The Viking round shield and custom heater shield are made by Vaughn Morphett, the Scottish targe and small buckler are from Kult of Athena: facebook.com/V.M.Metalcraft www.kultofathena.com/product/the-glasgow-targe-by-douglas/?koa=259 www.kultofathena.com/product/steel-buckler-12-inch-14-gauge-steel/?koa=259 And in case you haven't seen it before, the falchion was a generous gift from That Works: th-cam.com/video/wJZLh84475k/w-d-xo.html
Ahhh I was hoping you'd give a lesson on how the scutum was actually used.. There is no real place I've been able to find that definitively says how it was used. There is an Eastern European video showing a guy using a scutum and gladius against a a stack of tires, and my comment is one of the larger ones, asking if that's how it's meant to be used, because not only a centre grip shield but also horizontally gripped, which means if you are holding it off the ground, all the weight will be on your deltoid muscle group.
Late roman Scutum that are rounded are very different to the Celtic shield with being what developed into Parma for notably roman cavalry though not always. The Roman Scutum replaced the Greek Clipeus used in early Rome though Clipeus is roman & very similar if not identical to a ancient Greek Aspis. The Scutum was a development upon ancient Greek warfare but the spear was abandoned as the primary armament in favour of the Pugio/dagger & sword/gladius for the Greek Xiphos was side arm & not a primary arm. The Romans Pilum was a Javlin used nothing like the Greak hoplites doru/long spear arguably a pike used in tandem with Aspis later clipeus in Rome. The Romans missile skirmishers/peltests still tended to use an updated near identical to Ancient Greek πέλτη, peltē; Latinised pelta. That was basically unchanged. Celtic people never had standardised shields & that why the finds are so interesting
Wait WFT??!!!! *HOW* ????? The garbage can lids I tried get dinted like crazy by snowballs. Still, I would like to see what happens if I rivet 25 trash can lids together with 23 layers of cloth between each layer sewn in the quilted pattern and 3 spade heads layered together and riveted into the center of the front also the cloth on it, then on the back 5 sheets of 41 layer cloth sewn together in the quilted pattern glued on, then behind that, 17 layers of deer hide harvested the only way possible .... patrol the street for road kill how else will you get leather ... then a large door handle and 2 belt straps for the arm. What could this take a beating from.
Handle are more easy to move around but you can lose them and your grip is weaker. With arm strap you got a better grip but you are limited for angle and someone can grab it and use it as a leverage to throw you on the ground or break your arm... etc.
It comes down to what the user wanted. Do they prefer mobility, extreme protection, or some middle ground. Furthermore what they could afford also played a part I bet.
The grip on a Roman shield is better for load bearing, and it allows the shield to be lowered quickly to protect the legs, which the typical forearm and hand grip of a Greek round shield does not... which is why the front rank of hoplites wore greaves and legionnaires didn't have to.
A center grip shield protects your hand and arm better I think. Lock att tods tests. So it's fine if the enemy's spear goes five cm in to your shild it fine but when the shild is straped it can hit your arm through the sheld.
This made me realize that the big reason I keep coming back to watch your videos is that you always try to spell out your biases and acknowledge context and cultural factors rather than insist that there's a single best or most effective option for every scenario.
The best shield design is a good modern riot shield. Polycarbonate is light SEETHROUGH and more than resilient enough to stop what medieval soldiers could throw at you.
Well, there are benefits to having an opaque shield, as it can hide your motions during a duel or battle. It's a small thing, but the less info your enemy has, the better. I suppose a perfect shield would be some sort of hard-light hologram (for varied sizes and ease of carry) that blocks light in 1 direction. Unfortunately we don't have those yet
@@zekramnordran9526 it's heavy as hell and hardly moveable, so it will severly restrict your movement and eyesight, which is great hinderance, knowing that main weapon of romans was pilum in another words javelin, later changed for lancea and plumbata(spear and darts).
Honestly, all things being equal, I'd probably pick a falchion/messer and the largest buckler I could keep sheathed with it for EDC in the medieval period. I know the little bucklers tend to be fairly popular in modern HEMA competition, but if I was on a medieval road and waylaid by bandits, I wouldn't want to gamble on parrying over the passive defense provided by a larger buckler. And before some polearm fetishist shows up to extoll the virtues of glorious long shafts, they would have their place, but you're not going to carry one with you 24/7, "muh walking stick" memes or not. Ambushes in tight quarters would still happen, ambushes would still happen if you needed your hands free for some reason. No bandit is going to abide by a gentleman's agreement to let you grab your halberd from your draft horse's saddle. I'm not saying they'd be useless, but they're not a one-size-fits-all answer either.
I've seen people who think that you cannot do against bayonets with a viking round shield what you can against bayonets with a scottish targe. But I have seen a scottish targe stop musket shots.
I mean, for the casual person strolling along in the streets, a buckler was a fantastic pairing for an arming sword. Probably not the best setup for a battlefield, but fantastic for preventing a mugging.
At first I thought the idea that the Scandinavian shield wall being merely poetic language to be ridiculous, but it actually does seem to hold some weight...that being said, it still could have been used and until we have more evidence we can't be too sure. The Gou-Rang is absolutely wild! Crazy looking but it's practical as hell in the right circumstances
I do wonder how well those upper and lower thingies would stop a heavy blow from a large or unbalanced weapon--seems like the leverage would be kind of bad, all you've got is your wrist strength and if it hits high up on the thingie it's like the "weak" of a sword.
And many battle tactics of Vikings were taken from the old roman ways, as the Vikings being decendants of the iron age Scandinavians that fought as roman mercenary soldiers up to 500 years earlier.
I always thought of a shield wall as more or less analogous to a phalanx, a formation that goes back to the middle Bronze age in Mesopotamia. That is, a bunch of spearman standing close together, multiple ranks deep, with their shields touching or overlapping. This is a fairly obvious way of maximising everyone's protection, and is also great for keeping morale high. What I always found silly is the idea of a shield wall as a completely static formation, where multiple ranks all lean forward to overlap their shields so fully that there are no gaps. That would be even less practical than a Roman testudo for actually fighting in! A formation needs some offensive capability, and some ability to advance and respond to enemy movements. Even if you had an actual a stone wall, you can't just stand behind it and hope to win a battle that way.
Damn, watching this comment made me realize that Skall's videos have been a part of my life for years (almost if not more than 10 years), and those videos are the one's that really got me into HEMA content, and showed me what real medieval history was like, as opposed to the fantasy bullcrap modern media had fed me. Thanks to you I discovered Metatron, Scholagladatoria, Shadiversity, Knyght Errant, and so much more... Can't recall ever watching a video and thinking it was boring or uninteresting. Thanks Skallagrim. You might not realize it, but your content can, and has influenced the lives of many, including mine. Never stop doing what you do best!
@@sauronplugawy3866 It becomes a problem when some channels start dedicating video after video to the topic. We subscribe to channels like this for their understanding of history and historical combat not politics.
Makes me wonder if the Roman's using the center grip shield was because of how effective their pilum were for penetrating armor. Having a strapped shield would place more of your arm close to the shield where it could also be penetrated by the pilum.
Had to have been a factor. They thought of everything they could possibly encounter when they standardized their kit - including leaving the ears open, but riveting on an ear gyard/deflector. Everying about the Roman imperial panoply was about deflecting blows by an enemy expected to be swinging and slashing, mainly from over head. Helmet deflects energy to pteras, which are shock absorbant by design, Scutum is highly curved , also to deflect. Most of their enemies had flat shields that did not deflect missiles as well.
Tod's Workshop has a video series of attacking armor and shields. Most recently he fired heavy crossbows at a shield with a variety of coverings. The leather wrapped shields reduced arrowheads to puncturing only about an inch through the wielder's side. Where the hand and forearm had a pad, the puncture depth was even less. He said that an additional gauntlet would completely protect the wielder's hand and arm altogether. Next phase of his testing is striking such covered shields with melee weaps.
The most probable reason for it is because the Romans DID NOT fight in close order. They fought in an open formation with an emphasis on individual combat and missile warfare, and this is what informs the design of the Roman scutum, as well as that of the shields of the culturally related Gaulic and Iberian societies who fought in a similar style: The shield is centre-grip because it is meant to be used actively in single combat, as period sources confirm; the shield is large because it is the soldier’s primary protection from missiles, which are an ever-present threat in their style of combat; the shield is curved, because the soldier’s flanks are not directly covered by allies and thus extra coverage helps prevent taking a javelin to the ribs. That said, this does not make the scutum a strict contrast to the Argive shield, because as it happens that type was in fact also originally employed in a style of warfare involving heavy missile warfare and single combat. Early Archaic warfare around the time that the aspis came into use revolved principally around small raiding by land and sea, much like that of the Vikings referenced in the video, and battles were loose and relatively unorganised occasions where warriors were as, if not more, likely to throw their spears than to thrust them, and most fighting took the form of open skirmishing in the no man’s land between opposing bodies. That time period was characterised by a slow move away from swords towards spears as shock weaponry, which likely corresponds to the slow development of more cohesive and cooperative military action; the Argive shield would prove to serve well all the way through this centuries-long transition, and would eventually displace preceding lighter wicker and leather shields, some of which were centre-gripped, but at the time of its introduction true close-order fighting was at best exceptional or spontaneous, so this cannot entirely explain the phenomenon. It may be that the sturdier design (and strapped arrangement in compensation) was originally a response as much or more to increasingly rigorous and intense melee combat as a whole, since missile combat was more the norm in preceding times and would involve lesser stresses on shield integrity. It is also hypothesised that the aspis was developed in part to cater to the new trend of elites riding into the fray on horses and dismounting to fight, in opposition to the then more standard use of horse-drawn rail chariots for the same purpose - horseback riding would impede large shields from being slung on a warrior’s back, as the earlier Geometric shield designs seem to have been, and as such an Argive shield would compensate for this by employing both arm straps and a concave rim to more easily allow a warrior to carry it on their shoulder through stretches of riding, as well as in the thick of action.
