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....
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.
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.
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.th-cam.com/video/PO_8GGluIOM/w-d-xo.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.
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.
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
Consider modern body armor. Most police in the U.S. wear class 3A armor which isn't proofed against rifle rounds but is against handgun and shot gun rounds. Why? Rifle rated armor is heavy and bulky and likely unneeded in civilian shootings
@@yoursexualizedgrandparents6929 Put your skills into riding and horse archery. It's better than using polearms from horseback when you're up against a larger and tougher army.
Have you considered strapping bucklers to each of your forearms as well? Since according to early DnD that was technically an option, since apparently that's how you use bucklers according to TSR.
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, th-cam.com/video/3uDtrwNY0Zk/w-d-xo.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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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! 👍
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
This kind of information or video are fascinating and the Channel brings a Lot of good points of view about many weapons and war equipment from the ancient world. Great hug from Brazil mate or as we say here " grande abraço aí maninho!" And keep doing this excellent job who we trully enjoy to see always!
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.
Thanks raid shadow legends for keeping our favorite channels alive as TH-cam 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"
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.
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.
I recall that it was written, somewhere, that at the battle of Carrhae the Parthians were able to get so close to the Romans their arrows were able to penetrate the Roman shields. Implying that normally arrows didn't penetrate the Roman shields, but they could at a close enough range. Assuming my memory didn't just make that up I think that would be something to look into since there may be historical accounts connected to it. I found this video especially enlightening since somehow it didn't occur to me that different shields might be constructed to protect against different things. Now I wonder if maybe the style of shield Tod has been testing against wasn't really meant to stop arrows on its own and instead it was expected that the user was wearing plate underneath.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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+.
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?
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.
It would be particularly interesting (and semi-easy to structure) a comparison between the shields and the weapons that they would normally face in a stereotypical battle line, for e.g. phalanx-era Greeks or something. So, essentially considering skirmishers, left flank, right flank, and maybe center separately from each other.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe another aspect of shields is the psychological factor. I can very well imagine having a large shield in front of you makes it easier to stand in line and receive missiles or a charge. I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to remember some ancient or medieval source mentioning the courage that armour or shields provide. Not the protection, but the courage.
In poland we have very old game ( MUD type) thats have one of the best shields implementation ingame i know. Kite shield protect your left arm from damage at 100% and gives medium protection ( flat damage decrease) for the rest left part of body and gives medium boost to parry( chance to nullify all incoming damage) . Tower shield gives you good flat damage protection for all body parts but verry small chance to parry ( strong weapons always damage your character but less lethal) . Bucklers dont gives you flat protection for certain body body parts but very big parry chance. Rest of the shield ingame are mix of those stats . Parry have 30% effect on range weapons.
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
Hey, Matt, could I offer a suggestion for a video? I'd like you to analyse right-handed vs left-handed: just with swords and also with shields involved - grappling as well, which would tie in with the topic you mentioned towards the end. I know historically it wasn't done, we lefties were always discriminated, and being left-handed in a shield wall wouldn't have been great, but for a fantasy setting, it would be useful to see the pros and cons of such a situation. Thanks.
This video reminds me of an old series about the roman period, it was simply called "Rome". It claimed to be very historically accurate. I remember that in one of the few battle scenes, the romans form a Testudo and some (not all) of the enemy arrows break the shields and go through. That surprised me. After seeing this video, I think they were even more accurate than I though.
What I am really missing is the downsides of missile weapons. We find that they did pierce a lot more stuff than we might have though, but in the end the only missile weapon that ever replaced melee fighters were muskets once they reached a specific level of standardization and you added the bayonet to them. To me we seem to be very focused on one side of the argument, not so much about the other.
@@SuperFunkmachine Correct. And the kinetic energy here is in the 195-197 Joule range. 0.5 × 0.0813 × 69.3 ^ 2 = 195.22 Joule 0.5 × 0.0811 × 69.85 ^ 2 = 197.84 Joule
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
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. :)
something else to note, is that with arrows, the range they are shot at has a role in how much they can penetrate. Sure a shield might not protect you as much point blank, but at larger ranges it would.
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.
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
A few additional variables - range. It might not protect you close up to an archer but will standing at range. Also the angle of the shot, presumably most arrows come at an angle from above rather than shot directly at the shield like Tod does. Also the human element, the person might see the arrow coming and braces / angles the shield more, especially at range?
