Why Didn't Musket-Wielding Armies Use Shields?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มิ.ย. 2024
- Get up to 30% off Ekster wallets this Spring Sale when you use my link or discount code shop.ekster.com/brandonf BRANDONF
~~Video Description~~
Why didn't linear warfare armies use shields as mobile cover? Like modern riot shields or Renaissance pavises, they could fire their muskets and duck behind a row of shields to take cover! Surely that would save many lives, and make a unit far more effective, right?
Well, it's easy to come up with such genius ideas from behind one's computer screen! But, such inventions of the mind may not always be so useful as we imagine...
~~Other Links & Contact Info~~
You can directly support my work by becoming a Patron & Officer of this channel:
` / brandonf
If you'd like to support this channel without spending any money, you can watch my content early and get access to exclusive content at Recast.tv!
` the.recast.app/user/5mN4d
Find a free digital library, shop for merchandise, and learn more about this channel's charity work at: ` www.nativeoak.org/
Or, another great way to support my work is by booking me on Cameo! 50% of all these proceeds also go to charity:
` www.cameo.com/brandonfisichel...
And of course you can follow me on Facebook and Instagram!
` / thenativeoak
` / brandonfisichella
~~Timestamps~~
Why Not Use Shields? 00:00
Battle Tactics 04:10
Sponsored Section 19:38
Logistics 21:39
How We Approach History 26:40
Get up to 30% off Ekster wallets this Spring Sale when you use my link or discount code shop.ekster.com/brandonf BRANDONF"
Also, fun little mission for you all...see if you can find the timestamp when the duck quacks. I had to have my window open for this recording meaning you can faintly hear the pond in the background!
You should know better than to listen to the comment section.
how about a stationary pavise shields used by genoese crossbowmen
but this time made out of steel to be able to stop bullets / & such shields were carried on the back with slings, so therefor the soldier does not need to sacrifice his musket / also only the vanguard or first line needs them
Refer to Ned Kelly.
Brandon, please do a video of:
1. Why soldiers' uniforms in 18th century is so superfluous / decorative (I mean compared to, say, 17th century New Model Army musketeers or the redcoat at late 1800s just before they switch to khakis)
2. Why helmets aren't issued to 18th century soldiers (at least they are protected from blunt force trauma, shrapnels, stray bullets and the like)
this doesn't answer my question about sheilds and muskets.
I don't mean normal sheilds, I mean up armored sheilds.
I mean super heavey sheilds of full night weight, or maybe two man sheilds.
WIth huge sheilds, you can plant them in the ground and letpeople shoot, and add stuff to make calvaery charges difficult.
The fact that crossbowmen used to carry shields around and then that fell out of favor as firearms became prevalent by itself is evidence that military thinkers were aware of this strategy and dismissed it as not being worthwhile. People criticize linear warfare for being a bunch of guys standing in a field shooting at each other and their solution is to just have half the men shooting at each other and the other half sit there doing nothing but hold up a shield.
Why not make that kind of shield from steel?
@@andystitt3887 Brandon literally goes over that in the video, so watch that for more in depth reasoning. But the gist is that to stop a musket ball they would have to be fairly thick making them expensive to manufacture and unwieldy to use on the battlefield.
Prove it. Because one can just as easily suggest that the valuation of men was low , that plenty of examples of stubborn adherence to tradition was high. (Like the initial refusal to use the Gatling gun based on the idea that it was a waste of ammo. )
Clearly the Romans were able to maneuver with shields, just like folks were able to use armor.
Rather than assume flexibility and genius ,one can just as easily attribute the situation to a disregard for fellow humans , greediness, and poor skills on the part of commanders... All commonplace factual factors.
That there were times when shields Were used , does not mean the lack of shielding at other times was evidence of battlefield brilliance. To this day some armies use human meat wave tactics , simply because they think they have bodies to spare, but they don't have proper helmets to put on them.
There's a really good way to put a nice, thick shield in front of you, that also provides a good amount of horizontal concealment and all you have to do is carry a shovel.
@@geronimomiles312Roman shields didn't have to stop a musket ball.
In a previous era when muskets were less powerful and less accurate they actually DID DO THIS. This is basically what the Spanish Tercio was envisioned to be, guns, swords, shields, and pikes. It is practical when the firepower of the guns involved is sufficiently low.
In feudal Japan too, especially during sengoku period. Obviously when firearms became more advanced, their portable shields became obsolete.
Yeah, missing out on the Tercio.
Actually it was envisioned that way in the very early days (First Italian War), but the field experience showed that shields weren't really practical and thus were removed. Originally the formations included a first line of shieldbearers (rodeleros), and then further lines of either pikemen or arquebusiers. However, during the battles against the French during the First Italian War the obsolescence of the shieldbearers was witnessed and Spanish general Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba ordered them to be disbanded and replaced with additional pikemen or arquebusiers.
Except tercios were a pike&shot arrangement. No large shields there afiak.
Even if you added rodeleros, you still wouldn't have an example of what is discussed in the video.
If anything, tercios demonstrate that even when the guns were lower in power, shields still weren't used to counter gunfire.
@@podemosurss8316 Rodeleros had relatively small round shield and a sword and, as far as I know, their task was envisioned to primarily help deal with pike blocks not with countering musket fire.
I have heard that the French and German’s experimented with shields in ww1 as a way to break the stalemate of trench warfare. However, any man portable bullet proof shield proved to be far to heavy to be practical (not too mention it provided no protection from the sides). It took the invention of the tank, which moved the load onto an mechanical engine, that finally made the concept of “mobile armor” viable again.
Funnily enough Erwin Rommel of all people tried to use shields in WW2, though not the kind that was designed to be carried by men. Instead larger metal gun shields. Its a been a while since I read infantry Tactics. But if memory serves Erwin Rommel saw the french using the gun shields as cover for some of their men who were digging. And tried to do the same thing.
It was in the early chapters of the book, a bit after after Rommel expounded on the value of digging in. And stated "Sweat saves Blood".
@@charlie_sketch Well metal plates have been and are still mounted to machine guns, usually to vehicle mounted ones (since the concerns of weight is far less of a concern for a humvee or a armored personal carrier). They are called gun shields.
@@josephattwell1006 Ah yes, gun shields. That's the word.
Thank you for jogging my memory.
Yeah, potentially useful in different circumstances, but of very limited effectiveness to the mobile infantry soldier.
Ww1 guys were to strong .shields would have worked in napoleon era in mu opinion
The Japanese did (at least sometimes) use a kind of shield made of bamboo bundles (called 竹盾 or 竹束) to protect soldiers from gunfire. Of course, these were just placed in front of soldiers so they're maybe more like field fortifications like the gabions and fascines you mentioned (and what was that 3rd word?). However, they're still called "shields" (盾). Also, technically they were used before the 18th century.
I was just about to make exactly this point!
That's dope! do did they work well? Were guns smaller or something? It reminds me of the Aztec and Incans Armor. Incan's used Quilted armor and it worked well against arrows- they'd come back looking like Porcupines.
@@Souledex I don't know how well they worked but presumably well enough to be worthwhile or they wouldn't have been used. Remember that these were quite thick. They weren't the kind of shields one would carry around so maybe they might be better classified as light transportable field fortifications than shields. The guns were matchlock arquebuses, I think.
@@Souledex Bamboo is basically a hard, thine, round, hollow tube so
1. You can bundle a bunch of them together
2. Even if one layer of hard husk get pierce by bullets there will always be more layers inside, piercing each layer will decrease the fire power until eventually it cannot pierce through
3. The surface is round and not flat, if it is not a direct hit, bullets might bounce off instead of piercing the Taketaba
4. It is hollow, so it is comparatively light and can be carry around easily
Yes, but they were also defending against a lot of arrows and spears as well as bullets.
More important, conscripts are cheaper to absorb bullets than shields.
18th cenutry armies didn't really conscript that much iirc.
I don’t think that’s financially true
Henry Clinton: "Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make."
When only relatively few of your soldiers will be killed or wounded by musket fire (compared to artillery and especially disease), minimizing casualties to small arms fire might not be a priority
@@hrotha Correct, most battles ended with one side giving way and retreating at the sight of a bayonet charge or the threat of being outflanked. The heavier battlefield losses were usually sustained during assaults on fortified positions or during disorganized retreats.