@@bacul165 The idea that this is why the Roman's did it is just a personal theory but there's a channel called Todd's Workshop where he has brought in a javelin thrower from a local university track and field team. Using a reconstruction of a pilum he was able to penetrate a shield and the mail armor underneath. One of the video's linked below. th-cam.com/video/33AL7xs91pU/w-d-xo.html
We actually know quite a bit about Aztec shields, since there are 4 surviving specimens which have been studied on top of historical sources, manuscript depictions, etc. The 4 shields do differ a little and there's some description inconsistencies, but they very largely share their construction, so to be concise my description is based on the Vienna specimen: The main shield backing which formed the structural base were two layers of bamboo slats/strips (yes, Mexico has native bamboos!) with the slats very tightly tied to one another with thread, so finely that the researchers examining it stated they weren't sure how it was done and even with modern tools/techniques they wouldn't be able to replicate it. The two layers had the slats arranged perpendicularly, with the backmost's slats running horizontally, and the one in front of it arranged vertically The two layers of tied bamboo slats (which formed the circular shape of the shield, around 70cm/27.5inch in diameter) have their edges lined and tied to a strip of hide, and behind the slats there are 4 wooden reinforcement bars which run vertically from top to bottom. In the middle of the back, there's a square piece of hide padding, and running through that and tied to the center two reinforcement bars are leather straps which the wielder's arms would run through (with the arm held vertically, judging by the design on the shield). There was then additional leather straps, two loops attached to the hide padding above it (possible for suspending/mounting the shield) and two straps running from edge to edge across the back horizontally (for tension? it's not clear in the paper i'm looking at but maybe the others clarify). Finally, in front of all of this, there was a layer of paper made from agave bark, upon which was feather mosaic forming the emblem on the visible front of the shield, and there being tassels of feathers forming a sort of skirt along the bottom edge of the shield hanging down. Feather mosaics were one of Mesoamerica's most esteemed forms of artisanal craft: Many of you are probably familiar with Mesoamerican featherwork art in examples like "Moctezuma's headdress" (which was not actually Moctezuma II's or worn by kings) where feathers, jewelry, and metalwork was arranged in into an array (the same technique was used to make banners, sometimes with those elements arranged 3-dimensionally like bouquets), but perhaps more impressive are the mosaics, where feathers are arranged to form patterns and images (sometimes with different colors glued to separate sheet then cut to shape like stencils and combined, other times the feathers of all colors used were individually arranged in a single layer) on a surface, like one would with a mosaic of stones or tiles, except the level of fidelity in feather mosaics is far greater: When viewed at a distance, they can be indistinguishable from fine paintings, if not for the fact that the feathers used are iridescent and different portions of the image glitter and change color based on the viewing angle and lighting. (Seriously, go look up some surviving featherwork "paintings", produced by Mesoamerican artists for the Spanish with catholic motifs, they're mind blowing, and are even a better example of how gorgeous the art form can get then the shields!). This mosaic technique was applied not just to shields, but the outside of some elite warsuits (Tlahuiztli) and wartunics (Ehuatl), as well as textiles, some garments, and portions of some banners. So, on the front facing mosaic on the Vienna shield (tied to the Museum für Völkerkunde, and Kunsthistorisches Museum) is a depiction of a a creature various described as a Coyote, a plumed/feathered Coyote (a patron symbol of featherworkers) or an Ahuizotl (a creature of Aztec folklore, said to be like a dog with spiney wet fur which lived in water and dragged people underwater with a hand on it's tail: This was also the name of an Aztec emperor so some have tried to ascribe this shield to being used by him), with it's tongue possibly also being shown as a flint knife (symbolizing war or death) and water-fire motifs coming from it's mouth (the pairing of water and fire being an epithet for conflict and warfare, complimentary and/or oppositional pairing is a big deal in Aztec speech, poetry, and philosophy), with parts of the mosaic image also being formed by gold ornaments/plates The two shields at the Landesmuseum Württemberg in Germany have their front emblem being two variations of the Mesoamerican step fret (a motif also found in Southwestern US, and Andean artwork down in South America). Finally, the shield at Chapultepec Castle in Mexico actually has a base front covering of ocelot pelt rather then feather mosaic, though there are feather mosaic arced lines running across it, a series of gold plates forming an arced band, and 4 gold crescents (oriented vertically)... though the gold was taken and likely melted down at one point. All of these emblem designs have actual Aztec/Nahuatl names mentioned in manuscripts and tax rolls (since shields were one of the items conquered subjects owed the capital of Tenochtitlan), but each design has a few names and i'm not gonna list all of them, but emblems/coloration, alongside the motifs/designs/color on the Tlahuitzli or Ehuatl and back mounted banner if the wearer was high ranking enough to have those, indicated the rank and unit division of the soldier (Yes, they had organized armies with proper ranks and divisions! We don't know a ton about Aztec formations, but we know they had them, seemingly formed wide fronts that attempted to encricle the enemy, while to a degree broke into semi-individual combat, perhaps like your viking example in the video, plus made use of things like feigned retreats into ambushes, etc) There's some debate over if these shields were functional or ceremonial, but they VERY closely match descriptions of functional shields used in battle, such as this description from the Anonymous Conquistador: "They use shields of various kinds, made of good thick reeds which grow in that country, interwoven with cotton of double thickness, and they cover them with precious stones and round plates of gold, which makes them so strong that nothing can go through, unless from a good crossbow. Some arrows it is true pierced them, but could do them no harm" (though, interestingly, he then goes onto claim many of the shields brought to Europe were ceremonial ones, so...?). We know from other sources and surviving specimens that ceremonial shields often had a hardwood rather then bamboo backing and had turquoise mosaics on the front, while some functional shields too had hardwood backing, or additionally had cloth gambeson padding (like the Ichcahuipilli gambeson tunics/vests worn as armor, of which the Tlahuiztli and Ehuatl would have been worn over if prestige permitted it), though I think that may simply be people misinterpreting the "interwoven of cotton of double thickness" line before which may instead refer to the double reed/bamboo layers which were tied with cotton or maguey thread. Some apparently also had beaten metal surfaces, and some shields were square/rectangular or were large enough to cover the whole body and could be rolled up and unrolled for easier transport! (though both of those are more visually documented among the Maya). Obviously, that Conquistador account is exaggerating a bit to say that nothing could pierce the shields undeflected, but clearly they were effective at defense. I guess a basic approximation would be taking two bamboo mats which have the bamboo slats/strips of a similar thickness/width (sadly, the main paper i'm looking at doesn't specify), but that also wouldn't quite be exact since it wouldn't account for the very tight bindings or the added supports on the back. I've even seen some people propose the slick, overlapping hard central spines of the feathers on the outer mosaic could contribute to the protective nature of the shields and tlahuiztli/ehuatl on glancing blows, though I think that's a bit of a stretch. I want to be clear that there is a LOT more info out there then just this: I'm mostly going off of memory and double checking against 1 scholarly paper (The Aztec Feather Shield in Vienna: Problems of Conservation), the online museum listings for the Vienna and German houses shields (plus additional information on the VistasGallery site listings by Fordham), and 1 book chapter (in Hassig's "Aztec Warfare"), but I've looked at dozens of different publications on just 4 surviving specimens before, let alone on Aztec shields generally (so also including stuff from historical sources) and/or on feather mosaics generally which may also touch upon the shields. I'd link a bunch of additional papers, videos from research groups, etc, but TH-cam tends to not like links in comments, so I'll just refer people to those, and mention that Dr. Laura Filoy Nadal has published a lot about the surviving shields, even tracking down the exact bird species the feathers were sourced from and how the Aztec trade network would have had to acquire them, as one example.