I imagine back in the day, you would have knights and/or smiths arguing over beers about what's more important: a big heavy shield that gives a lot of coverage, or a smaller one that you can move properly. You get the predecessor of internet arguments: "I heard Philippe of Anjou came out of that battle with twenty arrows stuck in his shield and not a scratch on him." "Well Henri du Beaumont died of a single arrow through the eye because he stuck his head over the shield to see..."
What's also fairly obvious is that shields aren't held directly against the body. Held out and away there's a lot of extra space that arrow has to travel through and often time it would simply stop. Combine it with armor there was a large amount of protection offered even by a simple shield and cloth jack to slashes and ranged weaponry.
Shields seem to last a lot less long than I originally imagined they would. Makes me wonder why they went through the time and expense to so intricately paint them if they were just gonna get mauled up and tossed away.
@@quintoblanco8746 That doesn't seem right. Why spend the time and money making and painting so many shields that weren't going to be used? I get having pretty shields for parades and guard duty and such, but it seems like everyone was also painting shields that were intended to be beat to shit.
@@andrewkelly6828 That is how war works. Battles are rare. And not everybody involved in a battle will actually fight. A professional soldier will spend most of his time travelling, waiting, building barriers, digging latrines, training. That is true today and it was true in medieval times. A soldier might walk around with as shield for a year and fight one battle. Or not a single battle. And when it comes to a battle, not everybody will actually fight. Even today soldiers will often not shoot on a target during a skirmish, simply because they can't see a target. I was in the army for two years and I never shot anybody.
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.
I'm so proud of you for getting such a sponsor, not sure if you have in previous video, been short on time to watch your stuff. But I Raid: Shadow Legends pays a good amount of money for one.
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.
I think another thing to consider is range - while arrows, javelins etc. may be able to pierce some shields at short range, this doesn't apply at longer ranges. Take two groups of soldiers, one with and one without shields, and send them against archers - obviously, archers will be much more lethal against both groups at short range, compared to long range. However, at long range the group with shields would be nearly invulnerable to arrows, due to their decreased velocity at that range. Probably not worth even shooting at, since archers would only be wasting ammo and energy. However, the group without shields could be vulnerable enough to make long range volleys viable against them.
It would be interesting to see a video where you explain all the layers of original pavises in detail. Were they all similar? Why did they use a specific material for a layer,...
I have been enjoying Tod's workshop shields/armor tests and the biggest point made is that there were no definite arrow or missile style that would work for all types. Also pointing at Shadiversity is that a common standard soldier/ Knight would have a combination of the best he could afford and maintain. It is all about increasing your odds of survival and being the most effective given your occupation at the time. For example I know I would have personally in the medieval era 13-15century would have always worn a chain mail shirt underneath my gambeson or regular attire bc of the standard effectiveness of stopping sharp pointy knives, daggers, arrows, spears thrusts. In addition of reducing the cutting depth of any weapon. That does not account of what profession I am living or trying to achieve. Say a merchant who travels from town to town using the Kings road, a low rank guard officer in the town of Whoville, Or a guild master craftsman. All would have varying access, knowledge and most importantly experience on what daily requirements would be needed to survive the day.
A shield of tempered steel that is let's say 16 gauge and 18" by 24" should protect the body without being to heavy to carry. Any shield that uses a metal boss to protect the hand is most likely meant to catch or deflect arrows. I most likely just said more than most people want to read.
How about a video on the different seige equipment around the world? Or maybe different animals used in war... equipment with animals. Usual tactics of certain armies or peoples etc.
Deflection would be s big factor with shields, since arrows, bolts and javelins wouldn't always hit a shield at a perpendicular angle. Also, some boss-grip shields can turn in the hand on impact, which could affect the penetration of an projectile/thrown weapon.
I think there is a reason why the english longbowmen were considered especially effective. If you think about it it makes a bit more sense, now that we "know" that with enough power an arrow have a pretty good chanse to go through a lot of things, that they were able to fight of knights in armour.
Having a shield vs lacking one is basically the case of "partial protection is better than none". Plus I'm pretty sure than if a trained soldier is caught out of formation he won't perform videogamey 90 degree block but instead angle the shield to not only have much of the force of impact mitigated but also potentially create an opening for himself by havingenemy full force attack slide off or by getting to bash enemy commited attack away. TBH the case of angle is why I think shields were way more protective than modern tests give them credit for as tests are performed typically by 90 degree angle while outside of shield formation that would rarely be the case.