Short version: they'd be less useful than a musket when attacking and less useful than a ditch-digging shovel when defending. Plus they would have weighed far more than both of the above put together, would have been considerably more expensive, and would probably have marked you out as an ideal target for cannon fire, which they would be no defence against at all.
Thank you!
That can’t be true. Shields were used alongside canon and musket fire when armoured knights were still commonplace
@@zzodysseuszz they prolly had them for shrapnel, for charging units
@@zzodysseuszz Shields were rapidly declining in use by then and they were dealing with much weaker, much less accurate firearms. As early as the mid-16th century, shields were already being deliberately phased out in favor of more pikemen and musketeers. It was not until the mid-16th that cannons either technologically or tactically became especially useful in pitched battles as well.
@@zzodysseuszz because at the time Gunpower weapons weren't really that good yet, by the 18th Century this was no longer the case.
I like your "approach to history" as you call it.
Millions of men spent a good portion of their life thinking about how to survive these engagements and of course the thought of using shields must have crossed their minds. Their lives literally depended making the best possible decision here. The fact that muskets won out over the musket-shield-combo therefore tells us a lot already. The incredible success of Napoleon shows us how innovations in organization, logistics and tactics could quickly upset the balance of military strength. His downfall also showed us how quick and eager other European powers were to adapt to these innovations if they were any good.
As others pointed out, it was done and was effective for a limited time.
People are giving too much credit to generals when even in WWI it took millions of casualties till they started digging in when it was already proven in ACW that it was a must. No, people who think stay waaaay behind the lines. If their lives were at stake, they'd actually think stuff before the war even started. Considering the career military in WWI was so inept, inbred aristocratic royalty didn't really have to innovate anything 400 years ago to stay in power. Just send more peasants to training, 1000-2000 more men dying before they rout or not had no significance.
I'd say many people with critical thinking from today could revolutionize warfare if they time traveled to 1600s.
This shield question reminds me of the Japanese Sengoku Jidai time period, where late in the period, they did use "shields". They were mobile fortifications that they used to protect their arquebusiers from cavalry charges in particular.
Considering the terrain and materials available, this was an incredible niche opportunity suitable to Japan's climate and combat at the time.
People could throw together barricades and earthworks in early modern period Europe as well. If they have time and want to make a static defence, they will throw that stuff up.
@@SusCalvin still not standard issue like what the japanese had. Also, keyword "could"
Right, it was about quickly throwing up a fortification, and used alongside archers and pike. This was still the pike and shot era.
Don't the "shields" also have wheels?
Technically they still use shield . Police and army use tactical shield to resist bombs and bullets. But in a big open field. Running with a 60 pound shield anywhere is too hard to do
Something I said about military tactics in another discussion, it's not a matter if you can think of a specific scenario where a tactic might be better, but rather if said tactic are better in most of the cases then the tactics actually used.
You can think of some truly weird tactics that could be better then conventional tactics if you stacked the deck in their favor, but in 99% of the cases those weird tactics would be worse or even actively detrimental, conventional tactics where used and still are used because they work "good enough" in the majority of cases and training your forces to know the best possible tactic for each encounter isn't simply possible way too many variable there to train anyone within a reasonable timeframe.
Try enveloping a larger force with a smaller one. It's almost always a losing tactic, because there's too much that can go wrong... or just not right enough. But it's been done, to spectacular success (see Hannibal at Cannae) so lesser commanders keep throwing away their men trying for some of that glory.
This is really the crux many are missing. The only point I'd add is all of these niche tactics alt history people like to pose would require a lot of training. This training would also be in how you communicate orders to use the tactics as well, which at this time is using horns and flags on battlefields covers in smoke and drowning in explosions.
Now this was an era of professional armies, so one might think it's possible. But this is also an era before literacy was common in the average person. So it's not like they could have common manuals distributed.
If you're that desperate to give troops cover you're better off carrying empty sacks or shovels. Earth is one of the most effective methods of stopping guns anyway. Many battles are not two groups choosing to walk at each other but instead one group defending while another attacks. So you'd have time to prepare defenses that don't require expensive and heavy shields that also waste the offensive power of a man with a musket.
True, but keep in mind that the whole need/capability ratio is also why some weapons are available at different levels of organization. For instance the proposed 19th century shield/mantlet may not make sense for every squad to have them as part of their general loadout, but it may still make sense for them to be available at a higher organization, like say division, for a number of units(like maybe enough to fill a third of infantry battalions with one per squad if the need or use is expected.
A good example of this in play is how stationary shields were used during the Sengoku Jidai in japan. These would be deployed on the battlefield to serve as cover for archers and arquebusiers along with more permanent structures like fences.
Balkan battle wagons were way more practical variation of the same idea.
That’s just portable bunkers/fortifications. Like sandbags/foxholes
About the force of the stopped musket balls - doing the calculation it really is not that much, not a problem at all unless the whole regiment hits your shield at the same time. More importantly though if it had a prop to hold it up like a pavise, better yet a spike to stick in the ground as well, that could make it much more useful.
In fact it could stay up on its own then, so the soldier could get up and help in other ways.
It would still be very slow to move and generally cumbersome though, so still probably not worth it.
also that loading muzzle loaders is usually something done upright, so you're either always somewhat exposed, or the shields are a lot taller and you have to deal with moving sideways to shoot which would open more angles of being shot at the deeper the formation is and suddenly forming a square to receive a cavalry charge seems more inconvenient.
@@PrimordialNightmare There are drills out there that depict reloading whilst crouching, though I can imagine it being much slower than reloading upright.
The issue of weight and manoeuvrebility remains however.
I was just thinking putting spikes on the bottom of the shield would mean you could have a shield wall without anyone physically holding a shield. The logistical issues would still be a problem, but it might have been useful for some armies fighting a defensive campaign.
German sentry troops did have enhanced helmets and body armour against shrapnel, pistol and bayonets but it was useful for MG emplacements.
I have seen pictures of the Great War MG gunner armour. I thought it was way too heavy to move in, but they sometimes test it with people who are defending a static position. Like an MG crew or a marksman.
I think the main issues for me are that in a set battle manoeuvrability is very important therefore heavy shields will make that harder on the other hand if you were defending somewhere it might make sense until you remember, baracades and breastworks were exceptionally common when defending a location. Therefore instead of being a shield you create or use an existing defensive work that is better at taking bullets and you don't have to lug around with you.
Plus in a defense you want to shoot the enemy Charge to pieces. And shields dont shoot.
Somewhat true, but not true enough. After all a 14th century crossbow is allot heavier and more cumbersome than an 18th century musket and yet Genovese crossbowmen lugged around pavises to take cover behind, in fact it was the pavise and how they used it that made them formidable warriors on the battlefield. No, at the tactical level large shields that you carry on your back and then place in front of you when defending a point would make perfect sense, as proven by the fact that in Japan musketeers used them as such during the Sengoku era. No I suspect in Europe there were more complex reasons than what Brandon stated : 1) when in a purely defensive position they did use something even more effective than a shield, they dug trenches if time allowed or made impromptu walls out of stuff they had on hand, rocks piles of wood etc. 2) Armies in Europe were allot larger, so the logistical problems would have been heavier than in Japan. 3) If you only equipped some of your special soldiers with shields, it could create morale problems and conflict withing the army. 4) A lack of incentive to improve warfare tactics. Despite what you might think, warfare in Europe in the period was not that common, we were too busy colonizing the rest of the world, and you don't need to innovate to win when you have cannons and the enemy has spears. 5) Open field battles in Europe were rare, sieges were more common. And in a siege, a shield is useless.
@@Muaddibize I would say the advent of black powder defeated the utility of head-to-toe personal protection for hundreds of years until the modern era, where a soldier could wear armor that was not so cumbersome that they are able to wear armor while moving and shooting at the same time.
Since the advent of black powder, the military bias has been towards mobility, not defensive capabilities, especially when soldiers could create stronger defenses from the environment around them than to carry hundreds of pounds of armor to counter-act ever-increasing sophisticated weapondry.
