend their right side while other cultures still wanted to have the option to bring the shield across the horses neck to deflect blows coming in from the right, either because they were in a melee, or more likely to be slowed. Not that that position would be a comfortable way to defend from a blow, but it could be good to have it as an option.
I think this argument is a good example of specialization vs versatility. Either is good and useful, it just depends on the circumstances and the context.
Good show thanks Matt, interesting presentation and interpretation as usual! One type of shield I’ve not really seen talked about on the various RUclips channels is the long ‘Celtic’ style shield, as typified by the Witham and Battersea examples. Maybe they tend to get lumped in with the Roman scutum style, but it’d be interesting to see an analysis of the development and use of that pattern.
two thumbs up from Xativa, Spain. Great video!
Excellent topic. Thanks.
One further difference between European knights and the heavily equipped cavalry from the middle east was the closeness of their formation (often knee to knee - you can see it in the manuscripts). A tight formation made bow use impractical but gave greater shock (particularly vs other cavalry). This focus on the heavy charge with couched lance, including saddles with high pommels and cantles plus stirrups ridden with a straight (braced) leg would have led to using a suitable shield (the kite shield) as smaller more agile shields would have (as Matt points out) provided no advantage as bow use was impractical. Again, as Matt points out, as armour develops, shields get smaller. Dismounted men at arms in war of the roses time did not need/use shields. Longbows arrows were quite capable of going through wooden shields but would not penetrate plate and shield use would severely handicap the use of a poll axe. Matt has already covered buckler use by lighter late medieval troops.
Also it tells of how the normans weren't very interested in melee. Straight legged, sometimes affixed to their seat with a shield of limited mobility were all disadvantages in a straight up fight, but all helped make the sorts of charges the Byzantine marveled at possible. Indeed during the crusades much effort was put into spending the the momentum of a charge either by forcing a pursuit to wind the horses, scattering to split off their mass or finding obstacles to impeded it.
I suspect the shield of that shape was retained for so long because it became part of heraldry and easy to identify who carried it - status and family. On the tilt this made life easy for the audience and in battle may have proclaimed the value of keeping a prisoner alive for ransom.
Kite Shields are carved on the Bab Al-Nasr gate, part of Cairo’s city walls which were built the late 11th century; i.e. they were also used in 11th century Egypt. I suspect the spread of kite shields was mainly Down to fashion, the “Byzantines” (East Romans) started using them in the 10th century, probably as infantry shields ironically, and because the Byzantines were the most powerful state in Europe and the Near East at the time, everyone copied them. In addition many Scandinavians and Englishmen served in the Varangian guards, so they helped spread kite shields to Western Europe.
Maybe the reason the frankish knights didn't carry oblong strapped shields is simply that they didn't think about it.
I think we often forget how much hindsight we have, i.e. how many things we think of as pretty evident but which historically took many centuries if not millenia to be discovered / invented.
I feel like Tod maybe falls into this trap of being too confident in men of yore's ability to work things out the same way "we" (read : great technicians and craftsmen such as Tod) do.
@LurchTheBastard Agreed; oine of the problems I often see is "weapon X was better than weapon Y because why would people use a weapon that's worse"
If the standard in your society is weapon X, you will (as a soldier) will have trained for years to use only weapon X, you do not want to use anything that isn't weapon X in battle, if you teach your children to fight it will be with weapon X, and weapon X will be by far the most readily available.
The truth is that it's quite easy to invent a new weapon (anyone with smithing skills can do it on an off day, even if just fun; what's hard is popularising it; if your weapon has not proven itself in the field nobody will want to risk their life using it in battle, and if it's not used in battle it will never have a chance to prove itself, and of course since any serious warrior/soldier has extensive training with their "old" weapon they will almost always be able to do better with the "old" weapon.
Bosses on early kite shields may well be a testament to this; there's verry little practical purpose to the "mini boss" but it does make the weapon look a lot like the earlier round shield; perhaps the most important reason it's there is *because* it makes the shield look more familiar to people; maybe (probably) the kite shield was based on byzantine teardrop shields of the era, but by slapping a boss on to it it suddenly looks like it's everyone's good friend the round shield with a new added feature (in the form of a downward extension to protect the leg) instead of looking like some strange shield nobody ever uses in battle.