@channelingdarkness7068 Mesoamerica is an underrated historical topic generally, not just for military history: Misinformation about it is rampant, as is off-base preconceived assumptions, and there's an absurd amount of cool information, history, art, architecture, etc that most people have absolutely no idea exists because it's simply not taught about or depicted in media. As an example, one of my favorite examples of Mesoamerican engineering is Texcotzinco, which was a royal ceremonial retreat and luxury estate for kings of the Aztec city of Texcoco: It was located on a large hill or small mountain, and had baths, shrines, palace compounds (and on that note, mesoamerican architecture was actually covered in smooth stucco and then adorned with painted murals and frescos, sometimes with mica flakes mixed into the paint so it glittered and looked metallic, plus had stuff like engraved reliefs, large sculptural facades etc as accents: They only look like grey cobblestone today due to erosion) botanical gardens and an aviary. The water for it's gardens and baths were sourced via a mountain spring located 5 miles away, and the aqueduct which brought it to Texcotzinco, at some points, rose over 150 feet above ground level, and had a series of pools and channels to regulate the water's flow rate. When the water actually arrived at Texcotzinco, it formed a circuit around the mountain's peak, flowed into the baths, fountains, etc, then formed waterfalls to water the terraced gardens at the hill's base, which were organized into different sections to emulate different Mexican biomes and ecosystems. As far as Military history stuff specifically, I think people drastically underestimate both the complexity and variety of Mesoamerican military equipment, as well as the amount of sources we have about different specific wars and campaigns by/between different states and kings. For the former, for example, Mesoamerican troops, you know, had actual armor: So often media depicts Mesoamerican people and cities as being hobbled together from rags, bones, and stone, but as I noted before about how Mesoamerican architecture was actually richly adorned (and so to were their cities actual cities with infrastructure, not just a few temples surrounded by jungle), similarly their clothing was things like cloaks and blouses and robes with colorful floral, geometric, and mythological motifs and embroidery, there were actual gold, jade, turquiose, etc jewelry, and I talked about feather mosaics above in my intial comment. For armor, while some soldiers yes, would have been mostly uncovered if lower ranked and depending on the specific society, but gambeson tunics, vests, and suits were widely used, and often high status soldiers then also had warsuits, tunics, etc additionally worn over that covered in feather mosaic, you had helmets, shields (which I talked about), greaves, even some metal mail made from gold or copper, and "breastplates" made from wood or wicker (potentially, these may just be weirdly shaped gambeson pieces) There's a ton of variety with weapons, too: People know about Macuahuitl, of course, but there's a lot of variation in how those are depicted (one handed, two handed; large spaces between the blades vs the blades being flush with one another to form a continuous cutting edge, square blades vs triangular, etc) as well as other totally different weapon types: There's other bladed or serrated or studded clubs or "swords", including some L or boomerang shaped ones and/or some which were curved/arced like a kopesh; as well as more traditional clubs, bat shaped clubs (which could be studded or flanged) or sharpened wooden batons; as well as maces with ball or torus flanged shaped striking heads, depending on how you interpret some accounts, some may have even had spiked morning star heads! For polearms, you had simple spears with singular points, some which had additional serrations along the side of the shaft, while others had the entire striking portion/head end covered in serrations or blades instead of having a thrusting point (the Aztec Tepoztopilli is an example of this, and was apparently used for slashing like a halbred alongside thrusts). Some were 12+ foot long like pikes, while some were shorter then typical polearm length, almost like glaives, with a macuahuitl or other bladed head just placed on a short staff. You also have axes, some with stone blades (in some cases, being more like war-picks in shape, some with multiple blades/points) and others with copper or bronze axheads, etc. I was going to go on to talk about some specific campaigns and wars, like the Aztec-Purepecha conflict, but I'll just say that if you want to read about Aztec militarism and want a good place to start, to check out Hassig's "Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control", which is THE gold standard overview on the topic, is approachable for laymen, covers both warfare, equipment, the geopolitics of Aztec expansionism and political influence, and goes over the different campaigns and conflicts we have recorded under different Aztec emperors; though It sadly ignores a fair amount of obscure armor and weapon variations seen in manuscripts and sculptures, and some may argue it understates the ritualism in Aztec warfare... however, most people drastically OVERSTATE the presence of ritualism (no, soldiers didn't avoid killing each other just to take captives, though taking captives was a part of warfare), and Hassig's work does a good job pointing that out, it's just that because part of the thesis of his work is to focus on the pragmatic realities of Aztec militarism, the ritual aspects aren't his focus.
@@aelfredrex8354 I don't know much about either the Persians or Zulu, but yeah, I could see the comparsion, except that I'd emphasize the opulence and artistry of the feather mosiac fronting. I really cannot stress enough how mind blowing some of the more ornate feather mosaic pieces are that survived and were made for the Spanish (for real, look some up!), they look like the finest catholic paintings you've ever seen, but iridesecent and glittering. None of the mosaics on the surviving shields are as detailed, but the technique is Prehispanic and accounts mention similar detailed pieces being made pre-contact.
@Skallagrim , I think the Romans went with center grip because of the regional/period preference for javelins and particularly the invention of the pilum. The pilum's wide tip, long narrow shank, and heavier shaft was optimized not only for penetrating a shield, but having enough reach/momentum to hit the person behind it. If you have a strap shield and the pilums come flying, even if you don't get your arm skewered you can't extend your shield out far enough to put comfortable distance between yourself and the pilums' pointy end. I read in Dando-Collins "Caesar's Legion" that a pilum could potentially pierce two overlapping shields, effectively nailing them together. No idea if that's true, but it would be rad if it was.
Definetly not. A) pila were soley used by romans, why would romans design their equipment as if they would be regulary fighting romans. B) Pilums actually had reduced penetration power. The long soft metalshaft means much of the impact energy is lost on impact, as the pilum deforms. This was however by design, as instead of maybe hitting a dudes arm with enough force to cause a scratch, you definetly would disable his shield with 1-2 kgs of weight sticking to it, which he could not pull out again.
the roman "fencing" technique in battles relied heavily on a bash with the shield boss, to open up the enemy for a stab to the lower torso. Which means for an unarmored opponent end of fight.
@@stephanpetri262 1)The roman kit originated fighting other italians who used the same equipment that they did. 2) The pilums did not deform. That's a dated hypothesis. Modern historians believe quite strongly that the long shank was to pierce shields.
I'm partial to the Kite shield. Solid defenses, but more maneuverability than the Scutum, and still very serviceable as a weapon. *Tell me how the grass tastes, little man!*
@@magicoofmac8904 helmets can't protect you from your brain hitting the inside of your skull (aka concussion). A lot of football players suffer traumatic brain injuries despite wearing helmets.
I think Rome went for a Centre grip shield because the way the bar to hold it was set made it easier to rest on the ground. As for the best Shield.....I want to say Pavese, not just because you could carry it, but you have your own little wall too. Worked great for the Genoese Crossbowmen.
For dueling I've found the celtic/germanic center grip oval type to be extremely useful, especially with a tall boss. You can hold it vertically and pivot off the calf for excellent defensive coverage, or put it high and brace on your upper arm with the point forward to fight very aggressively and control distance. And with a tall boss you have the ability to trap or deflect in other ways too. Great balance of coverage against maneuverability and versatility. Going from that to a kite shield in the context of a small skirmish in hot weather was rough, as a kite shield has to be a lot thicker to be protective since your arm lays across it and the whole thing is held close to the body
I think one thing people don't realize about the Roman sputum is they valued maneuverability ever since the 3rd Samnite war, the center grip gave them more versatility when outnumbered, which they often were despite Hollywood depictions, and allowed them to hold the shield further from them.
The Romans' choice of a center grip had nothing to do with maneuverability. Their shields' size, weight, and shape limited motion far more than properly designed/arranged straps would, particularly in close formation. In fact, considering the scutum's weight, straps would probably have _improved_ maneuverability, as they offer greater leverage. However, strapped shields also would've left a lot of legionnaires with shields stapled to their arms by arrows and nailed to any and every body part by pila. Being able to hold the shield away from the body, as you mentioned, would've been massively advantageous, if not essential, given the Roman's tactics and armor technology.
@irrelevantfish1978 A strapped shield would have limited the movements possible with a shield, a center grip allowed the shield to be held both higher and lower, while a strapped shield would be better in a normal phalanx, the Roman's fought with either relatively short spears or short swords, so they needed to move around the shield rather than moving the shield around them. Although the point about arrows is interesting, I hadn't considered that.
@@potatolord2196 Please tell me which movements you're talking about, because aside from holding the shield away from you, I can think of none made possible by a center-grip that wouldn't expose more of your body, clonk a friendly, and/or have no practical value with a shield as large and heavy as a scutum.
@irrelevantfish1978 Lifting above your headwithout turning the shield, holding it in your left hand, holding it at unusual angles in general, and letting go of the shield, which doesn't have much use in the battle but us good for skirmishes and just more convenient in a camp.
I've read that the Roman scutum had a horizontal grip (which showed in the picture you used in this video), so the wielder could lift and hold it with their fist pointing down at the ground - much less tiring to use it that way, and the size of the shield meant that the reduced maneuverability wasn't much of an issue.
The center horizontal grip helped for the testudo formation too, since it allows to extend the arm further away from the body while better controlling the shiled than a vertical grip in this specific context (the horizontal grip allows a more relaxed grip and the possibility to flex the wrist in the "direction" of the scutum). Furthermore, a centered grip allow to put the lower end of the scutum on the ground when not in use while being ready to use in case of a moment of rest for the legionary, while a strapped shield needs to be slipped on and off
And the scutum was used in a time where javelins were still largely used, so it allowed to keep the shield further from your body in case of "javelin fire" from the enemy, and to just "release" the shield if eventual javelins got stuck in the shield, making it feeling heavier in the front with their long leaver
The Roman Republic originally used Greek style Hoplon Shields, fighting in classic Phalanx formations with 8ft Spears. The Romans soon switched to elongated Scutums, and ditched the Spear for Short-Swords and Heavy-Javalins. Why did they switch? My best guess: The 3-meter wide Hoplon shield required a tight phalanx formation, and Romans wanted more versitility. Also, the Romans could thrust around the Scutum sides, while still protecting their front. A Hoplon had to "open up" for sword thrusts.
@@Skallagrim Roman have knees, just crouch-spread your legs to shorten your height. The Scutum basically sits on the ground when sisto=stop, bini aut ue=pair/brace to resist any missiles except when you march in formation pro/forward. Why the advance on any position was done in lulls & why 1 or more pilum thrown relatively close at about 16 to 30 yards in stages if possible before engaging in melee with gladius/sword unlike any army till Rome or even later it was mimicked with little success as they didn't understand the underline principals. Romans didn't like enemy projectiles so they carried Scutum to make the effectively nullified. Roman scutum as well as castra =camps & forts is what set them apart. I recommend Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus epitomes in what most see as 4 complete works that concern military matters. It is the only complete Roman military treatise from the late Rome unfortunately nothing earlier survives intact. Romans fought nothing like any that came before due to (manipular formations) rather then front lines slamming into each other. Roman were fighting checker formations while everyone else was still using line formations even after for the most part. The Romans were fighting a completely different type of warfare to those they engaged. Only Carthage proved a temporary obstacle due to their superior cavalry that the Romans adopted a lot from then improved upon.
10:25 The thing that would worry me about strapped shields is arrow penetration. Check out Tod's Workshop's tests of arrows vs shield in "Do shields stop arrows?" Arrows would technically be "stopped," but would still penetrate and could go through into the arm even with chainmail. So imo the Scutum's center grip shield makes sense. A center grip pairs well with a simple metal boss, which would prevent arrow penetration through the hand/arm. And btw another plus of the Scutum is its curved shape which I wish you could've elaborated on more. We can guess that the curve makes it more difficult to manufacture, but more effective against arrows and controlling enemy attacks in melee. Edit: and like others have mentioned a javelin (whether it be from enemies or from a pilum from a fellow Roman) could also penetrate shields pretty well.