We should also consider that projectiles would rarely hit square to the shield and many would be deflected by a hand held shield as it moved in the hand. Tests are done with shields positioned with no give at all, which would not have been the case with hand held shield. Deflecting rather than stopping projectiles would have been effective to increase survival for the carrier.
When I was firing bolts from crossbows into the wood, I noticed that the bolts penetrated only a little. Even 6 inches in, the person behind it would be safe.
I suspect angle and rotation matter quite a bit too. When I see tests done (including Tod's), the shield is facing front on, and typically leaned or strapped against a solid surface. There's some give, but not nearly as much as you'd see on say...a centre gripped shield. So while an arrow striking plumb against a braced shield will likely go through, I don't know I'd call that conclusive evidence as to how the shield would function under battlefield conditions, when the missile is likely not taking the hit head on, the body/arm is a crumple zone (depending on strapping) and the shield may even rotate with the strike.
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 th-cam.com/video/XTi-Y9KNNqk/w-d-xo.html
Pretend to be a ninja turtle.
"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
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
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
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.th-cam.com/video/PO_8GGluIOM/w-d-xo.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.
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.
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 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
They were obviously for putting on your back to make duel wielding pole-arms more effective on horseback.
GRRRRRRRRR
@@scholagladiatoria See, he's angry because he knows I'm right.
Consider modern body armor. Most police in the U.S. wear class 3A armor which isn't proofed against rifle rounds but is against handgun and shot gun rounds. Why? Rifle rated armor is heavy and bulky and likely unneeded in civilian shootings
@@yoursexualizedgrandparents6929 Put your skills into riding and horse archery. It's better than using polearms from horseback when you're up against a larger and tougher army.
Have you considered strapping bucklers to each of your forearms as well? Since according to early DnD that was technically an option, since apparently that's how you use bucklers according to TSR.
To be carried home on?
For protecting your black soup.
as a counterweight when sprinting
Thank you for a genuine laugh out loud.
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, th-cam.com/video/3uDtrwNY0Zk/w-d-xo.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
Shields are for protecting you against Raid Shadow legends.
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.
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. 🤔
Arrows can go through shields but generally speaking you are safer with a shield
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.
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 😭
Question: what were shields actually for?"
Answer: "Onions..."
Onions? Shields taste better if they are carmelized?
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.
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.
2:28 I like checking out the ‘equipment’ too... 😂
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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!
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..
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.
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.
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.
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! 👍
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.
2:28 That's some damn nice "equiptment" right there, I tell you hwat.
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.
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
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.
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
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!
You should do some tests with the shields at different angles and see if that causes the projectiles deflect off
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.
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.
This kind of information or video are fascinating and the Channel brings a Lot of good points of view about many weapons and war equipment from the ancient world. Great hug from Brazil mate or as we say here " grande abraço aí maninho!" And keep doing this excellent job who we trully enjoy to see always!
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.
Thanks raid shadow legends for keeping our favorite channels alive as TH-cam 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"
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.
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.
I recall that it was written, somewhere, that at the battle of Carrhae the Parthians were able to get so close to the Romans their arrows were able to penetrate the Roman shields. Implying that normally arrows didn't penetrate the Roman shields, but they could at a close enough range. Assuming my memory didn't just make that up I think that would be something to look into since there may be historical accounts connected to it. I found this video especially enlightening since somehow it didn't occur to me that different shields might be constructed to protect against different things. Now I wonder if maybe the style of shield Tod has been testing against wasn't really meant to stop arrows on its own and instead it was expected that the user was wearing plate underneath.
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'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!
The D&D dwarf Bruenor Battlehammer reaches inside the back of his magical roundshield for neverending pints of whatever makes ye happy!
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?
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
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!
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+.
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?
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.
It would be particularly interesting (and semi-easy to structure) a comparison between the shields and the weapons that they would normally face in a stereotypical battle line, for e.g. phalanx-era Greeks or something. So, essentially considering skirmishers, left flank, right flank, and maybe center separately from each other.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe another aspect of shields is the psychological factor. I can very well imagine having a large shield in front of you makes it easier to stand in line and receive missiles or a charge. I can't remember where I read it, but I seem to remember some ancient or medieval source mentioning the courage that armour or shields provide. Not the protection, but the courage.