One other small point regarding strapping: if you fight predominantly on foot, Saxon or Viking style, then a boss-held shield is helpful because it's very mobile and can be shifted around very rapidly, or used offensively. A strapped shield is obviously far more restricted in this context, but if you're fighting from horseback, as the Normans liked to do, then mobility of that shield isn't such a great issue - mainly you're wanting to keep it close, tight and stable. So, I think the shift from fighting on foot to fighting on horseback - in the style the Normans adopted and developed - really is the key.
I want to know why people in the art from the Middle Ages often had no expression while being cleaved in the head with a sword 🗡
Because for a long time it was illegal to show Christians being afraid of death
@@lanasmith4795 interesting! 🤔
@@lanasmith4795 sounds plausible, but sources pls?
@@SonsOfLorgar sadly I have none.
Lepra
The Greek phalanx used strapped shield aswell. To have both hands available for either the long spear or their short sword.
Nice coverage of the topic.
28:37 - 28:44 The little-known gazelle-tiger was driven to extinction by Easton forebears' intensive hunting.
Great informative video, thanks Matt!
The face of that poor horse in the painting at the beginning just looked so resigned to his fate of getting speared by a knight. Why was he even being speared? There was no one on his back, much less an enemy combatant lol
I do not believe shields started to fall out of use in the early to the middle of the 15th C just because of armour development. Most plate armour in the early 15th C wasn't made of particularly good quality steel by that time, but still they didn't use their shields. The primary reason was probably the use of two-handed weapons by dismounted men-at-arms. At the battle of Agincourt, as an example, contemporary sources criticized the dismounted French men-at-arms for not using shields, implying that they at least had them to be used when on horseback. The reason had to do with the fact that they had to use lances as pikes to fight the dismounted English men-at-arms who had their own lances, and that required two hands. When the steel quality increased in the middle of the 15th C and onward, they no longer needed them.
wouldn't the primary reason very likely be, that there were the very powerful ranged two handed weapons?
Very good explanation, Mat.
Congratulations for your work !!!
All of your research and assertions make perfect sence.
Very nice video and informative, as always. Keep it up, Matt!
Great video! If you do revisit, I'd really like you to further explore the one topic you didn't really touch on:
Why, as precisely as we can get, do all the horses look hilarious?
Normans had no heavy cavalry as they used small horses or ponies. On the tapestry look how small the horses are. Even the knights feet are close to the ground.
War horses came in later after specific breeding
Heavy cavalry has existed long before, precisely due to the specific breeding of horses, which have been recorded since the time of ancient Assyria.
Not sure if this plays into it, but I work with horses and the shape of the bottom of the Heater Shield looks like it would be easier and faster to move from one side to the other while on horseback. The shape of the bottom would allow the shield to slide between the rider's body and the horse's neck much quicker depending on the location of the threat. Just a thought.
I grew up riding horses a good bit, and this makes perfect sense to me. I’m not sure how you would get that kite shield over to protect your right side while on a horse. Too much horse in the way.
heaters are still pretty large for a long time. (up to about a metre tall) (even targes in the late15th c are 60-78 cm tall)
You can get the pointy bit at the bottom over the neck, to the offside, but with a lot of effort. (essentially lifting it over your head)
the main thing is to allow the one rein hand to come more towards the middle of the horse and allow to cross the wither a bit, there it is very pleasant.
Kites on horseback tend to bash your knee over a long day of riding, the heater is more comfortable to wear on long marches. You particularly start noticing this when going up and down large hills.
Strapping the heater on your back is easier (usually done upside down) but also you see them hanging down on the nearside behind the saddle, this works well.
You can also lengthen the guige to wear it almost like a satchel, laying on your upper leg, with the top edge (well) under your armpit. This 20 cm shorter height of the shield is a little easier to keep out of the horses' legs, then.
Interesting point about heralds, in Portuguese the word for family herald (Brasão) has a synonym (Escudo da família) which literally means "Family Shield".
Also a good further example of knightly shields permeating modern cultures are football teams crest's, which are also a lot of the time(and the traditional ones) the shape of a shield. (And again in portuguese are literally called shields, Chelsea's shield for instance)
I always feel like I know a little more and a lot less after every vid like this.
Education should always fill us with as many questions as answers. A little knowledge gives us the hunger for more.
The more you know; the more you know you don't know.
History is metal
This awesome video agrees with everything I've studied for 30 years now.