@@Muaddibize I think this conversation misrepresents both European and Japanese war, which were actually of roughly the same scale (Nagashino ~ White mountain, Sekigahara was slightly smaller than the Battle of Vienna) and saw a lot of innovation/diverse ways of doing things. Images of a hastily assembled Japanese musketeer shield wall actually somewhat resemble the Hussite Wagon forts of Europe that predated them by about 100 years. In many ways, the Hussite wagon forts were superior. Since they had wheels and were drawn by animals, they could be both sturdier and taller, offering more protection and preventing cavalry from overrunning a position. Why did it fall out of use? It was inflexible and probably not a great idea if the enemy had artillery.
I'd say that the lack of artillery (despite a lot of guns) determined what was viable in Japanese warfare, as it really only started to play a big role in Japanese warfare with the Siege of Osaka. Most Japanese Castles were not designed with artillery in mind. Though their bases were incredibly solid (stone sided mounds of earth), the habitable defensive structures on top were mostly wood.
My theory on how they could be used is in offensives have some of your force as squads of few shieldsman and guys with muskets, have several of these squads spread out and fire and maneuver once they've gained a certain amount of ground send in the rest and also shieldsman should have a sword and handgun foe when it's to be close quarters fighting
The tactic would be to use the shield like crossbownen used the pavese, carry your shield on the back when moving, then plant it on the ground and use it as cover. It's better than have dedicated shield bearers but the musketeers will have to carry extra weight and be slowed down by the "plant the shield, pick up the shield" procedure. You'll be sacrificing mobility for protection.
So sacrifice spare food, water, and bullets for a shield?
@@samuelshin593 yes. I suppose if the units aren't meant for traveling much, it might be justified. Maybe if the area has surplus supplies
@@dannyardon1710 the shields could transported in a wagon when marching. Besides, it's not like you're going to take a lunch-break during a battle.
@@arx3516 Then you have less food in the wagon. Less supplies, and for a shield that basically acts like a shitty basic fortfication. If your on the attack a shield is not going to be worth the effort, and if your on the defense you could just.. dig a trench or set up a baricade from trees or rocks rather then waste time, effort, energy and space luging around a shield.
@@snickims9717 you're
They actually used shields in the early days of muskets, when their firepower was weak. However as the firepower it gets better and especially when the rifle comes in. It becomes unnecessary. In Asian countries, they still use shields that can move and stand up when standing still. In Vietnam, during the Tay Son period, they divided the company into groups of three, everyone would take turns carrying wooden shields covered with leather and damp straw, muskets and swords. This tactic proved effective as they were able to move very quickly and easily overcome enemy fire.
Yeah, when firearms were at their earliest and most primitive stages in the Middle Ages, literally just being steel tubes on a staff or glorified fire lances, they were treated as being in the same category as crossbows and therefore were used a lot in conjunction with pavise shields like crossbows were.
Combination of different weapons was always difficult as we see with pikes and muskets. Shields were very long in use by the Spanish. Smaller or larger shields were used for storming parties. But these are specialists and you can see in many armies how they abandonned the idea of many specialists within their armies as these were complicated, needed special training and so on...
Also by the 18th Century this was already not becoming viable so the Shield and Pikes were dropped as Gun Powder weapons became more advanced so the need for specialised melee units simply phased out.
In earlier periods the Late Medieval and so on, tactics with shields and Melee troops were still viable thanks to more primative firearms, and we see tactics like Big Shields for cover, Pikes and specialised units like the Zwiehandlers are also viable but as time pressed on the Pikes began reducing in number.
@@forickgrimaldus8301
Which is also why the Highlander Charge was a viable tactic at one point.
Something I was told a long time ago was the people who fought in the past knew a lot more about how to fight their enemies than you do.
The further back we go, the less old army manuals we have to understand their thinking.
This happens to the historical sources as well. Some chronicler tries to pen down what they heard happened far away in time and space.
Sometimes they don't think writing down details is important. I don't need to describe what a phalanx does, everyone knows that.
It is one of the biggest lessons I learned about history. For all the stuff we've invented throughout time, we are not smarter than our ancestors. We have benefit of hindsight, but that's about the only advantage we have. Most likely, if we were dropped in the 14th century and ordered to command an army of footmen and archers against an enemy army of knights, we would not do better even when knowing about the dominance of knights. Simply put, the tricks that would work a century later might not work yet because advances in weapon quality haven't given the quality you really need yet. The only difference would be in predicting natural predicaments: learning people what medicine treats the bubonic plague and what exactly causes it could save millions of Europeans.
I know this video is focused on European 18th century warfare, but for the rest of the world, of that time, people continued to use shields. In North america, we have evidence of native americans using shield, melee weapons, bows, and/or guns together. we have Chinese documentation indicating rattan shields along with mukseteers. We have evidence of Ottoman and Japanese shields….These cultures used guns along with melee weapons and shields. In africa, some troops like ethiopia continued to use traditional weapons like spear and shield along with guns. Even in 19th century we have photographic evidence of Ethiopian soldiers at the Battle of Adwa holding shields, while some used guns. Even if they were ineffective against bullets, often they were used when guns are lacking
Those shields were primarily meant for melee combat tho, right?
@@klayn5611 those African ones likely melee and cultural. Some anti bullet shields includes stacking many layers together as makeshift barriers in sieges
Cavaliers held shields in India into the 1850s and likely longer. Cavaliers in Europe and Americas fought with spears and swords till the Great War, so shields still were good
Shields and firearms were on the same battlefield, but the shields were for melee, not stopping bullets.
@@richardstephens5570 mostly yes. Still answers this video title which mentions nothing about shields having to stop bullets
The evolution of warfare is fascinating. Densely packed firepower really changed the rules.
I think the ancient warfare was brutal but fair for individual fighters when you had to face the enemy with a sword, a spear or an axe. Even if someone used a bow and arrows, it was possible to protect yourself with a helmet, armour and a shield. Firearms like cannons and rifles made it possible to kill the enemy faraway without close contact.
As far as I can see, Anti-Materiel Rifles are probably the current peak of miniaturized but concentrated firepower that can penetrate infantry shields.
@@Aereto Anti material rifles are pretty good. But if you use an grenade launcher with air burst shells then you don't have to penetrate the shield at all. Instead you can spray shrapnel in the guys face.
So even if you lose the engagement and have to leg it. The other side now has to deal with a blind and wounded soldier. Who will probably survive, but will have to be taken off of the battlefield. Making them expend more resources then if you had killed him out right.
Especially since that combatant will probably be sent home. And the rival power will have to continue to spend money. Supporting that veteran who cannot see, cannot fight, and won't be able to contribute to the opponents war machine.
eventually someone put heavy shields on a tractor engine (instead of lugging them around on foot) and changed the rules of warfare again
@@Aereto the peak of concentrated penetration power these days goes to the armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot shot from a smoothbore cannon, and there is the even stronger railgun if not for railgun's impracticality
I'm writing a story where one Empire does exactly this - when a formation has to be tight, they deploy shieldmen with pistols in the front rank to minimise caualities taken. The reasoning is that that particular nation has a technological advantage with a very small population in comparison to rivals, so taking losses comparable to those rivals would be completely unsustainable - there are only so many men you can draft before your economy collapses.
if they are that smart and more advanced, they'd simply learn to fight smarter, not harder. can't claim to be smart and advanced if they still fight in a line in an age of gunpowder.
how about shooting from behind cover instead, like a tree, building corner, window, hill, etc....
If they have pistols, what's the technological level of their adversaries? That whole formation sounds like grapeshot bait to me.
@@naphackDT The empire in question emerged when it's current ruler conquered the surrounding area after inventing gunpowder and usurping power in one of the city-states during a crisis. This conquest caused an immense concentration of power in his hands, as he was removing everyone not utterly loyal to him - so suddenly a poor region fractured into petty feudal kingdoms and city-states with frequent infighting got a very strict focus (and a whole lot of angry has been nobles). After that, the new nations pretty much quickstarted an industrial revolution, thanks to centralisation and employment of wizards in the manufacturing process. So the technology difference is that that empire is fielding a small professional army, where around 30-50% of men are armed with single shot compound ammunition breechloaded rifles. The rest of the world is lagging behind thanks to the complete trade embargo on "high-technology" the emperor ordered and is stuck on late XVI centurry level, as they did manage to copy some aspects of captured equipment. So they still employ pike squares, heavy cavalry (and in case of one species, chariots) and the average projectile weapon is still far more likely a bow/crossbow, than an arquebus, or a musket.