In poland we have very old game ( MUD type) thats have one of the best shields implementation ingame i know. Kite shield protect your left arm from damage at 100% and gives medium protection ( flat damage decrease) for the rest left part of body and gives medium boost to parry( chance to nullify all incoming damage) . Tower shield gives you good flat damage protection for all body parts but verry small chance to parry ( strong weapons always damage your character but less lethal) . Bucklers dont gives you flat protection for certain body body parts but very big parry chance. Rest of the shield ingame are mix of those stats . Parry have 30% effect on range weapons.
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
Hey, Matt, could I offer a suggestion for a video? I'd like you to analyse right-handed vs left-handed: just with swords and also with shields involved - grappling as well, which would tie in with the topic you mentioned towards the end. I know historically it wasn't done, we lefties were always discriminated, and being left-handed in a shield wall wouldn't have been great, but for a fantasy setting, it would be useful to see the pros and cons of such a situation.
Thanks.
This video reminds me of an old series about the roman period, it was simply called "Rome". It claimed to be very historically accurate. I remember that in one of the few battle scenes, the romans form a Testudo and some (not all) of the enemy arrows break the shields and go through. That surprised me.
After seeing this video, I think they were even more accurate than I though.
What I am really missing is the downsides of missile weapons. We find that they did pierce a lot more stuff than we might have though, but in the end the only missile weapon that ever replaced melee fighters were muskets once they reached a specific level of standardization and you added the bayonet to them.
To me we seem to be very focused on one side of the argument, not so much about the other.
They have tested a pavis. Do you want a link?
I'd certainly like a link.
Yes
th-cam.com/video/G2Rl9DLUfao/w-d-xo.html
@@SuperFunkmachine Thanks.
@@SuperFunkmachine Correct. And the kinetic energy here is in the 195-197 Joule range.
0.5 × 0.0813 × 69.3 ^ 2 = 195.22 Joule
0.5 × 0.0811 × 69.85 ^ 2 = 197.84 Joule
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
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. :)
something else to note, is that with arrows, the range they are shot at has a role in how much they can penetrate. Sure a shield might not protect you as much point blank, but at larger ranges it would.
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.
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
A few additional variables - range. It might not protect you close up to an archer but will standing at range. Also the angle of the shot, presumably most arrows come at an angle from above rather than shot directly at the shield like Tod does. Also the human element, the person might see the arrow coming and braces / angles the shield more, especially at range?
Shields stacking the odds and making you harder to hit/wound/kill?
Sounds good to me, sign me up for carrying a shield.
I imagine back in the day, you would have knights and/or smiths arguing over beers about what's more important: a big heavy shield that gives a lot of coverage, or a smaller one that you can move properly. You get the predecessor of internet arguments: "I heard Philippe of Anjou came out of that battle with twenty arrows stuck in his shield and not a scratch on him." "Well Henri du Beaumont died of a single arrow through the eye because he stuck his head over the shield to see..."
What's also fairly obvious is that shields aren't held directly against the body. Held out and away there's a lot of extra space that arrow has to travel through and often time it would simply stop. Combine it with armor there was a large amount of protection offered even by a simple shield and cloth jack to slashes and ranged weaponry.
Shields seem to last a lot less long than I originally imagined they would. Makes me wonder why they went through the time and expense to so intricately paint them if they were just gonna get mauled up and tossed away.
Because most of the time a shield would not be used in battle.
Status/ show off. Similarly why human nowadays buy a million dollar cars when we just need it to travel from a to b.
@@cikenot90 Yeah, but like, from the art, it doesn't seem like it was just people with money to blow painting shields.
@@quintoblanco8746 That doesn't seem right. Why spend the time and money making and painting so many shields that weren't going to be used? I get having pretty shields for parades and guard duty and such, but it seems like everyone was also painting shields that were intended to be beat to shit.
@@andrewkelly6828 That is how war works.
Battles are rare. And not everybody involved in a battle will actually fight.
A professional soldier will spend most of his time travelling, waiting, building barriers, digging latrines, training.
That is true today and it was true in medieval times.
A soldier might walk around with as shield for a year and fight one battle. Or not a single battle.
And when it comes to a battle, not everybody will actually fight.
Even today soldiers will often not shoot on a target during a skirmish, simply because they can't see a target.