The heater shield shape is commonly used in heraldry, but I have no idea when it starts to appear. Perhaps in the later centuries when actual shields started to change shape it was a way to preserve tradition.
And because they are beautiful. I 💚🛡️🛡️🛡️🛡️🛡️🛡️🛡️🛡️🛡️🛡️🛡️🛡️🛡️🛡️🛡️🛡️!
Were any kite shields still used in the late medieval period (14th-15th centuries)?
Some types of pavises and such were pretty similar.
Thats because Most people can't afford armor or at least the high end stuff so they were still used.
It’s also really hard to pick up a shield off the ground, if you drop it, while you are on a horse.
Maybe the guy, standing on the ground, that you are attempting to lance, will pick it up for you, if you ask very nicely and say “please.”
Absolutely. You see a lot of other devices like sword knots and pistol lanyards that have a similar function and tend to be more common for cavalry than infantry.
The Norman war style of pop up castles with highly mobile horse mounted forces to control the surrounding area sounds like modern Afghanistan warfare. Forward Operating Base (FOB) with a small ish force that patrols the area they want to control. Didn’t work in Afghanistan though, can’t go on a holiday there at the moment.
very interesting topic, thank you for your work! i take a abo
Here in Austria - and in other countries aswell - we still have heraldic signs for towns, cities, departments and counties shaped like heatershields. For example every Austrian car carries the heraldic symbol of the county it is registered in. Or sometimes you can find signs of former guilds on old workshops or factory buildings - those show the characteristic shield shape too.
Thanks Matt. Just finishing off my own ‘heater’ shield at the mo. Have come across reference for a few different variations of strapping - upper and lower diagonal as well as a crossed strap type centre grip. Were these for use in different combat forms perhaps? Would love a follow up video demonstrating different guards etc.
@NeverTrustATory
You're making a heater shield?
Pleeeeeeeease make one for me. I love the heater shield shape because if you turn it upside-down it resembles a Gothic window.
A thought about the boss, as someone who has done a little bit of woodworking.
You have a large, flat or curved wooden plane. That doesn't have a huge amount of stability; even modern 3/4 inch plywood tends to warp if you are not careful about how it is supported.
The boss in the middle might be important structurally. It could be that creating essentially a ring of wood around a rigid piece of metal helped the wood last longer, either talking about weathering with changes in temperature and humidity, or actually in use. You could almost think of it as halving the dimensions of the plane in each direction, creating a more stable structure.
You are dealing with wood about 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch thick; you could imagine taking a span the width of a shield and breaking it by striking it really hard. Now if you place a metal support down the middle and try breaking one of the wings, you will have to strike it a lot harder to break it.
It might be that the boss was a way to provide a significant amount of structural support to the shield by adding very little metal and very little weight.
It also means that if you do want to try to break through the shield through sheer force, you can't just aim at the middle and wail away. It forces an aggressor to be a bit more careful if they are considering that option, both because of the hunk of metal and because the wood immediately around it will be benefiting the most from that hunk of metal.
I'm not someone who has done any martial arts; I'm just trying to think through the construction process, since I think there was some practical purpose to putting more weight in metal on an object that was very likely to break.
Of course it would take some experimentation to see if this hypothesis holds any water at all; it could just as easily be that making the wood less flexible makes it more prone to breaking.
You could have a drinking game with this guy...every time he makes a reference to something he's not going to talk about, take a drink.
maybe the answer to why Kites were that shape is also in the Tapestry: it was effective both on horseback AND on foot. Where shock cavalry was a relatively new thing, I can see the possibility that a typical cavalryman would still expect to often enough dismount and fight on foot in the "standard" (viking/dane/saxon) way.
With the kite shield on foot I could see bracing the longer part against the knee and or leg with the bottom “point” touching the ground Or from horseback pulling the shield in tight up against the body and the curve lower down fitting against the knee and the upper part bracing against the shoulder. More leverage is never a bad thing especially when someone is trying to impale you.