Maybe the armies in your empire could have soldiers with mutations that made them generally large hulking individuals and they were an elite force seeing that they're a small force. They could be strong enough to hold shields on their backs and then just plant them in front with some sort of spike. The shield could have a notch in the top from which they could rest their firearms and shoot them at targets or maybe even through explosives if they were as physically strong as I said. The shields could be made of a fictional material maybe like beskar or mithril which could deflect musket shots or something like that. Or maybe you could just have dwarves... that solves everything.
@@SOMEONE-hv3xc They do not have nearly enough know-how to even attempt changing DNA of any species, let alone do it in an already born specimen. There is a different faction that does it later on in the story though. And I do not have dwarves, elves or any other species that could be described as "humans with (insert specific trait here)". I have completely different species. And some of them could prrform this role, if they were not more valuable as melee shock troops. That spike might be a good idea in some situations and bad in other, but I think a specialised troop type with shield and no rifle significantly increases troop mobility.
A shield heavy and big enough to protect against musketry will almost certainly keep you within enemy cannon range for longer whilst limiting your own firepower and possibly your own bayonet strength should the enemy close to melee.
Yup by the 18th and 19th century speed is a more viable tactic than protection, because Canons and Guns, but in the Earlier periods the Shield and Cover thing was more used.
That and shrapnel caused not only by the Canons but also the shield
Not to mention just lugging the darned thing around would be hard work. Much better to stay mobile.
Shields were practical until soldiers started using bayonets & riffled muskets in the late 17th & 18th centuries.
+you become cavalry fodder
I've started to take this approach to more things in life where instead of asking, "why didn't you do X?" instead to rephrase the question to "What was the line of thinking that lead you to choose Z?" Many times we make decisions based on the circumstances of the time and have access to a lot of context that is always missing when looking at it from hindsight and well removed from the situation. It's understanding that context that allows greater growth of learning and understanding instead of of just shutting down the conversation by just stating, "do X instead." Many times, option X only came about because of a genius 50 years after the date that came up with a great leap in innovation that seems quaint now.
Truth.
I had a superior officer who was fond of the saying. " I was unable to utilize the information that was not available to me at the time".
They're the same question to most people
Reminds me of armor experiments during WWI largely inspired by the Middle Ages. Mobile shields were experimented until the realties of trench warfare came in and there was limited shield use by snipers and machine gunners. Chest plates had some limited use but were heavy and cumbersome and too expensive to issue en masse. Only metal helmets made a full comeback, as they can be made in large quantities and did its job effectively.
@@SEAZNDragon The greatest killer of infantry is artillery.
Helmets provide adequate protection from airbursts.
If I remember correctly, during the 15th century, they still had pike men with the musketeers in a pike-and-shot formation the spaniards excelled in. Though a pike is way more cheaper than a shield , the bayonet did away with those as this made the rifle a pike.
They have a transition period where sword and board dudes would be in there alongside the pikes and arquebus guys.
@@SusCalvin Rodelero's right? The spanish stabby boys that would roll out into the push of pike. And start hacking and slashing like the energizer bunny on crack.
The 15th century? I think firearms were hardly being used at that point.
When I think pike and shot tactics I think of 17th century, though i dont know when it started exactly
Here's an idea - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myeonje_baegab. Layers of folded cotton fabric thick enough to stop late 19th century bullets - so 17/18th C. musket fire for sure. Fashioned into a shield carried on your back, this could have provided protection against musket fire, and also doubled as a blanket. Certainly cheaper and easier to produce compared to metal or wooden shields. Lighter too. Sure artillery would still have posed a problem, but appears this might have worked for line infantry facing small arms fire. Guess no one got around to inventing a cotton shield in that period.
I have heard of a wool component to scottish shields of that period, but those were still mostly wood if not completely wood.
Wow, never thought I’d get called out by Brandon in front of a hcking lot of ppl. Yeah after writing a couple papers and some research projects I think this is a new high in my career…
great video and an interesting topic.
shields and other forms of barricade protection were always used in history, especially for dedicated ranged fighters, I think the reason that shields fell out of use is more due to the style of warfare rather than guns themselves.
early on dedicated shields (pavis) for crossbowman were used where you didn't need to hold the shield but place it down and use it as cover while you shoot and reload, this was during the first age of guns, so most likely early gunners used them as well. this removes the need for dedicated shield barres and gives each rifleman their own personal portable cover they can leave behind if need be.
also during this time war wagons were prominently used famously by the Hussites, where a cart was turned into a portable impenetrable fort for gunmen to hold up in. I think this cart tactic was used by early settlers too.
so some sort of shielding was always used, but styles of warfare change and they fell out of favor, but not everywhere.
I'm more knowledgeable about the Caucasus history, where Georgian warriors used mail armor and buckler shields even up to early 20th century before the Soviet takeover.
shields were not meant for guns but for saber battles that followed when the warriors closed the firing range, rather than use bayonets we kept the sword fighting tradition going, hence the need for mail armor too. (made a whole video about it ;)
also thick wooden boards for breaking down wheat was used as siege shields and of course the Caucasian Nabadi cloak was said to be able to stop early musket bullets and was appropriated by Russian Cossacks for that reason.
very interesting topic, got my brain juices flowing.
If I was to make a shield for 18th century army Id go with Pavis design, meybe even more curved to emphasize potential glancing and use thick rawhide or layers of hardened cotton or hemp paper glued with a lacquered leather cover with metal center. I think something like this would have a better chance stopping a bullet. point on wood shrapnel was a good one so i think hardened and glued hemp paper would do much better job. one day I might test that theory, we'll see.
would paper be strong enough to stop a bullet? even from a musket
@@paikman I think glued layers of higher quality fiber paper could do the trick and might be cheaper than many layers of leather and lighter than metal shield.
I need to test my theory but hemp paper is hard to come by.
And cannons care about neither of the materials. The real problem for shields was the growing number of artillery that occured during and after the 30 years war.
Another great presentation Brandon! There's little I can add except you're 100% right, NEVER underestimate the intelligence and yes, sophistication of the old-timers. They had reasons for what they did, VERY good reasons in the context of the times.
Shields? Oh, they'd come back eventually, except they put engines in 'em and called 'em tanks!
By the way, that looks like a top-quality Union Flag in the background, sewn and not printed. At least I think it's sewn, it sure looks like it!
Oh, one last thing. Those bullet impacts on the breastplates, at least the single impacts on breastplates from the 17th Century, were the makers proofing of the product that it was impervious to pistol shots. At least that's what my Osprey book on the English Civil War says.
This breast plate was bullet proofed by the blacksmith.. so our plan is now bullet proof!
Metal shields are lighter than wooden shields of comparable strength and durability. Metal being dense never really leads to metal equipment being heavier than non-metal alternatives like wood or leather because it's stronger for the same weight. But, it's true that armour and shields of sufficient strength to deflect musket balls were too heavy to use. It's also true that shields fell out of use before armour did because armour had become more efficient protection than shields by that time, shields were used instead of armour during the era when armour lacked the flexibility and coverage to fully protect on its own.
Metal shields are stronger in some way, And with sufficient thickness they'll dent when hit by musket ball fire instead of going straight through.
But one advantage that you have to remember with wooden shields, is that wooden shields were often wrapped in leather. And that leather would act like a spall liner. Catching wood splinters when the shield fragmented.
If you're using metal without a spall liner. Then the efficacy of its use against fire arms comes down to the properties of the metal itself. This can be seen with the development of tank armor. Like how the Germans would only face harden the armor of their vehicles. Since you wouldn't want all of the armor to be hard and brittle. As if you did that, then the armor would crack too easily.
If memory serves, the Germans had a real problem with their armor plate cracking when struck with a armor piercing warhead. Because late in the war, the Germans were short on certain valuable and rare metals that they were need to avoid brittle armor. I believe Manganese was one of the metals they were short on.