There is a very good reason Strapped shields only became prominent in the era of heavily armored soldiers; the Greek Hoplite shields were used with relativeely light armor (often nothing on the arms) but that's because these shields are generally tought to have been very thick and heavy to the point where they likely could not be penetrated by most projectiles of the time; in most other places it is the same idea; Strapped shields are often smaller and thicker (and more often metal-clad) exactly to prevent those deep penetrations; Tod's tests show particalarly powerful bows going through shields from close range at roughly 90deg angles of impact, often (though not always) there would be more layers of armor protecting the arm beneath that shield and most battlefield situations would not have everything set up so perfectly to favor the bow; the tests do a good job showing the top range of damage that can be dealt to a shield. PIla are pretty cool weapons; the way they can "reach behind" a shield after penetrating it is impressive; those things would cause absolutely massive disruption to enemy battle lines if thrown from close range; honestly, based on their effectiveness I find it surprising that Pilum-like weapons went out of fashion so early in medieval history; perhaps it was a result of the smaller scale of battles in that time making it's particular merits less valuable compared to just using a long fighting spear; the Angon does seem to have been more specialised for throwing than the Pilum was. (most Angons being barbed makes them less than ideal for use in melee)
I’ve always thought that the main consideration should be “what am I looking to shield myself *from*?”. Arrows, big shield that doesn’t need to be nimble. Single opponent, something smaller and nimbler. What is my opponent likely to be armed with? And so on.
And even in battles, as you mentionned, skirmish and large pitch battles are different things, but also siege ! A shield to protect yourself while climbing a ladder, or while reloading a crossbow also has their own requirement :)
Well, practically any shield can be weaponised. I don't think anyone would shy away from a shield strike if they get the chance (and said chance happens to be better than that for their weapon).
Part of why the Romans went with center-grip is because they valued maneuverability in their tactics, and they used way more formations than just shield walls and tortoise. Strap-grip is great for less maneuver-intensive tactics, like you said, but if you try to make your army a battlefield speed demon then you're going to have a harder time. So, I (and the Romans) like the scutum shield since it can do both; big and heavy enough to stand up in slower formations, but the center-grip allows it to be used in a versatile and faster fighting. I also like the kite shield since it's grip design can be both a center grip and a strap grip, as Shadiveristy demonstrated on one of his older videos.
According to some modern research the Romans didn't actually fight in a close formation. The front rank would move forward to engage the front rank of the enemy, they did this so the soldiers had room to move. Centurions always fought in the front and their job was to be aggressive and urge their fellow soldiers to actually be aggressive to, since the natural tendency of anyone is to just hold your shield out in front of you and keep the enemy at bay, this is why Centurions had a higher casualty rate than regular Legionaries. I should also add that the Romans mass-produced their equipment, which may be why they went with square shields, because they are easier to mass-produce than oval shields (at least I would think so).
Personally my choice for shield would be for personal body sized round shield with both center grip & strapped features, of course with the sling. Personal body sized is important imo since sometimes a bigger person would find a round shield like viking shield to be rather small, while smaller person would find rather big instead. Now that's for design only. I would argue the biggest factor for the best shield should be the materials, which one are the best for overall defensive capability, the weight, easy to maintenance, & the best techs for its durability.
This thing about viking "shieldwalls" Was something I would have never put thought into, but I've Heard of similar things, likes horses of the seas meaning Ships. Very cool video, as always.
My call would be the square-topped kite shield. It has useful corners for counter-punching against blows, and is long enough to protect the forward leg as well. Useful with a center grip, you'll have more control with an arm strap instead.
I do agree on the Kite Shield, it is about as close to a perfect shield as possible for medieval battlefield use. Also of note, the Kite Shield was known to be both strapped and center gripped, though the presence of a boss was not always indictive of center grip design.
The Gou-Rang is definitely interesting, but I guess it is pretty much hard-countered by stabbing weapons like Rapiers. Then it becomes a smallish buckler with weird protrusions that don't do a whole lot.
But were there popular rapier like swords in the far East? Based on the stuff Skall has covered, they had generally less armor, so more cutting weapons, less thrusting. I don't know.
Don't think so. Thrusts are relatively easy to displace (and that is one of the reasons parrying daggers were used agains rapiers to a greater extend than against more cut-oriented swords). I've never held a hooked shield in my life though, but by the looks of it, I would imagine that displacing thrusts with it might be MUCH easier than with a normal buckler. It might be even easier than with parring dagger, at least if the grip allows you for a handshake grip or something similar.
@@Wild.Beaver Jians can be veeeery nimble with thir thrusts. Not exactly "thrust-centric", but they are good at that. And they have coexisted with that type of shields, at least, as far as I can tell from a fast search
I think the reason why the scutum was centergrip was because of the testudo formation. It's easier to pick up and hold up a shield with a centergrip shield than a strapped shield. And if we look at the testudo, the shield is concaved into the soldier, so a centergrip is needed over a strapped shield in that case. That's my speculation, let me know what y'all think. Edit: Shad would be proud by your statement
And once combat doctrine (on a personal scale) had come up with a very efficient way of using a gladius-scutum combo, changing the scutum would be a problem- even if your results were better after a few decades of development, that's still a few decades of development, instead of your perfectly good current set up. They were at a local maximum, in a sense. Also, if you have a shield as expansive as the scutum, the lessened mobility of a strapped shield could limit your offensive options -particularly when you have to attack towards the front due to the formation.
I was wondering if the pilum has anything to do with it. When Tod was testing the pilum with his javelin throwing friend, I recall the national javelin thrower struggled to throw while holding onto a shield. Maybe easier to discard for a throw?
I wonder how far a soldier in the second line of the formation could extend his shield over his front line comrades. Keep in mind that the shield forming the roof need to lifted above your head, which basically limits your left elbow to being within +-25cm of directly above your head. Unless you are using a center grip, in which case you can extend your left hand to 60cm forward of your head. (At that point you would just be keeping the shield in the correct position on top of the shields of the lines in front of you and behind you; the weight of your shield would basically be carried by those shields.) And the further your body can be from where the shield needs to go to rest on the (vertical) shield of the person in front of you, the more room you are giving them to maneuver.
The scutum was center grip because it gave it flexibility. The Romans started off using the Greek phalanx formation and the same equipment as the Greeks (and pretty much the rest of the mediterranean world.) They switched to the scutum when they switched to the manipular formation which was done when fighting the Samnites, who lived in the mountains of south-central Italy. The manipular formation allowed the Romans to fight in uneven terrain while still maintaining some unit cohesion and the scutum allowed for both good coverage while in tight formation while its center grip gave it more maneuverability in looser formations when the Legionnaire was more likely to have to engage in single combat. Also remember that the scutum's grip is horizontal and not vertical like in the Scandinavian shields which makes it easier to carry and maneuver for its size, this last is coming from experience using both. The shape of the shield and placement of the grip had nothing to do with the testudo formation as that was adopted long after the scutum was in use.
Loved the video, Skal! Keep up the great work! As a long time viewer, it was cool to remember some of the shields you've talked about in the past, especially in comparison with each other!
Great video I love your pragmatic approach to the topic. Whenever talking about shields in history I always think of the battle of ilandlwanna 1879 where zulus where able to successfully defend against musket fire by wetting their leather shields leading to a victory of melee force against guns
@zombiesteve566 If memory serves, the British also technically ran out of ammunition at that battle. They had plenty of cartridges, but the majority were contained in *very* sturdy wooden crates that were screwed shut and couldn’t be opened readily.
Perfect video! You start off with the obvious blanket point "The one that works best for you, because no one is the same" and then go on discuss your opinins on what you like! I feel like people have a problem with this balance. Some go with "this thing is the unarguably best version of thst type of thing, end of discussion" while others dismiss all options with "Well, there is so such thing, all of these things sre relative, any discussion is just futile." The truth is, while everything is relative, the statement can still be a good opener for a discussion that may enlighten and inform us on things we never thought of.
The Scutum is a centre gripped shield, but with a *horizontal* bar to grip on to, rather than the expected vertical one: this might have made it possible to "rest" the shield just by holding it with the arm straight down. The added offensive impact impact of have a bossed shield also makes sense when it's combined with the gladius: you're going to be at a reach disadvantage against most opponents, so once you do get at close range, you want the offensive power to overwhelm them as quickly as possibly. Lastly, the elliptical "celtic" shield was not uniquely Celtic, it's more likely that the Romans got it from the Lucanians, Samnites, or some other Italian tribal grouping than the distant Gauls who only settled in the Po Valley in the 4th Century BC.
My first Mount and blade experience was a mod called Bretwalda. I remember being in this skirmish and all my guys were in shield wall. and the enemy got close and a flurry of missle weapons came at us. stones, slings, javalines, axes, spears... all clanging against our shield. I knew then and there, nobody would ever charge into battle in that era without a shield.
I think the disadvantage of a strap is that it puts your arm against the shield. In a Roman battlefield they'd be facing enemies who are chucking spears/javelins/pilums at them. Those will go through the shield and injure your arm in a strap shield. With a boss protecting a center grip, though, you lose the shield, but you're still fighting effective, especially if you can drop the speared shield and get another from your mates.
Curious about what you said about the shield wall. I remember reading from awhile back an account from a monk (I think?) during the Siege of Paris where he described the Norseman as forming a testudo so I’ve always had that picture sort of in my head
The Kite Shield is definitely one of the best. I've had one built with an X-pattern trap design that allows for center-grip or strap, with a guige strap, and also a handle closer to the bottom. In this way, it is possible to keep the shield very close to the body with your arm relaxed hanging down. It becomes more like an elongated sleeve shield.
You are my favourite history channel by far. You and a few other smaller creators are holding out against the algorithm and bless you for it. Shadiversity has obviously become a kid's channel with editing similar to other scrub channels and Metatron is just a reaction/drama channel at this point. I know it it difficult to respond to this in fear of souring relationships with the other medieval channels, I just wanted you to know you have our support and we are not blind to your injustice.