Looking at the Bayeux tapestry, particularly at 11:32 a lot of the mounted knights are holding their left/shield arms up, with the point teardrop pointing back behind them. From the perspective of a wielder of your shield , your example shield's arm straps go lower-left to upper-right for a right-handed person to put their left hand through the lower-left strap and then grasp the upper-right strap, but these shields seem to be the have the straps arranged differently to allow them to hold the shield like that. It seems a waste of shield to have it hanging off the back like that. The mounted men at 11:32 seem to have a form of square-shaped chest harness, maybe it's some kind of harness to attach to the shield to support some of its weight? Likewise, in the piece of art at 26:32 there are infantry holding their shields in a similar manner, with their forearm completely vertical, and with straps held by the hand in the top-center of the shield, and not held away from the user at all, but seeming to lean on the left shoulder. Medieval art often has an odd use of scale and perspective, but it is interesting that both that artwork and the Bayeux tapestry depict that counter-intuitive style of holding the shield.
The boss focuses the force of a shield-to-shield collision on a smaller surface area, transferring energy into your opponent more efficiently.
One thing I discovered is running the cuts and stances from the end of MS I33 buckler they all worked really well with the Heater shield, it was a really fun discovery.
Having watched the video, there is one thing that occurred to me about strapped versus centre grip.
I'd think that people with strapped shields would be better at receiving heavy blows than those holding centre grip.
The centre grip puts the force of the blow through the wrist. If it's not going straight on to the wrist and forearm, that's a pretty weak joint.
on the other hand, a boss gripped shield generally results in less force being transferred to the arm as boss gripped shields can be held more loosely and can generally be more effectively maniplulated to deflect instead of catch enemy blows as well as allowing for blws to be caught early to prevent them from coming through at full force. (all this is on foot, i should add)
Strapped shields (and/or their equivalents) have been around since antiquity as well (famously; the Aspis of the ancient Greeks) but seem to have generally been less desirable before "new developments" in cavalry really got going.
The Aspis however does give a good example of what you said; Greek Hoplites used the fact that it was better supported by the arm (and shoulder) to great effect; their heavy infantry were some of the most feared in the world in no small part due to their nigh-inpenetrable wall of shields.
@@captainnyet9855 Thank you for the information. Very interesting to hear bits about ancient world stuff.
I always just assumed it was a combination of fashion and function. The kite shields were getting too big and they might have flattened the top to help soldiers have a more clear view when they peeked over the top.
So have you changed your mind about the kite shield not being intended for cavalry?
thank you for clearing up the viking bias about the round shield
Superb video ! For a long time I couldn't tell which shields were boss gripped ans which had straps! Sometimes (in movies) even the Scuta are shown being held with straps and I believe that the Scuta were in fact all boss gripped !
About your suggestion that boss gripped was replaced by straps in order for the knight to be able to grip reins: here's a thought... a) notice the 45º degree arm angle: it would be very difficult to grip reins pulled to the left hand side and... b) even more difficult to move them around properly in in order to send commands to the horse given the fixed shield position and given its weight !
My suggestion: a) a boss gripping style would tire the knight's arm very quickly; b) a strap handling allows an easier movement of rotation around the vertical axis.
What do you think about this?
In 1000 years the historians will look at artwork from our time and explain that we fought with giant robots called Gundam. Then they’ll say, they can’t explain why just the Japanese did this...
If they come across clickbait thumbnails they will wonder how we had flying aircraft carriers hover tanks with twins guns and most of all why everyone has their gaping open did we lose the ability to shut our mouths
The Norman shield was around when most foot soldiers were using mostly round centre grip boss shields and these in their later guises had been quite thin and light (thin linden planking + raw hide), and large enough to cover the entire fore arm. The Norman shield clearly has advantages on horse back (and doubtless be great for archers too). But soldiers would still need to fight on foot against opponents still using big light round centre grip boss shields. Interesting some iconagraphies show the holding staps with the forearm vertical to the shield and the hand placed roughly were the shield boss would be (or just above). So this hints to me, that the big upper curve was there to help it fight a partly like a round shield. You cannot do door hinge like moves, but you could still punch the upper round edge into the opponent to bash his shield out of the way while cutting with the sword. And the now has a bigger gaurd so you don't need to cover the hands as much as you do with a viking type sword. So conclusion, compared to a round shield, vastly superior on horse back, copes perfectly fine on foot. The Boss, I find helps to avoid my shield blocking on someone elses. You can slide and apply preasure were you want with greater ease (even if the lack of door movement might make it less useful). So I can see a logical evolution in the style of combat leading to this shield. The later heater types with flat top edge makes perfect sense, doubtless big round centre grip shields were all but gone by then and soldiers were better protected with better gaurded swords.