+you need marching speed + you become cavalry fodder if the shields are placed on the ground
Very cool, I didn't know there were cavalry that used shields in the modern era.
Spanish Mexican cavalry used shields because they were often engaging with bow armed cavalry natives like the Apache who were the closest thing America had to Mongols. As a curiosity, the Apache had heavily armored cavalry in cataphract cavalry in 17th century, how cool is that??
@@phunkracy Source on Apache cataphracts? I haven't been able to find anything on google.
Riot police
I think they call them "tanks" now. /j
Great video!! Made me think of the battle of the Monongahela when General Braddock would not permit his troops to break ranks and take cover(as G. Washington advised him) when it was clearly necessary.... You should also do one concerning line infantry against melee attacks if u havent already.
This could be summed up rather quickly. Even if the shield was made of thick enough steel to stop musket rounds even point-blank range, and we make the shield roughly the dimensions of a modern riot shield, (lets say 24 x 48in and 1/4in thick) that will instantly make it 80+ lbs on its own for the soldier to carry. People tend to forget that soldiers of this time period spend A LOT of their lives marching from A to B. You're never going to convince a soldier that it's worth carrying this insanely heavy unwieldy shield everywhere he goes.
Well i mean, if you think about it, they used shield, they were made out of dirt and were called trenches. And we use it to this day, and as long as ground stops bullets we will probably use it to do so.
PS. and i find it weirdly poetic that despite the advancements in technology, in the age of man less drones, suicide drones and missiles containing at least thousands if not millions of micro scoping transistors, that knows it's position from man made objects in space itself, which launch to space some could say started american hegemony, the most cost effective way to hide and protect from enemy bullets is same hole in the ground Europe used back when U.S wasn't even a thing yet.
When I think of incorporating shields into line musket infantry I would imagine them being used as a deployable screen, spiked into the ground which would provide minor protection to the front ranks from enemy fire and cavalry attacks. Not every infantrymen would need to carry a shield. Should the battlefield situation dictate that troops need to maneuver they would simply leave the shields. This the shields could be combined with pikes that are driven into the ground to form a rapidly deployable yet formidable hard point. This would be near unassailable by the enemy without heavy use of artillery fires. In doctrine the shields should be used as an area denial tool against assaulting enemies, like barbed wire, to discourage the enemy from taking approaching routes which are otherwise difficult to cover.
So more like an engineer thing?
Artillery would love a shield wall to shoot at. All that lovely shrapnel.
@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 And artillery would love a mass of infantry just the same. Its not making it a better or worse target.
@@arkhaan7066 Cannon ball hits shield, shield becomes a mass of sharp splinters flying around in your front line. Much more effective I think.
@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 The cannon is going to do the same damage regardless of if that shield is there or not. The splintering might be less effective because its only going to hit the 5 or 6 men in the vicinity of the shield, and the cannonball is going to lose momentum going through the metal and deform which will reduce its impact to the lines, especially in the case of a grazing shot which was the artillerymans goal
Note: a shield barer isn't actually necessary: you can employ a highly advanced and very complicated device know as a stick, or even multiple thereof, attached to a shield to affix it to the ground.
And you can put it on wheels like a cannon shield.
That is a field fortification (which will be hard to move around once planted) and if your army has the time to set that up, you would be better off just digging a ditch to fire from without burdening your army with lugging around heavy shields everywhere.
True. But the enemy would see the shields and reposition themselves. You will have a really hard time to keep adjusting them. They only work as a fortification.
Exactly. Thats what I was thinking too, why not use mantlets instead of normal style shields? And like itspatrick1922 said, better still would be too put wheels on it for mobility. At thi point, without much muscle power being needed for it, you could probably apply a limited amount of side armor as well. Also a kickstand type thing behind the part just over each back wheel should be fairly simple and could brace the device making it less effected by impact force from a hit.
@@josephattwell1006 Could make sense in some scenarios. There is such thing as a mobile defense afterall.
That picture with the musketeers behind the Romans is so cursed I love it 😂
Here is a thought, the Japanese employed shields, and other mobile battlements, for their musketeers through out the Sengoku wars.
Did they? I thought firearms were used defensively like Nagashino, although not to the same success. But spears were the main weapon and arrows would be way more prevalent than guns.
Also those are Dutch hand me downs and locally made matchlock arquebus and that are over 100 years behind in technology.
That was the 17th century though. Everyone was still fighting with armor, shields and swords.
@@Gravelgratious Ah yes, you are correct, the dates slipped my mind 🤦♂
More importantly the employment of their version of pavise shields by Japanese arquebuisers was a hold over from their use by archers. Over time they stopped being used in favor of those thick wooden fences used in the battle of Nagashino.
I think the last range+shield troops were the pavise equipped crossbow-men and japanese gun ashigaru with a very similar idea, honourable mention for the pistoliers who sometimes carried rotella style shields, but then again, they fought from horse and inevitably switched to swords sooner or later. But it's save to say, as soon as the firearm becomes the common weapon the shield becomes pointless.
Fb 5. Ft.
The ashigaru also hung wet straw in front of their pavises to slow the bullets to reduce penetration. Obviously this shield+wet straw tactic meant that it wasn't very mobile at all. Also, seeing as the ashigaru were using matchlocks, I'm not sure if the same tactic would be as effective against more modern musketry.
Not entirely true. The Highlanders used pistols and the kerns used war darts while carrying targes or wicker shields. Maybe not the most ranged weapons in the world, but they did engage in ranged combat.
I don't think it's muskets that made shields less practical, but rather cannons. The socket bayonet wasn't the kilt-killer it was meant to be. But cannons did win the day at Culloden.
However, if and when possible, breast works would still be erected by light infantry. Especially when fighting other light infantry. And all breastworks are is a pavisade made from the earth.
Police and counter-terror units would use riot shields but only for breeching. Even with the advancements in materials and guns using a shield and gun at the same time is not effective.
even in ww1 and ww2 they were used and experiemented in low quantities
In my fantasy book, the first rank uses mantlets (wheeled heavy shields) assembled from a wood with a steel plating and a pair of wheels. This is mostly useful due to 2 basic facts:
1) The enemy at first doesnt use firearms, but is very good at using bows and mass arrow launchers. Their bowmen have significantly higher rate of fire, so its necessary to limit their potency with such cover.
And later on when they also have firearms, they arent able to penetrate most of those mantlets because they are heavier than typical shields.
2) These shields are used in an ad-hoc style, with their operators being otherwise used as sappers and camp defenders.
...
Also, these mantlets carry a pair of pistols on their back side, so they are good for close defense, while leaving both hands of the operator mostly empty for the transport of the mantlet. However they are not equipped with any arrowslit, instead they only reach up to shoulders, so soldiers shoot over them. So the fact is that these kind of shields can not only resist the incoming fire much better than a typical hand-held shield, but also cover more surface of the body. In fact, they were used in my scenario as a kind of moving wall, with one next to each other. And since they used materials that had other uses, and were only present in the numbers of a few hundred, maybe 1 thousand at most, so they didnt needlessly encumber the logistics. Also, thanks to their usage a typical soldier only used a helmet and a shallow chestplate, so those soldiers are still extremely light, and after the initial encounter is won, the mantlets are laid on the ground and these soldiers move over them and continue the fight in a more typical closed formation style.
The second rank forming behind the mantlets is equipped with a 2 or 3 barrel muskets, designed for maximum amount of firepower. After they fire all their loaded ammo, they retreat from the battlefield to reload, or help with other duties (like flank attacks, or supplying artillery).
When the enemy started using heavy firearms like artillery, the mantlets were mostly phased out of active duty and replaced with steam armored vehicles. Those couldnt protect the infantry from the incoming fire, but could make the enemy focus on them instead of the infantry.
Oh cool you’re writing a book?
Portable walls would be better then individual shields, but still would be suboptimal for many of the same reasons. And would not be tactically applicable if your the attacking force.
(Not to mention transportation of the portable walls.)
The Samurai used those I think
My initial thought at seeing the thumbnail was "wait, why didn't they do that, that looks cool." But then you said the word penetration, and I immediately remembered why steel armor was phased out over time. Sure, a bullet proofed cuirass can stop your average 63 caliber renaissanxe musket, but militaries around the world started figuring out that you only need 72 caliber and above to make steel plates effectively worthless for infantry. That was BEFORE 1700.