I kinda agree with you. Although I too have to limit that in similar regards as @Wild.Beaver does, as I find Skal to be focused on historical weapons. He is more focused on this niche (with the openness to some popcultures) & shines with his more practical approaches, humour & good editing. I also find Skal seems to be quite humble, very self critical, up to very harsh with himself & overall a chill & sensible guy. Especially the humility is something I don't think that many bigger creators share (or they don't show it, idk). Especially what you say about Metatron & Shad I must agree. I de subscribed Shad years ago. I found him always too loud for my taste, too sensational, too artificial (eg his project of a fake castle I found very annoying). And Metatron is just a raging guy nowadays. I don't watch history stuff to get angry. I just wanna concentrate on an interesting topic of practical military history and its applications to enjoy calmly with a smirk on my face. In larger channels I still like Matt Easton's Scholagladiatoria. Nowadays it feels like some of his videos are repeating elder ones of him. Also I find his recent sensationalist speaking habits tiring & I find he stresses a bit too much how much of an expert he is (I'm not saying, he isn't, but stressing it so much is a bit annoying to me personally. I understand, that he does it to get more views, what is fair). However I like his meme words (eg context) & he regularly releases interesting new & niche videos. Also this combination with actual antique swords I often find quite nice.
@@bloodleader5 Negative. This is not what I meant. It was quite some years ago when he bought some land to build some castles out of carton or so (idk for sure anymore, but I don't care enough for that to check, what it was), so it might be we don't even mean the same thing. But this is not of big significance. What annoyed me was, that he made such a big deal out of it, as if he started Guédelon 2.0. And mad isn't the right description at all for what I thought. It was more, that I found his communication style annoying. It's less about that one project, rather that was the point (or at least that, I can remember) where I noticed, Shad's videos don't interest me anymore. Sometimes when his vids where suggested to me I tried to watch, but I found little fun in that. But that obviously doesn't mean he or his projects are bad or so. Just not my thing.
Just considering whether the user has to deal with arrow volleys or not seems like it'd play a giant factor in what shield is "best". I think it'd be interesting to look at bow usage in war vs shield development and see if they correlated or not.
It would also matter what kind of arrow volleys. Very powerful bows can shoot dangerously far through some of the thinner shields, while lighter bows could be fine. The centre grip may also help to deal with shots coming partially through the shield by allowing more distance between your body and the shield.
My theory for why the Romans used the center grip is so that when the guy in front went down, it didn't drag their shield down with them, the guy behind could move up easier if the shield could either be held up if noticed in time, or moved out from underfoot easier if you were not limited to moving it attached to your fallen comrade. Also, logistically speaking, as much marching as they did, carrying it with a straight arm vertically while possibly resting the top on your shoulder would be much less fatiguing on the arm than carrying it with a bent elbow, as they carried their shields vertically so as not to smack those behind or in front of them or THEIR shields.
Damn, that Order of the Dragon shield looks neat. It would be a good choice for me to buy considering I'm Romanian ;) Also, for anyone wondering, the inscription is "O quam misericors est Deus, justus et paciens" (O how merciful is God, just and patient)
You may still want to put the Pavise on the ground and stay apart from it, just in case some enemy arrows penetrate it partially (e.g. get halfway through before running out of momentum).
I think Roman Shields probably can work well when held with the arm straight down at the side. Doing so would be far less tiring than holding the shield up in front of you. I've never had a chance to try but it's seems so in my mind's eye.
I've read that, according to period sources, the rectangular scutum fell out of favor because it was too easy for soldiers on guard duty to fall asleep leaning on the more stable rectangular shield, where the oval one would tend to let a sleeping soldier fall over.
Ha! Nice one, but i rather think that being beaten to a pulp by your tent mates would be enough to keep them aweake. If in hostile territory, a sleeping sentry could be burned alive. I think they fell out because of cost; flat shields were lighter, used less resources.
@@Lollygagger-k4p Late Roman round shields like those found at Dura Europos were concave, not flat. They were however cheaper to make due to not using pseudo-plywood construction and, in general, not using as much material overall.
Thanks. They always look flat in artistic renderings.@@docholiday7975EDIT: According to Wiki, both dished and flat shields have been found at Dura Europas. I think by the ending deacdes of Roma, theywere a pretty much mixed bag of equipment, with both their enemies and the Romans having pretty similar panoply. Lots of "barbarian" troops brought their own weapons as well, including clothing. It's hard to say whether centuries of Roman influence changed the barbarian's panoply or whether the changing style of warfare changed everyone's during the same couple of centuries.
*Here is my generalized perspective.* - Round shields for duels and small scale formations/battles like you said, because their surface and impact force are more predictable, plus you can use them as weapons more easily. - Elongated shields for formation combat, because in formation they will cover the most area and interfere with the people next to you less. Plus they are better to hunker down with but that requires your flanks to be covered by someone.
A wall is the pinnacle of shield min-maxing. It has a massive area of protection in exchange for literally all of its ability to maneuver or carry it effectively.
I know this’s a shot in the dark that you’ll respond to this, but are there suits of armor where the shield is built into the gauntlet or forearm of a suit of armor?
There are shields that have built in gauntlets, often combined with a blade, spikes, pistol, lantern what ever you liked. but often we find that armour replaces a shield, large one piece gauntlet / forearm are comon for cavalry.
The argument about the viking shieldwall reminded me of the reaction video Skal did to Matt Patt(?) complains about For Honour... in it Skal refers to the accounts of a monk who was present when the vikings attacked Paris where he recognized them using a testudo formation when attacking the walls. I happen to think its a bit of the same thing with the shield wall... it is something others have described the vikings using, because they themselves have seen it described elsewhere, but its more like the vikings just happened to know how shields work... like its not exactly Tsun Tzu levels that are needed to figure out to put the shield between yourself and whatever harm is coming your way.
Something like a lantern shield with an extending blade strikes me as likely one of the best options for civilian use, along with the Gou-Rang. A number of Renaissance fencing texts are surprisingly critical of medium-sized shields for dueling. George Silver didn't think the sword & target was that great. Girard Thibault gave techniques to defeat rapier & target with rapier alone, & seemed to think this was relatively easy. Domingo Luis Godinho grouped sword & dagger, sword & buckler, two swords, & sword & shield all together, giving no indication that sword & shield has any particular advantage. Etc. On the other hand, some Iberian masters wrote highly of sword & shield.
This was kinda perfect timing. I was talking to a friend about shields a few days ago and the tradeoffs between different things. So this is brilliant.
I've always liked the idea of a jack of all trades soldier, equipped with light armor, an arming sword, a mace as a secondary weapon, and of course, a medium shield. I never really considered WHICH shield though. I guess in the end it really depends on the context of the fight, after all.
Kite shield, maneuverable, medium to light weight, good protection, pairs well with a mace or arming sword. For a light foot soldier this would be good.
@skallagrim As a Larper who uses a tower shield, the reason I believe it is center grip is first formations like the turtle are easier to do without your arm strapped up to it, you can get angles that would better deflect falling rock as well. Also in wall formation it is easier to collapse to the back rank without a strapped shield, as if your shield is broken it can always be dropped and you pulled back, or it needed faster to pickup and reform the wall. Finally yes you can rest them on the ground they can even stand on their own, and make a great leaning rest.
Just to add on a thing you can do with a Kite shield. Shadivers has already made a simple video about "Which is the best shield" and a dedicated video about which the Kite Shield is the best shield, so I do wish for people to watch it for more stuff about the Kite Shield. What you can also do is carry it over your back, there are examples of it being used when riding horses aswell. Not to mention if we have to rule out armor, if someone were to try and sneak up on you (minu the dagger at least cause that will make a difference) then it is easy to imagine the attacker to be forced to meet within your eyes reach. Minus that, it is great for traveling to let it hang on your back with a belt strap and a great deal of coverage with it to defend your back aswell for whatever surprises that might happen. Oh!!! There is also more than one way to strap the Kite Shield to your arm so it is pretty versatile aswell.
Regarding that of viking shield formations, we do actually have sources from france that specify what they looked like, and their wording was that of a "testudo" as the french defenders attempted to ward them off using arrows, but found little effect because of this formation. Just a tid bit I heard from someone speaking of viking shields before, can't remember where, you might have more luck finding it.
Hello Skal! About the roman scutum deriving from the celtic shield: both the celtic shield and the roman scutum derived from two different types of etruscan shields (one plain and one concave). But both the etruscans and the romans put aside the scutum in favor of the greek argive shield (the etruscans from the padan valley continued to use it though) and when the celts became their conquest and pillage of central italy the romans had to readopt the scutum as the hoplite phalanx was very weak against celtic warfare. If you look at the situla of certosa for example you can see etruscans using both argives and scuta
My personal favorite is the hussar shield. Relatively light, protects a large area, can be worn either by handgrib or bandolier strap, and it curves around you to protect against attacks from behind as well to a certain degree.
Before watching, I would say the Scutum, and my reasoning is that the design of every other shield was predicated upon what weapon you used, whereas with the scutum it was (arguably) the other way around. It was also v effective at the time, though obviously the nature of warfare changed.
It was supposed to weigh about 22lbs. Not the best spec, if fighting someone one on one and having to move around a lot. It worked best, when fighting in formation.
In the words of Matt Easton (schola gladiatoria): CONTEXT! Good vid as usual Skall. Though a couple of small comments / corrections: - The Romans actually did use the Hoplon / Aspis (Argive Shield) for some 200 years before adopting the scutum universally. - The use of the scutum by the Romans should not surprise us. The Romans placed much emphasis on the combat skill of the individual soldier, which is why they typically used looser formations than many other cultures at the time, thereby providing each individual legionary enough room to properly use his shield and weapons. Additionally, the scutum is at the same time large enough to enable a close-order shield wall if the need arises. So the scutum (in its various iterations) makes 100% sense given Roman fighting doctrine.