You should demonstrate the opponent's view of each of those shields while equipped with the appropriate headgear and weapons. The heater makes even more sense when I imagine you wearing something like an open-faced sallet. The gap between the shield and the helm can be adjusted in a fraction of a second to maximize coverage, allow visibility at different angles, etc.
Please talk about "dueling shield" or similar type of weaponized shields.
He’s done a video on the bucklar
Agreed. The judicial duel shields.
@@ashleyoasis7948 Not bucklers, a specific type/design of shield & the name is "duel/dueling shield"
@@nikkibrowning4546 Yes, that's right.
I think another thing to consider about the reason behind slicing off the top of the heater is perhaps the common use of open faced nasal helms in around the period of the Normans. As full face helms capable of glancing a blow began to appear, you also see less need for the rounded top to protect your cheek/ear. However, full faced helms limiting vision is also another reason to use the flat topped design to further open up visibility so certainly correct there!
25:04 It looks like if you were to hold a kite shield like that, the bottom wouldn't provide much leg/horse protection anymore, so that might be a reason why the shape of the top part only changes once adequate leg armour becomes more common.
Really good video!
Thanks as always for a very interesting and engaging video!
There are two glaring questions that remain unanswered, though:
1) Why did the shield retain the tail, even when it was becoming smaller and smaller? The long tail was an advantage as long as your legs were unprotected; why did they keep it even when the shield became too small to fulfil that function? Why not square or rounded?
2) The even bigger question: why did foot soldiers also abandon the boss-gripped round shield and adopt the kite/heater shield? As various modern experiments have shown, especially for foot soldiers the boss-gripped shield has significant advantages over the strapped-on shield (maneuverability, reach etc.). Size can't have been the reason, since the Romans used huge boss-gripped shields. So why did infantry start using the strap-on kie and heater shields? Does it have something to do with formation fighting (see the Greek hoplite phalanx)?
1) probably for the same reason it took so long for the flat top to appear; but also because it remained a relatively convenient shape for use on horseback; the tail would still protect your crotch (relatively poorly armored part) better than square or round shields could.
2) iirc there are some examples of kite/heater shields with grips (usually no boss because the curved shape makes that somewhat unnecessary) but also because in the time of full plate armor the weapons faced were often powerful two haded weapons made to hurt armored opponents; taking the full force of a polehammer swing is far more manageable when the shield is strapped to your arm than when you are just holding on to a grip. (powerful attacks to the shield can damage your wrist and/or make you drop the shield, a strapped shield will stay on no matter what)
Thanks for the video. I found it very interesting. One more advantage of the Kite Shield is the physics. Using the long Kite shield on horse back would adsorbed the blow of a lace better than a small shield. The forces would be distrusted over a larger area in contact by the shield. These areas could included the shoulder, the leg and even the horse's body. You might be able to brace the Kite Shield in away that the horse takes most of the impact.
Good video as always. as to why the 'Kite' shield was shortened; go to a RUclips video by Modern History TV the presenter (I forgot his name) does talk a bit about mounted fighting. His view is that the bottom of the Kite shield often banged into the lower leg while riding & fighting & he experienced it himself while practicing with the Kite shield. So shortening the shield & adding leg protection solved that problem; though it was a little more expensive.
Because strapped shield can accommodate the use of a bow 🏹, and also give use to the reins, but combat horses were controlled by leg and body contact with the horse to tell your horse what you want to do. This gives you options for attack and defense while still being in control of direction.
Reins give you finer control for circling and reverse where you need your horse to back up,or tight wheeling turns.
Regarding the flattening of the top of the kite shield: that broadly coincides with the development of full faced and then enclosed helmets, giving much improved protection to the face. This allowed the top of the shield to be flattened. Just my opinion, having done historical reenactment and jousting (11th to 14th century armour and equipment), I offer a little practical insight. Oh, and lots of discussions with academics on the subject, too. The broad consensus is that (and this is possibly stating the obvious), as Mat alludes to, as armour improved and covered more of the body, , the shield became progressively less important for defence.
Was the shield made thicker as it was made smaller? Can imagine that a more robust shield might have been asked for to protect better against things like a couched lance (and a bit later all the polearms), and a size reduction preventing it from being too heavy.
Not necessarily, although 'heater' shields specifically tended towards thicker averages than a lot of other contemporary shields.