Meat shields are more fun anyway, bring out the conscripts!
I was ready to pounce. 😂
I had the same question many years ago! I'm so glad the internet connect us with people with the same interests. Keep up the good work
If I'm not mistaken, shields had notable deficiencies even against volleys of arrows. So, against musket shot and, of course, artillery, shields aren't going to be much better in that situation.
You are indeed mistaken
@@arkhaan7066 ok, would you care to explain?
1:25 how very Matt Easton of you 😂
Also you could have deployable pavise style shields that the front row plants into the ground similar to medieval crossbowmen. Still not terribly convenient in a firefight lol
I appreciate your mentioning the pavise as that definitely is what I was leaning towards as the best result.
Possibly they could deploy some contractors to pull a wagon or two full of them to a battle and then having the soldiers offload them before engaging. But certainly not using them in melee as anything more than to blunt the enemies initial charge (perhaps stepping a few feet back from them and bracing for impact), while leaving it behind in the case of one's own charge.
@@NClark-lp3bq Wagonforts remained the prevalent methods for infantry to repel cavalry in places where archery was common as pike and shot failed against horse archers. Field artillery fielded by sedentary powers however rendered wagons obsolete.
At the Battle of Culloden the Scots used shields and the English had to use a special tactic to beat them but their shields did not protect them from the musket fire!
When I first saw the title. I assumed that he was thinking of targes/ bucklers and swords to aid in the melee.
The targe probably reduced the velocity of the ball and preventing it from going through and hitting the men behind them as well as aiding in melee but it dedicates the role of the soldier to a melee fighter and they are then forced to Leroy Jenkins into the fray. Hence the Highland Charge.
Great video. Incredibly well thought out and argued. Now, let me return to my fantasies of 18th century shieldwalls slowly marching towards each other amidst the percussion of a barrage of bullets smashing against them.
There is a version of this that was viable, although at a completely different time, the hussites combining early handcannons with wagon forts and shields along with crossbowmen is in the same spirit of this idea.
This is a different time period but didn't Japanese Arquibusiers use freestanding shields/walls?
I believe they did, yes. But they eventually fell out of style, I imagine for mostly the same reasons I discuss in this video.
In Japan you could very likely Encounter archers. Against them shields are quiet useful.
Very informative and great info Brandon! Shields while wielding a musket seems like it would be to much weight, cumbersome and probably be really expensive
On a slightly relayed note (and because I don't think the war of 1812 is talked about enough), the US 15th infantry experimented with a 3 rank formation (2 ranks would use muskets, while 1 rank would have a shortened musket and pike).
A great little video. It is also worth noting that out of all of the pieces of armour used in the middle ages, the shield was the first to go, with helmets, breastplates and other pieces of armour being used right into the late seventeenth century. The introduction of the shako instead of the cocked hat, was partly to add some head protection against cavalry slashes.
Scottish highlanders used shields in combat. They had to be thicker though and as a result smaller. Really interesting design though. Cowhide stretched onto a thicker shield with studs to help with the bullets.
This video reminded me of Sabaton's "Price of a Mile".
Truly a reminder that soldiers are but numbers in the game of war.
Thank you for this. Was waiting for this video. Excellently explained.
There's more factors at play when you see the big picture than a specific scenario in isolation, so much so that it requires an academic study.
Excelent video, you are righ 100% and cover all posibilities.
I still believe a mobile shield or mobile cover/fortification can actually works in army regimen. Just like how something like a war wagon hussite can exist for a century or so. Maybe this kind of "safety" tactics fell out of armies because of human quantiyt & resources, meanwhile it has been pretty prevalent with small regiment or a band of mercenaries. despite everything down to fight, survival is clearly far more valuable to mercenaries, at the very least more so than country's armies, just so they can continue to earn money.
The one that always perplexed me was armor. Shields are big and clunk and I get why they were dropped, but with armor, even if it couldn't stop a musket ball (and certainly some could) I could still see utility in the use of armor for close combat. The only thing I can think is cost of fielding an entire army, but even then, why did even cheap options like buff coats or quilted armor fall out of fashion by the 18th century?
Breastplates were seeing effective use as late as Napoleon's cuiriassiers.
All well thought out points, I think you nailed it.
Loved this video! It is interesting to see places where shields were used in the 16th-17th century. New Spain, against native arrows, in early 17th century Virginia against Powhattan arrows, and a fascinating experiment in 17th century Netherlands against Spanish pikes. I'd say your conclusion that a musket-proof shield isn't practical due to weight is spot-on! Great video!
I came into this video thinking, “Oh so this is going to be like those shovel shields from world war 1. They’re gonna be too heavy to be used, too cumbersome, not thick enough or not strong enough for certain ranges, and more musket men would just be better.” It seems my thought process wasn’t flawed.
I have a good question now. Since the greatest number of deaths in naval battles were by splintered wood. Why they didn't use howitzers and their explosive ammunition against ships even in the 18th century?
That would be utterly and unfathomably based
What if the elephant was used for Warfare in the Napoleonic Era, but used in flank attacks against an army and also are armed with light guns and such?
Another interesting historical point to this is Hussite tactics and wagon forts.
It works on some scenarios and can be extremely effective, but large scale warfare, tactics and artillery eventually made it obsolete.
18th century flintlock muskets probably are too effective for any shields that is not purpose built for these guns(which would be too heavy and expensive for anything else), and mobility is more important than any heavy armor. I've seen Japanese and Chinese(and I think European too but not 100% positive) use of shield+firearm line formation in the fire lance era and Arquibus era, but these guns are slower, less accurate, and much less powerful, and the shields also works against arrows and horses
Highlanders famously used Targes, but yeah, by the 18th century warfare had advanced too far for an army to get by with anything other than classic linear warfare.
Interesting to note, even 18th century pirates didn't use shields, despite swords and pikes being used long past when other infantry stopped: clearly, even people who could actually expect to have to fight hand-to-hand, where being flanked was also basically impossible as well, didn't find much use in shields, even against (comparatively) weaker pistols.
I can't give you a full analisis on why shields wherent used in this scenario, because I am not an expert of neither the time period, nor naval warfare, however my first response to the idea of having a shield strapped on during boarding a ship is that I absolutely would not want to swim with a shield on my arm.
Shrapnel is the likely reason also it wouldn't really help much so they don't use it, so instead they used .ore pistols. (Also most of the time the Pirates simply want intmidation and not really a fight.)
@@forickgrimaldus8301 even in nation to nation boarding no shield is the thing with European sailors. One could argue that sailors weren’t trained to fight hand to hand, and that a boarding action is more focused on overwhelming offensive tactics. Not to forget the cramped corridors of the lower decks and the marines raking the decks with musket or even rifle fire from the masts
You mean in a place where they have a significant risk of having to swim for their survival, and also fight in close and cramped quarters? Yeah they wouldnt take a shield for any reason, obviously. Pavise like shields are best used as instant fortifications that require almost no preptime.
Like a gambion but faster and more flexible to deploy.
I feel that having some shields in inventory could be useful though for boarding actions, right ? I mean, just because you have a shield, doesn't necessarily limit your offensive capabilities ( unless you're dual wielding pistols or something, I dunno) I am now definitely curious about the feasibility of a buckler type shield for sailors when boarding is commencing.
Regarding the drowning thing, pardon my ignorance, but it shouldn't be too hard to ditch the shield in time to save your life too, yes? I'm all curious now, lol
Shields are good at getting close to the enemy if they don't have shields. While you loose one row for the shields, they will loose more rows to the range fire.
But no enemy will engage in a frontal battle if you have a shield wall, they will reposition to your flanks, and they will have higher mobility since the shield wall will be really hard to reposition compared to the unshielded units..
Shields would only work as a surprise. Like having the shields concealed in the back line, and when the enemy is close enough, move the shields with spears in the front row, preventing the enemy from charging you. They will be force to retreat under your fire.
But hiding the shields would be extremely hard.
Basically, they were obsolete because they could be outmanouvered.