The Roman scutum was the best shield, and you touched on the reason - it was used more effectively than any other shield. Obviously some shields are better for mounted combat or skirmishers or whatever, and the viking shield must be noted for sheer perfection in versatility, (and you just got there. Yay you agree!) But the Roman scutum created an actual battlefield obstacle that opponents struggled to bypass.
A lot of the strapped ones are also cavalry focused, (Kite shield and heater etc) so you can have it on your arm while your hands are holding the stirrups of the horse.
What you were saying about how the Roman empire wouldn't have saved itself from falling if its armies were better equipped is absolutely *true* ; the opening cutscene to Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord makes that perfectly clear. "But, like men, empires grow *old* . Leaders *lose* a common cause. *Corruption* spreads. Old foes *master* the empires tricks... And devise *new* ones of their *own* . And eventually, the bonds holding the empire together, *snap* ; then comes the *civil* war, pitting *all* against *all* ." With that outta the way, I can see where you're coming from with your stance on strapped shields vs center grip shields too; if you're in a situation in which you have to hold your shield up for a long time, like in a defensive formation or jousting, it *would* make more sense to distribute the shields weight over *more* of your arm; mobility wouldn't be so big a concern in that case. Center grip on the other hand would be better suited for smaller scale combat, in which the shield would need to be a weapon *itself* .
As for shield walls: Anglo-Saxons fought essentially the same as Vikings & at the battle of Hastings, as far as I'm aware, the A-S used a shield wall albeit with kite shields which may not have overlapped. So while not Viking & from the end of the Viking era shield walls seem to be a thing. I think you could be right in thinking shields didn't overlap as that would make a stronger position it would limit individual mobility especially if breaking off to fight in smaller groups. Perhaps the Norse referred to a small group or a large group as shield wall? Maybe shield wall was a kenning but also literal; Norse did love multiple meanings. I just find it hard to believe that in larger pitched battles, which the Vikings definitely had, that no defensive tactic like a shield wall would have been employed.
Hey Skall and anyone else who is interested there’s this group of Scandinavian reanactors who call themselves the hirddmen. And they actually do authentic shield vs early medieval weapon tests plus multiple other things.
It appears that an application of layers of linen and animal glue was applied to many Carolingian/Norman/Scandinavian shields. It can significantly increase the durability and resistance to penetration of the "viking shield" . Leather and or layers of both it, glue, and textile are reinforcement methods that have been used all over the world as well from Zulu hide shields that were surprisingly useful against muskets, though not nearly as much against the quickly adopted rifles that followed. They bonded layers of thick bull hides together with simple glues.
Skallagrim, if I remember correctly about the older argive shields, when fighting in formation they would begin to shift because they'd want to stay behind the shield. This shift in formation would be seen in both armies (if both fighting with the argive shield style) but would cause a change in battle tactics and how the generals would engage the armies. When the Romans went to the typical scutum, they would be removing some of the desire to shift the formation. This would allow the formation to stay as they were deployed and not begin to shift on the battle field. I believe this single trait would lead to the Romans changing from the argive shields to a more traditional scutum design even if not the full square shield.
The shieldwall has since its first depiction on the stele of Vultures some 4500 years ago, been the most important formation for both trained and untrained infantry (not professionals like hoplites or legionaires). The shieldwall is also excellent since melee is a team sport; you combine your and your battle bros strength vs the others. Figthing alone or in open formations means that you wpukd face your strength off vs an opponents, and that will never end well, meaning that it is all about teamwork. The mesopotamians, babylonians, Egyptians, Persians etc used it with wicker shields. The vikings didn't upend all that with their Roundshields. Warming rather shows that shieldwalls wouldn't have been static formations since you don't want your enemy to get close to wreck your wall. Instead you would, just like in the shieldwall of Hastings, counter an approaching enemy with spears and arrows. If the enemy got to close, you would have to engage ofc and try to break the enemy wall before they broke yours. Jagged formations like the maniple or svinfylking is excellent since you don't have to face an entire battle line along your own, but also makes it easier to push through the enemy line. And also, looking at the vids on combatarchaeology, the shields are obviously fairly sturdy^^
So what would be the best shield for a D&D style fantasy adventurer? And would that change if they were mounted? What about a flyong mount? It would temd to me more dual or skirmish type encounters, but being outnumbered and facing arrows and other missiles) are commonplace. So would we see a large, ovular, center grip? Or would we see kite shields? I think we'd see the former on infantry and the latter on mounted.
As someone who's fought with a Celtic style shield that covered me from shoulders to ankles and weighed around 20lbs, it was indeed tiring and I ended up finding a way to rest it on my left shin if possible. I got another one that was smaller, maybe from shoulders to knees, and less wide, and that was a huge difference. I have experience with Viking style shields, around the same size as yours, and it was similarly tiring to that. I would love a video of yours with a scutum or talos (the Gaulish shield)!
Something important to note about the roman scutum is that while it is a center grip shield, it was a horizontal center grip shield which makes it relatively easy to carry because you have your arm straight down and not have it stick way out to the back like a kite shield. This is important when considering the context of it; indeed it was battlefield use, but into unknown hostile lands combined with the fact that the legionnaires had to carry it on the march against often poorly trained levied farmers. Battlefield use favours larger shields, but due to the risk of ambush and the fact that the legionnaires carried their shields on the march meant that it had to be reasonably comfortable to carry, while not swinging wildly and quick to bring up. Fighting against poorly trained levies means that the shield does not need to be super maneuverable.
Romans units emphasized mobility and rotation. The units in front would not stay in front, after a period of time, the rear opens a gap, and the front line moves back, and the second line became the front line. A large shield with a boss, allows you to maneuver the shield better.
Question : would a strap on shield be closer to a piece of armor ? Conversely : good armor is useful if it can protect from most fatal attacks , so what is an effective shield depends on the context , So really a "shield algorithm" to find the best shield for the given context would be tricky and would need several elements : How free are you to move ? How much do you need to move ? What is the most common attack you face ? How much can the best material you can carry protect you from that ? And so on and so forth And i bet such an hypotetical algorithm may come up with several solutions : An heavier strap shield may be equivalent to a lighter center grip in some situations ... Having war wagons to offer you protection /being in an enviroment wich offers plenty of cover may change everything still ... And so on and so forth ...
Yeah, I'm a really big fan of the center grip viking shield. Its use might be contingent on the grip strength of your hand, but you can move it around so much better.
From what I remember, the reason for the Roman center grip is practicality. The shield is big , heavy, bulky and had to be carried for miles upon miles. Upposedlt you can't do that with a strap on so easily, it's easier if you can carry your shield like a suitcase. But you gave good points against it. I can't remember sources right now, but it was mentioned in a few books, and there were a few videos testing ergonomics of shields. The community on yt isn't that big so I guess they should be easy to find, I'm way too lazy.
The Viking round shield and custom heater shield are made by Vaughn Morphett, the Scottish targe and small buckler are from Kult of Athena:
facebook.com/V.M.Metalcraft
www.kultofathena.com/product/the-glasgow-targe-by-douglas/?koa=259
www.kultofathena.com/product/steel-buckler-12-inch-14-gauge-steel/?koa=259
And in case you haven't seen it before, the falchion was a generous gift from That Works:
th-cam.com/video/wJZLh84475k/w-d-xo.html
The best shield is 100 light years of empty space :-p
Hey Skal, what is the second sword from the top on the rack over your left shoulder in the video? Is it a type of Messer? I'm kinda new to this scene.
Nice video, but from what I know the Roman scutum derives from the shields of Samnites.
Ahhh I was hoping you'd give a lesson on how the scutum was actually used.. There is no real place I've been able to find that definitively says how it was used. There is an Eastern European video showing a guy using a scutum and gladius against a a stack of tires, and my comment is one of the larger ones, asking if that's how it's meant to be used, because not only a centre grip shield but also horizontally gripped, which means if you are holding it off the ground, all the weight will be on your deltoid muscle group.
Late roman Scutum that are rounded are very different to the Celtic shield with being what developed into Parma for notably roman cavalry though not always.
The Roman Scutum replaced the Greek Clipeus used in early Rome though Clipeus is roman & very similar if not identical to a ancient Greek Aspis.
The Scutum was a development upon ancient Greek warfare but the spear was abandoned as the primary armament in favour of the Pugio/dagger & sword/gladius for the Greek Xiphos was side arm & not a primary arm.
The Romans Pilum was a Javlin used nothing like the Greak hoplites doru/long spear arguably a pike used in tandem with Aspis later clipeus in Rome.
The Romans missile skirmishers/peltests still tended to use an updated near identical to Ancient Greek πέλτη, peltē; Latinised pelta.
That was basically unchanged.
Celtic people never had standardised shields & that why the finds are so interesting
In a snowball fight, I found the garbage can lid to be a very effective shield.
I can do this all day
I found a younger brother also makes a good shield in this situation
Wait WFT??!!!! *HOW* ????? The garbage can lids I tried get dinted like crazy by snowballs.
Still, I would like to see what happens if I rivet 25 trash can lids together with 23 layers of cloth between each layer sewn in the quilted pattern and 3 spade heads layered together and riveted into the center of the front also the cloth on it, then on the back 5 sheets of 41 layer cloth sewn together in the quilted pattern glued on, then behind that, 17 layers of deer hide harvested the only way possible .... patrol the street for road kill how else will you get leather ... then a large door handle and 2 belt straps for the arm.
What could this take a beating from.
@@rachdarastrix5251 * JUNKYARD TANK UNLOCKED *
@@darthelias490mean as hell
The best shield is the one you have at hand, the second best shield is the one that best limits your opponents offence
Not if it limits your offence too much, then it may not be the best. This is from experience fighting competitively with a few types of shield.