Like your vids man.
Keep it up.
Very cool and interesting, thank you.
Round shields don't hang in the water on the side of a longship, but they also don't protect your leg on horseback. Once battle moved inland, the practicality of the shield changed
When kite shields are depicted on the sides of ships, e.g. like on the Bayeux Tapestry, they’re placed sideways with the bottom pointing to the stern of the ships.
Hungarian shields Were quiet a different shape. Love to see your take on those.
I suspect that kite shield has been shortened on the bottom side for the following secondary reason: it was much easier to move shield from left side to right (and vise versa) in order to protect body from attack during melee fight when opponents are on both sides.
What I wondered about all my life !!
I would say that another reason for the shortening of the heater shield is a recognition that in a melee or close combat horsed situation where it might be necessary to suddenly twist and change the shield from outside to inside, a longer shield would find the horse's neck an obstacle. Especially with increased archery use, the rider never really knew where a missile would come from, unlike in jousting or charge against static foes.
It's interesting to note though, that around the same time as the Norman "hegemony" after the battle of Hastings, the Ottonian and Salian Franks seem to be employing the same kind of mobile cavalry forces that the Normans had, but with round centre gripped shields.
That's because the Norman's adopted the Frankish tacticts, and you could argue even that the Frank's adopted these from the goths before
@@pointdironie5832 Except they are. The very fact that they existed at the time as one another means they are contemporaries.
@@pointdironie5832 Yes, and the Ottonians were not specifically "Franks" either, given that they were Saxon. I was generalizing.
The point is that the Ottonian and Salian dynasties were contemporary to the Normans, and both before and after The battle of Hastings, they still used round centre-gripped shields with their cavalry, and used their cavalry in a similar manner as the Normans did for quite some time.
Great video.
My theory on bossed kite shields is that the first generation was probably boss-gripped with the addition of the guige for greater ease in carrying/transporting the shield. Then, due to the size and greater weight of the teardrop shape they shifted quickly to strapping for greater ease of use. Having some experience in using both types of grip I can attest that strapped shields are less tiring and easier to control.
Great video thank you
I think one of the reasons there's a cut out at the front corner of the shield is not just for jousting. But also to hold the forward end of the sword to parry with. As a defensive tactic, the shield plus sword held in a diamond like angle can be lifted or moved to the side to block attacks, and not really fully upon just your sword arm, but on both arms and the sturdy wall of a shield to hold the tip/end of the sword from falling away.
Did heater shields with pointed tops, or the "Two engrailed top", (like the Hylian Shield from The Legend of Zelda for example) exist historically or is that a Victorian/fantasy invention? I think I heard it originated from heraldry on Swiss coinage in the 19th Century.
East Rome had these type o shield.
triangular, slightly domed (basically a long heater shield), with either flat or pointed top.
They also used them for Infantry.
I imagine another reason for the slice of the rounded bit off the top of the shield could also be because of the greater amount of protection allowed to the head by the more fully-closed helms or great helms that gradually started to become more common during the 13th and 14th centuries. In addition to helping compensate for the reduced vision that those helms have.
Just an idea, but I think perhaps maybe Carolingian cavalrymen did not “charge” in the same manner that maybe Normans did. As opposed to a large-scale concentrated charge in formation at top speed, they would more quickly gallop in and out with the intent to skirmish.
or they where more mounted infanry?
@@georgethompson1460 isn’t that just cavalry? I’ve never been made aware of a concrete distinction, I thought any sort of mounted soldier could just be referred to as cavalry.
The removal of that top curve also comes around the time helmets were getting better.
Moving away from a simple conical helm and towards the great helm, and later barbutes and pig snouts. Removing the need for facial protection. Which I think defends your initial argument.
Really like it! Thanks.
When I was a kid, I made shields out of thin plywood. I found the heater shape to be the best to fit to body shape,good protection, while staying out of the way. Round or rectangle just didn't work as well.
Heater shields are beautiful.
As a more general point, the taper towards the bottom of the kite shield reduces the mass there, at a distance from the grip, giving improved manoeuverability compared with anything shaped more like a Roman scutum.
Love this channel
Your thoughts on the shape of the top of the heater shield makes a lot of sense especially when you think the normans (and many others by that time) were also wearing full helms, like the bucket great helms, when charging on horseback.