Every time I was like... "what if" you would answer that question immediately after lol. Great vid!
Hi Brandon! I have a question: why 17th-18th armies didn’t use sling to throw grenades to the enemy lines? I already know all the cons of grenades in battle, but some of them would be (partially) resolved with a sling. Sling would help to throw grenades to a much longer distance while being very cheap and light to carry. Using moreover a three line formation in which only the third throws grenades (while it is protected by the first two disposed in alternate order) would grant a little protection for the grenadiers during the throwing (partially avoiding the risk of ally fire).
If I were right, I think that would be very destructive for the approaching enemy lines.
Give me your opinion please!
Slings are difficult to use - the famous ancient slingers trained from a very young age. A high chance of dropping the grenade on your allies. Sling bullets were much smaller than grenades, so the range wouldn't be that great.
@@geoffwatson5689 training resolve the first problem (as obvious). Moreover, they had not be absolutely accurate, but they had to be sufficiently accurate to throw the grenade among the 3/4 lines formation. It is not easy,but if 100 grenadiers had successfully launched at least 30/40 grenades into enemy lines (also with multiple launches) it would still have been devastating for them. Consider that launching a grenade with a sling is faster than recharging a musket.
For the range, you are partially right. I doubt that a grenade could be launched at a longer range than a musket bullet, but surely is much longer than the range of a hand launched grenade!
It would be extremely useful against enemies that are approaching or charging.
@@geoffwatson5689 moreover… if you unite a sling with a stick, you obtain a staff sling that is similar in the functioning to the trebuchet. This type of sling is easier to use, more accurate and more powerful.
Grenade launchers already existed. Flintlock ones at least.
@@lucasmatiasdelaguilamacdon7798 I know, but they were extremely unreliable and dangerous for the users.
A slinger is not unreliable or dangerous at all.
Do a video on Spanish provincial units as one of your easier videos to go between larger projects. Some of those regiments were insane, from cavalry with renaissance uniforms to infantry with top hats or no uniform what so ever
Top hats were actually a very popular infantry hats in late XVIIIth century. Look up Russian margines, Swedish troops, Polish and Saxon jaegers etc plus plenty of British units iirc
Top hats were popular military fashion in the nordic countries
Didn’t British Royal Marines wear top hats?
@@lucasmatiasdelaguilamacdon7798 they did
@@phunkracy I know, but if you see the Spanish ones they are no more than a regular top hat with (most of the times) a plume. And for some reason I love that
Imagine conscriting, training, traveing, get closer to the enemy, just to die with a bullet on the eggs or the knee, filling a lot of pain. Man... give me the fucking shield.
Great video, I appreciate you bring up trenches and entrechement. It was cool to see after I mentioned that on your longbow video. I am lookin forward to seeing what primary sources I can find on the topic on your website.
For the Shield bearers, would they better be using pavise like shields?, those Kind of Shield that can be planted on the ground which allow the Genoese Crossbowmen of the Middle ages to take cover while reloading their crossbow.
There's also some artwork in the Sengoku Jidai where Arquebusiers would have wet straws placed in front of the shields to slow down bullets coming to hit the shields, however this might be more for entrenched position rather than a battle line.
There's also the "What if the Shields of a Section is broken by Cannon", as surely the Regiment who have shields in front would not want to be uncovered because a part of their shield is destroyed by cannons, making those Shielded Musket Regiment more of a new Regimental unit who carries Shields for the front and reserve shields.
Then it's practically earthworks, and they got that. Dirt is mostly everywhere and enough packed dirt will stop munitions. A lot of stuff they use when the arquebus enters Japan and they start producing their own are parallells of warfare in Europe at the time.
@@SusCalvin How long does it take to build earthworks? How quickly could a portable pavise be deployed?
@@arkhaan7066 Earthworks show up when they have any sort of static position. As they mention in the video, manouver is a big part of warfare. Sieges still happen, forts are still a thing. Sometimes they make little fortified positions as supporting points.
Earthworks are surprisingly fast to do when you have a large body of men around. They don't have modern excavation vehicles that can point at the ground and suddenly have a trench. They don't create foxholes and ditches on a whim.
Some bloke would need to carry a portable pavise around. Or drive a little carriage around with it. I'm a fan of the older wagon forts, but I don't think they would like to face down modern field artillery.
@@SusCalvin A stack of pavises 130 deep is lighter than a single cannon. 2 or three wagons filled with them can provide more earthworks in 15 mins than even the best engineers could erect in hours. If you are fighting on a set front battle, being able to rapidly deploy some form of earthworks at a moments notice is definitely work the effort.
In an offensive siege mobile pavises to cover the men digging the entrenchments would be useful, and they would provide some benefit to any troops used to storm the breaches even if only by providing them a better launching position.
In a defensive siege they can be used to blockade streets or gates, stem breaches, etc.
There are a lot of ways for them to be very effective. Them being expensive and the troops they would save costing less than the shields is the only legitimate reason they were not used.
its 30 seconds into the video and Brandon already made me sad over the fact that M&B: Napoleonic Wars doesn't have a Spanish faction.
The more I learn about Spanish provincial forces during this era, the cooler they get. I definitely need to look more into them.
I think it could work if they made some adjustments to the shield, basically rather than a traditional shield it could have been one designed as basically mobile walls, meant to be placed on the ground and able to stand. Probably with stakes or something on the bottom so it can be stabbed into the ground, and probably stand/leg to lean on. Then it basically becomes a front row carrying them, placing them down once they reach the battle field, and they pull out their muskets and fire over them along with the back row.
Great video Brandon
To summarize what I've learned from this and other videos:
1. Tactics of the time thrived on offense and mobility. Defense had to operate in response to that mobility and high power. Shields were not in line with this goal. And as another commenter pointed out, a less-than-mobile shield wall is a fantastic target for artillery fire or flanking.
2. Weapons were so powerful that it would be very hard to build actually effective shields. Better to wear armor for some minimal hands-free protection, or simply outmaneuver and out-offense the opponent.
3. Preventing soldier deaths has always been a goal, and has always had to be balanced with other considerations. It sounds horrible, but war is hell and this is one of many reasons we don't want to be in wars. An individual soldier's life is less important than achieving tactical and strategic goals that will end the war.
4. Simple is good. Shields add too much complexity for the niche and frankly dubious benefit they're supposed to add.
5. Armies are meant to win battles and wars and secure objectives. If less defense wins, then less defense it is.
6. If you're going to lug equipment around, it had better be important. If you're going to devote men and capital to something, it had better be better than more men with weapons.
7. More muskets was actually fantastic. In this era, overwhelming your opponent with firepower and positioning was very effective. People didn't use shields because that apparently wasn't a great practical option back then, regardless of what we can suggest now from the safety of our own imagination.
8. People did use defensive structures when it made sense, like in sieges, but those were specific applications. Instead of building shields to carry around and hold in front of you, they'd dig a ditch or place objects in front of them, when it was expedient to do so. Carrying around a shield and devoting men to the role in general cases wasn't a supreme idea, and in the specific cases where it worked well, they did something more effective instead.
But Brandon! You’re completely ignoring the magical unobtanium that is both light enough for a musketman to hold and yet still strong enough to deflect every bullet up until modern cartridges! THEN shields would be amazing to use in linear warfare!
Japan also briefly used muskets alongside stationary “shields,” but their stationary shields were more like mobile free standing barricades and they were often placed on the ground.
Just found your channel and this was an excels video! It made me think about and understand 1800 warefare a lot better.
A video suggestion I would love to see from you. is to compare the fighting style/army organization differences between the early musket era and late 1600 or whenever you think an apt comparison would be suitable. To how it worked at the end of the era, before WW1 or whenever you think it ended and why. Would be so cool to see a in-depth long timeframe perspective on how things developed and changed and why.
Oh and PS I would so loooove for you to look into the Swedish empire military organization and like review it or something. Why in your mind do you think the Swedes could win outnumbered so many times. Was it because of military organization or other factors?
My idea was that the front rank soldiers would carry a shield with them that they'd stab into the earth (probably would have to hammer it down) when forming lines, so that they wouldn't have to hold it or anything while shooting and loading. Not that this idea would make it an obvious choice for an army or anything but I was surprised to not hear it mentioned. I think the logistical cost could sometimes be very worth it given how potentially effective it could be.