I was in the army for two years and I never shot anybody.
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.
I'm so proud of you for getting such a sponsor, not sure if you have in previous video, been short on time to watch your stuff. But I Raid: Shadow Legends pays a good amount of money for one.
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.
I think another thing to consider is range - while arrows, javelins etc. may be able to pierce some shields at short range, this doesn't apply at longer ranges.
Take two groups of soldiers, one with and one without shields, and send them against archers - obviously, archers will be much more lethal against both groups at short range, compared to long range. However, at long range the group with shields would be nearly invulnerable to arrows, due to their decreased velocity at that range. Probably not worth even shooting at, since archers would only be wasting ammo and energy. However, the group without shields could be vulnerable enough to make long range volleys viable against them.
It would be interesting to see a video where you explain all the layers of original pavises in detail. Were they all similar? Why did they use a specific material for a layer,...
I have been enjoying Tod's workshop shields/armor tests and the biggest point made is that there were no definite arrow or missile style that would work for all types. Also pointing at Shadiversity is that a common standard soldier/ Knight would have a combination of the best he could afford and maintain. It is all about increasing your odds of survival and being the most effective given your occupation at the time. For example I know I would have personally in the medieval era 13-15century would have always worn a chain mail shirt underneath my gambeson or regular attire bc of the standard effectiveness of stopping sharp pointy knives, daggers, arrows, spears thrusts. In addition of reducing the cutting depth of any weapon. That does not account of what profession I am living or trying to achieve. Say a merchant who travels from town to town using the Kings road, a low rank guard officer in the town of Whoville, Or a guild master craftsman. All would have varying access, knowledge and most importantly experience on what daily requirements would be needed to survive the day.
As Always Matt, You go into great context on the subject...👍
A shield of tempered steel that is let's say 16 gauge and 18" by 24" should protect the body without being to heavy to carry. Any shield that uses a metal boss to protect the hand is most likely meant to catch or deflect arrows. I most likely just said more than most people want to read.
How about a video on the different seige equipment around the world? Or maybe different animals used in war... equipment with animals. Usual tactics of certain armies or peoples etc.
I too enjoy checking out my champion's """EQUIPMENT"""
Deflection would be s big factor with shields, since arrows, bolts and javelins wouldn't always hit a shield at a perpendicular angle. Also, some boss-grip shields can turn in the hand on impact, which could affect the penetration of an projectile/thrown weapon.
I think there is a reason why the english longbowmen were considered especially effective. If you think about it it makes a bit more sense, now that we "know" that with enough power an arrow have a pretty good chanse to go through a lot of things, that they were able to fight of knights in armour.
Having a shield vs lacking one is basically the case of "partial protection is better than none". Plus I'm pretty sure than if a trained soldier is caught out of formation he won't perform videogamey 90 degree block but instead angle the shield to not only have much of the force of impact mitigated but also potentially create an opening for himself by havingenemy full force attack slide off or by getting to bash enemy commited attack away.
TBH the case of angle is why I think shields were way more protective than modern tests give them credit for as tests are performed typically by 90 degree angle while outside of shield formation that would rarely be the case.
Maybe people just gave their troops shields to make convincing them to march towards the enemy easier.
We should also consider that projectiles would rarely hit square to the shield and many would be deflected by a hand held shield as it moved in the hand. Tests are done with shields positioned with no give at all, which would not have been the case with hand held shield. Deflecting rather than stopping projectiles would have been effective to increase survival for the carrier.
I kind of want a game now where you have the huge shield as a crosbowman and you can just place it on the ground and hide behind.
I have a 15 inch fluted steel buckler made of 14 gauge steel. Works for my style of sabre fencing, so I'm good.
When I was firing bolts from crossbows into the wood, I noticed that the bolts penetrated only a little. Even 6 inches in, the person behind it would be safe.
I suspect angle and rotation matter quite a bit too. When I see tests done (including Tod's), the shield is facing front on, and typically leaned or strapped against a solid surface. There's some give, but not nearly as much as you'd see on say...a centre gripped shield. So while an arrow striking plumb against a braced shield will likely go through, I don't know I'd call that conclusive evidence as to how the shield would function under battlefield conditions, when the missile is likely not taking the hit head on, the body/arm is a crumple zone (depending on strapping) and the shield may even rotate with the strike.