In other words the shield that saves your life.
Nope. The best shield is the one that scares your opponents away from attacking you in the first place.
And the third best shield is the guy right next to you.
Just simply grab hold of him and yank him between you and the on coming attack!
@@H3y_Im_Rob or the fattest tallest guy near you
As a kid I always wondered why some shields had arm straps and others had a single handle.
You can't handle some shields
Handle are more easy to move around but you can lose them and your grip is weaker.
With arm strap you got a better grip but you are limited for angle and someone can grab it and use
it as a leverage to throw you on the ground or break your arm... etc.
It comes down to what the user wanted. Do they prefer mobility, extreme protection, or some middle ground. Furthermore what they could afford also played a part I bet.
The grip on a Roman shield is better for load bearing, and it allows the shield to be lowered quickly to protect the legs, which the typical forearm and hand grip of a Greek round shield does not... which is why the front rank of hoplites wore greaves and legionnaires didn't have to.
A center grip shield protects your hand and arm better I think. Lock att tods tests. So it's fine if the enemy's spear goes five cm in to your shild it fine but when the shild is straped it can hit your arm through the sheld.
This made me realize that the big reason I keep coming back to watch your videos is that you always try to spell out your biases and acknowledge context and cultural factors rather than insist that there's a single best or most effective option for every scenario.
The best shield design is a good modern riot shield. Polycarbonate is light SEETHROUGH and more than resilient enough to stop what medieval soldiers could throw at you.
Same thoughts myself.
Well, there are benefits to having an opaque shield, as it can hide your motions during a duel or battle. It's a small thing, but the less info your enemy has, the better. I suppose a perfect shield would be some sort of hard-light hologram (for varied sizes and ease of carry) that blocks light in 1 direction. Unfortunately we don't have those yet
@@churchboy4609 You could just have a liquid crystal screen that turns opaque as you apply voltage as is already done for privacy glass sometimes
@@laurentbeaulieu2446unnecessary weight a bottle of spray paint can solve.
A mirror shield would be somewhat off-putting for the attacker.
The best shield is obviously the one that best meets your needs for a specific situation. It’s really going to vary from one situation to the next.
The truth isn't always satisfying lol
Noooo it has to be [culture I like]!
1, 2, 3, 4 I declare a shield war all shields on a battlefield then they all fight to the death. Winner gets the bragging rights to best shield.
Counterpoint: The Scutum is the best because it is big and tall
@@zekramnordran9526 it's heavy as hell and hardly moveable, so it will severly restrict your movement and eyesight, which is great hinderance, knowing that main weapon of romans was pilum in another words javelin, later changed for lancea and plumbata(spear and darts).
I'm a big fan of bucklers - great for defense and I can hit people with them! I've never had folk shoot arrows at me though...
You can hit people with any shield tbf, don't let your shieldbashes be dreams!
Survivorship bias at its best ;)
Honestly, all things being equal, I'd probably pick a falchion/messer and the largest buckler I could keep sheathed with it for EDC in the medieval period.
I know the little bucklers tend to be fairly popular in modern HEMA competition, but if I was on a medieval road and waylaid by bandits, I wouldn't want to gamble on parrying over the passive defense provided by a larger buckler.
And before some polearm fetishist shows up to extoll the virtues of glorious long shafts, they would have their place, but you're not going to carry one with you 24/7, "muh walking stick" memes or not. Ambushes in tight quarters would still happen, ambushes would still happen if you needed your hands free for some reason. No bandit is going to abide by a gentleman's agreement to let you grab your halberd from your draft horse's saddle. I'm not saying they'd be useless, but they're not a one-size-fits-all answer either.
I've seen people who think that you cannot do against bayonets with a viking round shield what you can against bayonets with a scottish targe.
But I have seen a scottish targe stop musket shots.
I mean, for the casual person strolling along in the streets, a buckler was a fantastic pairing for an arming sword. Probably not the best setup for a battlefield, but fantastic for preventing a mugging.
At first I thought the idea that the Scandinavian shield wall being merely poetic language to be ridiculous, but it actually does seem to hold some weight...that being said, it still could have been used and until we have more evidence we can't be too sure.
The Gou-Rang is absolutely wild! Crazy looking but it's practical as hell in the right circumstances
we had formations like a phalanx or such since pre antiquity, i doubt the germanic tribes did not use a battle formation
I do wonder how well those upper and lower thingies would stop a heavy blow from a large or unbalanced weapon--seems like the leverage would be kind of bad, all you've got is your wrist strength and if it hits high up on the thingie it's like the "weak" of a sword.
And many battle tactics of Vikings were taken from the old roman ways, as the Vikings being decendants of the iron age Scandinavians that fought as roman mercenary soldiers up to 500 years earlier.
I always thought of a shield wall as more or less analogous to a phalanx, a formation that goes back to the middle Bronze age in Mesopotamia. That is, a bunch of spearman standing close together, multiple ranks deep, with their shields touching or overlapping. This is a fairly obvious way of maximising everyone's protection, and is also great for keeping morale high.
What I always found silly is the idea of a shield wall as a completely static formation, where multiple ranks all lean forward to overlap their shields so fully that there are no gaps. That would be even less practical than a Roman testudo for actually fighting in! A formation needs some offensive capability, and some ability to advance and respond to enemy movements. Even if you had an actual a stone wall, you can't just stand behind it and hope to win a battle that way.
@@marcusfridh8489
Source for that
Skall, have watched your videos for a long time. Love your channel and videos. Thanks for creating awesome content
Damn, watching this comment made me realize that Skall's videos have been a part of my life for years (almost if not more than 10 years), and those videos are the one's that really got me into HEMA content, and showed me what real medieval history was like, as opposed to the fantasy bullcrap modern media had fed me. Thanks to you I discovered Metatron, Scholagladatoria, Shadiversity, Knyght Errant, and so much more...
Can't recall ever watching a video and thinking it was boring or uninteresting.
Thanks Skallagrim. You might not realize it, but your content can, and has influenced the lives of many, including mine. Never stop doing what you do best!
@rmg480 yes totally relate to this
Skallagrim best swordtuber
-Humble
-Can pronounce every Germanic language
-Huge sword collection
Also, not racist, extremely conservative, or focusing more on politics than the actual subject at hand, unlike a surpring amount of other swordtubers
@Magikarp-zk7io lol true
@@Magikarp-zk7ioIs being conservative something bad now?
@@sauronplugawy3866
It becomes a problem when some channels start dedicating video after video to the topic.
We subscribe to channels like this for their understanding of history and historical combat not politics.
@@sauronplugawy3866it always was.
Makes me wonder if the Roman's using the center grip shield was because of how effective their pilum were for penetrating armor. Having a strapped shield would place more of your arm close to the shield where it could also be penetrated by the pilum.
Had to have been a factor. They thought of everything they could possibly encounter when they standardized their kit - including leaving the ears open, but riveting on an ear gyard/deflector. Everying about the Roman imperial panoply was about deflecting blows by an enemy expected to be swinging and slashing, mainly from over head. Helmet deflects energy to pteras, which are shock absorbant by design, Scutum is highly curved , also to deflect. Most of their enemies had flat shields that did not deflect missiles as well.
Tod's Workshop has a video series of attacking armor and shields. Most recently he fired heavy crossbows at a shield with a variety of coverings. The leather wrapped shields reduced arrowheads to puncturing only about an inch through the wielder's side. Where the hand and forearm had a pad, the puncture depth was even less. He said that an additional gauntlet would completely protect the wielder's hand and arm altogether.
Next phase of his testing is striking such covered shields with melee weaps.
The most probable reason for it is because the Romans DID NOT fight in close order.
They fought in an open formation with an emphasis on individual combat and missile warfare, and this is what informs the design of the Roman scutum, as well as that of the shields of the culturally related Gaulic and Iberian societies who fought in a similar style:
The shield is centre-grip because it is meant to be used actively in single combat, as period sources confirm; the shield is large because it is the soldier’s primary protection from missiles, which are an ever-present threat in their style of combat; the shield is curved, because the soldier’s flanks are not directly covered by allies and thus extra coverage helps prevent taking a javelin to the ribs.
That said, this does not make the scutum a strict contrast to the Argive shield, because as it happens that type was in fact also originally employed in a style of warfare involving heavy missile warfare and single combat. Early Archaic warfare around the time that the aspis came into use revolved principally around small raiding by land and sea, much like that of the Vikings referenced in the video, and battles were loose and relatively unorganised occasions where warriors were as, if not more, likely to throw their spears than to thrust them, and most fighting took the form of open skirmishing in the no man’s land between opposing bodies.
That time period was characterised by a slow move away from swords towards spears as shock weaponry, which likely corresponds to the slow development of more cohesive and cooperative military action; the Argive shield would prove to serve well all the way through this centuries-long transition, and would eventually displace preceding lighter wicker and leather shields, some of which were centre-gripped, but at the time of its introduction true close-order fighting was at best exceptional or spontaneous, so this cannot entirely explain the phenomenon. It may be that the sturdier design (and strapped arrangement in compensation) was originally a response as much or more to increasingly rigorous and intense melee combat as a whole, since missile combat was more the norm in preceding times and would involve lesser stresses on shield integrity. It is also hypothesised that the aspis was developed in part to cater to the new trend of elites riding into the fray on horses and dismounting to fight, in opposition to the then more standard use of horse-drawn rail chariots for the same purpose - horseback riding would impede large shields from being slung on a warrior’s back, as the earlier Geometric shield designs seem to have been, and as such an Argive shield would compensate for this by employing both arm straps and a concave rim to more easily allow a warrior to carry it on their shoulder through stretches of riding, as well as in the thick of action.
Sounds interesting, may i ask what sources you use?