At that point, portable walls would be slightly more tactically and logistically sound, but still very unwieldy and very case by case use.
@@tricksterjoy9740they should all carry a small pack of dirt that they could stack up to form a small wall waist high to stop lots of the shot coming at them when doing rear guard action
Artillery. Your shields become wood splinters.
@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 Artillery, your guns become splinters.
So do your bones. And any rocks in the area. And the dirt itself. And literally everything in the environment.
Thats not a valid argument. A mass of men packed together in lines is a great target for artillery, shields or not. And at least with shields its going to take artillery to deal significant damage.
@@yytyytg That would weigh as much as the shield.
I could imagine one way it might work.
It would really require an entirely different doctrine.
I'm imagining one man carries a siege shield, the ones with little wheels on them that could stand up on their own. As well as a musket that he doesn't use.
The siege shields are angled to deflect bullets up, more than stop them entirely.
The shield operator loads while the guy behind him only shoots. The more men you add to the line, they also only reload.
Instead of using a barrage, you have a greater rate of fire instead.
You also deny the enemy an opening to charge while your troops are reloading.
I don't know if it ever happened, or if it worked, but it might could have.
Good luck getting those positions set up in the mountains of Spain! Or in thick mud! It’s all about practicality in the widest number of possibilities.
@@BrandonF
There is a reason they are named SIEGE shields
@@BrandonF I didn't say it was a great idea. Logistically it shouldn't be too much of a hassle. They got wheels, they double as carts/wheelbarrows when not being shields. Get donkeys or even goats, to pull them. You don't have to use them.
But it could have been a nice to have, if someone had put in the effort to really try to make it work.
You could also put firing ports in the shields, so the shooter gets full coverage. And put spikey bits on the outside of the shield to discourage charging. That would probably require two men to move it around on bad ground but not impossible, just pick it up. On good ground, it has wheels.
If it doesn't make sense at all just leave them at camp. You could even use them to surround the camp, in case the enemy sends skirmishers to mess with your supplies. Whoever is left defending would have a much better time.
This is why I'm not allowed to be a player in my D&D group. Modern engineering sensibilities when applied to even ancient technology is OP.
To deflect shot, the shield would need to be placed at a steep angle.
Compare to WW2 tank armor. Sloped armor works, but the more slope the better.
If your shield is angled too much, it will be too short to cover your shooter.
@@patrickkenyon2326 Musket balls. Not exactly armor penetrating.
Tank shells are specifically designed to counter sloped armor. They are designed so the point diggs in.
Musket balls, not so much.
I can fully agree.
thank You for this video,
I've enjoyed your content for years. Thanks.
Didn't you already talk about this while reacting to two people being ignorant while watching a history video?
I'm happy you cover this topic in further depth
1:24 I love when Brandon talks about Penetration
Interesting Video. Nicely done
So, first, really well laid out and well explained video. Also, I just want to point out that Brandon doesn't really have many cuts while explaining, meaning he did the whole thing (or most of it) in one big take. That's really impressive.
Even with modern materials, the shield would probably need to weigh 200 pounds to be large and thick enough to block a modern projectile mote than once.
A modern level 4 ballistic sheild as used by law enforcement is I believe between 70 to 80 pounds.
Entrenchments and Fortifications vs Maneuverability was the first thing that came to mind for me.
Once Firearms became the weapon used by the majority of armies you'd stand to gain more defense simply by placing yourself in a naturally or artificially advantageous position where bullets were less likely to reach your forces. Given the proper amount of time, these could be constructed on the spot with as much effectiveness or more than shield with zero loss of manpower or logistical space for shields and abandoned as needed with worry as to the cost of materials.
Furthermore, guns have a greater area of denial than older weapons. If your army is equipped with swords and shields you can only reasonably defend the few yards in front of you, meaning melee is highly likely and you need armor and shields and other personal defenses.
With guns it is far more likely that one side loses enough manpower during the advance that they realize the ensuing melee for a position would not be successful and break off to find a new, better position to either attack or defend from.
Context really is everything. Ive been trying to worldbuild about something like it and so ive been asking myself what the scenarios would be
What about something like a Pavise type shield? You just plant the suckers in the ground, face towards the enemy and take a step back.
Lol, you did address this later on, good work.
I think the actual key here is effectiveness. So let's say shieldbearers reduce your firepower by 50% but also reduce your casualties by 50%. This means after one volley, you did 50% of damage your opponent did and you absorbed 50% of their potential damage. So it's the same. Only difference would be costs and logistics. But if shields were 55% effective then after single volley they would be 5% ahead in effective firepower. After second volley they would be 12.5% ahead. So even this very slight advantage would add up to potentially huge difference during the course of battle.
Then the horse artillery gets their range... and look at all the shrapnel flying through the formation...
@@aralornwolf3140 well yes but then again having shields that can stop bullets is also probably good enough to stop at least some shrapnel from regular artillery.
As I said. Bottom line: it all comes down to actual effectiveness. If it worked people would do that. They weren't stupid. And shields is a very obvious solution. I imagine in transitional period (for example 30 years war) when for example Spanish tercios still maintained a square formation: an outer shell of pikemen, peppered with arkebuses (later muskets) protecting a core of swordsmen with shields. And they won battles that way, but gradually over time, even tercios changed to linear. first to go were the swordsmen with shields. Pikes were second.
Shields actually were used against arquebuses. They just lost.
@@KillmanPit ,
*Sigh*
Horse Artillery = Mobile Field Guns
Mobile Field Guns had round shot, grape shot, and later on explosive shells which burst in the air above the infantry.
"Shields would stop the shrapnel"... except I'm talking about the shrapnel created from the shields ripping apart all the infantry behind them... infantry that wouldn't have been harmed if the shields weren't used. Infantry which are at an angle from the now exploding shields hit by the round shot/grape shot.
@Aralorn Wolf sigh.
Yes. I'm aware of what you are talking about. And I'm talking about near misses close to a front line sending shrapnel with penetrating power simmilar to bullets.
I totally agree shields would do nothing against a well aimed shot into the middle of formation. Horse or fixed doesn't really matter that much.
I think we actually agree to the main point: if it was effective, they would have used it. Because the shields were actually there when firearms appeared so it wouldn't have been alien idea.
You don't need to be condescending about stuff after a single comment misunderstanding you know?
Could you please make a video about the West Africa Squadron and it's crusade against the Atlantic and arab space trade (I mean slave trade) ?
Or a video about the Honourable East India Company and its social reforms on the subcontinent, as you are the only educated person on this platform that i have seen who has given a balanced view on the Company and its Army as the Armchair historian (Griffin) rlly lives up to his name when discussing the legacy of the company and the greater British empire
Great idea, I hope Brandon sees this
I would love to see a video about the Arab space trade.
What about pavises that were used along with crossbows during the late middle ages? You could lean against them or deploy their stands while you reload.
Crossbows were definitely two-hand reload weapons, so it's not like you can't make those work with shields.
I saw a video testing musket fire against scottish targe reproductions with a wool felt buffer between the front and back boards of the shields. At least in that test, it seemed to protect a lot from splintering.
thats a great message at the end thier. I thought I subscribed years ago but wasn't or maybe an old account. Either way you earned a subscriber
Hey Brandon, I just wanted to say, another great video and a very cool concept as always
When reading a pamphlet on privateering from 1808 (basically a manual for swedish privateers, how to get a license to privateer, what to do in certain situations), i read that almost everything releated to weaponry that the privateer seized had to be given to the state, everything from guns to shields and even arrows
edit: I doubt any arrows were seized, and we all know that arrows were impractical. Still, quite interesting that it was still considered as state weaponry
(Sorry if my english was hard to comprehend, its not my first language)
I think many privateers would keep bows and arrows for hunting.
Your English is very good!
Pavise shields were used frequently in conjunction with the earliest and most primitive firearms that were used in the late Middle Ages (called hand cannons, and were basically just glorified fire lances, or steel tubes on a staff) since they were often lumped with crossbow units.
I'd like to see tests done on muskets vs shields re size, weight, musket ball resistance at close range, carryability etc.