@@bacul165 The idea that this is why the Roman's did it is just a personal theory but there's a channel called Todd's Workshop where he has brought in a javelin thrower from a local university track and field team. Using a reconstruction of a pilum he was able to penetrate a shield and the mail armor underneath. One of the video's linked below.
th-cam.com/video/33AL7xs91pU/w-d-xo.html
We actually know quite a bit about Aztec shields, since there are 4 surviving specimens which have been studied on top of historical sources, manuscript depictions, etc. The 4 shields do differ a little and there's some description inconsistencies, but they very largely share their construction, so to be concise my description is based on the Vienna specimen: The main shield backing which formed the structural base were two layers of bamboo slats/strips (yes, Mexico has native bamboos!) with the slats very tightly tied to one another with thread, so finely that the researchers examining it stated they weren't sure how it was done and even with modern tools/techniques they wouldn't be able to replicate it. The two layers had the slats arranged perpendicularly, with the backmost's slats running horizontally, and the one in front of it arranged vertically
The two layers of tied bamboo slats (which formed the circular shape of the shield, around 70cm/27.5inch in diameter) have their edges lined and tied to a strip of hide, and behind the slats there are 4 wooden reinforcement bars which run vertically from top to bottom. In the middle of the back, there's a square piece of hide padding, and running through that and tied to the center two reinforcement bars are leather straps which the wielder's arms would run through (with the arm held vertically, judging by the design on the shield). There was then additional leather straps, two loops attached to the hide padding above it (possible for suspending/mounting the shield) and two straps running from edge to edge across the back horizontally (for tension? it's not clear in the paper i'm looking at but maybe the others clarify). Finally, in front of all of this, there was a layer of paper made from agave bark, upon which was feather mosaic forming the emblem on the visible front of the shield, and there being tassels of feathers forming a sort of skirt along the bottom edge of the shield hanging down.
Feather mosaics were one of Mesoamerica's most esteemed forms of artisanal craft: Many of you are probably familiar with Mesoamerican featherwork art in examples like "Moctezuma's headdress" (which was not actually Moctezuma II's or worn by kings) where feathers, jewelry, and metalwork was arranged in into an array (the same technique was used to make banners, sometimes with those elements arranged 3-dimensionally like bouquets), but perhaps more impressive are the mosaics, where feathers are arranged to form patterns and images (sometimes with different colors glued to separate sheet then cut to shape like stencils and combined, other times the feathers of all colors used were individually arranged in a single layer) on a surface, like one would with a mosaic of stones or tiles, except the level of fidelity in feather mosaics is far greater: When viewed at a distance, they can be indistinguishable from fine paintings, if not for the fact that the feathers used are iridescent and different portions of the image glitter and change color based on the viewing angle and lighting. (Seriously, go look up some surviving featherwork "paintings", produced by Mesoamerican artists for the Spanish with catholic motifs, they're mind blowing, and are even a better example of how gorgeous the art form can get then the shields!). This mosaic technique was applied not just to shields, but the outside of some elite warsuits (Tlahuiztli) and wartunics (Ehuatl), as well as textiles, some garments, and portions of some banners.
So, on the front facing mosaic on the Vienna shield (tied to the Museum für Völkerkunde, and Kunsthistorisches Museum) is a depiction of a a creature various described as a Coyote, a plumed/feathered Coyote (a patron symbol of featherworkers) or an Ahuizotl (a creature of Aztec folklore, said to be like a dog with spiney wet fur which lived in water and dragged people underwater with a hand on it's tail: This was also the name of an Aztec emperor so some have tried to ascribe this shield to being used by him), with it's tongue possibly also being shown as a flint knife (symbolizing war or death) and water-fire motifs coming from it's mouth (the pairing of water and fire being an epithet for conflict and warfare, complimentary and/or oppositional pairing is a big deal in Aztec speech, poetry, and philosophy), with parts of the mosaic image also being formed by gold ornaments/plates
The two shields at the Landesmuseum Württemberg in Germany have their front emblem being two variations of the Mesoamerican step fret (a motif also found in Southwestern US, and Andean artwork down in South America). Finally, the shield at Chapultepec Castle in Mexico actually has a base front covering of ocelot pelt rather then feather mosaic, though there are feather mosaic arced lines running across it, a series of gold plates forming an arced band, and 4 gold crescents (oriented vertically)... though the gold was taken and likely melted down at one point. All of these emblem designs have actual Aztec/Nahuatl names mentioned in manuscripts and tax rolls (since shields were one of the items conquered subjects owed the capital of Tenochtitlan), but each design has a few names and i'm not gonna list all of them, but emblems/coloration, alongside the motifs/designs/color on the Tlahuitzli or Ehuatl and back mounted banner if the wearer was high ranking enough to have those, indicated the rank and unit division of the soldier (Yes, they had organized armies with proper ranks and divisions! We don't know a ton about Aztec formations, but we know they had them, seemingly formed wide fronts that attempted to encricle the enemy, while to a degree broke into semi-individual combat, perhaps like your viking example in the video, plus made use of things like feigned retreats into ambushes, etc)
There's some debate over if these shields were functional or ceremonial, but they VERY closely match descriptions of functional shields used in battle, such as this description from the Anonymous Conquistador:
"They use shields of various kinds, made of good thick reeds which grow in that country, interwoven with cotton of double thickness, and they cover them with precious stones and round plates of gold, which makes them so strong that nothing can go through, unless from a good crossbow. Some arrows it is true pierced them, but could do them no harm"
(though, interestingly, he then goes onto claim many of the shields brought to Europe were ceremonial ones, so...?). We know from other sources and surviving specimens that ceremonial shields often had a hardwood rather then bamboo backing and had turquoise mosaics on the front, while some functional shields too had hardwood backing, or additionally had cloth gambeson padding (like the Ichcahuipilli gambeson tunics/vests worn as armor, of which the Tlahuiztli and Ehuatl would have been worn over if prestige permitted it), though I think that may simply be people misinterpreting the "interwoven of cotton of double thickness" line before which may instead refer to the double reed/bamboo layers which were tied with cotton or maguey thread. Some apparently also had beaten metal surfaces, and some shields were square/rectangular or were large enough to cover the whole body and could be rolled up and unrolled for easier transport! (though both of those are more visually documented among the Maya).
Obviously, that Conquistador account is exaggerating a bit to say that nothing could pierce the shields undeflected, but clearly they were effective at defense. I guess a basic approximation would be taking two bamboo mats which have the bamboo slats/strips of a similar thickness/width (sadly, the main paper i'm looking at doesn't specify), but that also wouldn't quite be exact since it wouldn't account for the very tight bindings or the added supports on the back. I've even seen some people propose the slick, overlapping hard central spines of the feathers on the outer mosaic could contribute to the protective nature of the shields and tlahuiztli/ehuatl on glancing blows, though I think that's a bit of a stretch.
I want to be clear that there is a LOT more info out there then just this: I'm mostly going off of memory and double checking against 1 scholarly paper (The Aztec Feather Shield in Vienna: Problems of Conservation), the online museum listings for the Vienna and German houses shields (plus additional information on the VistasGallery site listings by Fordham), and 1 book chapter (in Hassig's "Aztec Warfare"), but I've looked at dozens of different publications on just 4 surviving specimens before, let alone on Aztec shields generally (so also including stuff from historical sources) and/or on feather mosaics generally which may also touch upon the shields. I'd link a bunch of additional papers, videos from research groups, etc, but TH-cam tends to not like links in comments, so I'll just refer people to those, and mention that Dr. Laura Filoy Nadal has published a lot about the surviving shields, even tracking down the exact bird species the feathers were sourced from and how the Aztec trade network would have had to acquire them, as one example.
Is this your thesis?
@@terenceblakely4328 Nope, Mesoamerica is just a hobby of mine
@channelingdarkness7068 Mesoamerica is an underrated historical topic generally, not just for military history: Misinformation about it is rampant, as is off-base preconceived assumptions, and there's an absurd amount of cool information, history, art, architecture, etc that most people have absolutely no idea exists because it's simply not taught about or depicted in media. As an example, one of my favorite examples of Mesoamerican engineering is Texcotzinco, which was a royal ceremonial retreat and luxury estate for kings of the Aztec city of Texcoco: It was located on a large hill or small mountain, and had baths, shrines, palace compounds (and on that note, mesoamerican architecture was actually covered in smooth stucco and then adorned with painted murals and frescos, sometimes with mica flakes mixed into the paint so it glittered and looked metallic, plus had stuff like engraved reliefs, large sculptural facades etc as accents: They only look like grey cobblestone today due to erosion) botanical gardens and an aviary. The water for it's gardens and baths were sourced via a mountain spring located 5 miles away, and the aqueduct which brought it to Texcotzinco, at some points, rose over 150 feet above ground level, and had a series of pools and channels to regulate the water's flow rate. When the water actually arrived at Texcotzinco, it formed a circuit around the mountain's peak, flowed into the baths, fountains, etc, then formed waterfalls to water the terraced gardens at the hill's base, which were organized into different sections to emulate different Mexican biomes and ecosystems.
As far as Military history stuff specifically, I think people drastically underestimate both the complexity and variety of Mesoamerican military equipment, as well as the amount of sources we have about different specific wars and campaigns by/between different states and kings. For the former, for example, Mesoamerican troops, you know, had actual armor: So often media depicts Mesoamerican people and cities as being hobbled together from rags, bones, and stone, but as I noted before about how Mesoamerican architecture was actually richly adorned (and so to were their cities actual cities with infrastructure, not just a few temples surrounded by jungle), similarly their clothing was things like cloaks and blouses and robes with colorful floral, geometric, and mythological motifs and embroidery, there were actual gold, jade, turquiose, etc jewelry, and I talked about feather mosaics above in my intial comment. For armor, while some soldiers yes, would have been mostly uncovered if lower ranked and depending on the specific society, but gambeson tunics, vests, and suits were widely used, and often high status soldiers then also had warsuits, tunics, etc additionally worn over that covered in feather mosaic, you had helmets, shields (which I talked about), greaves, even some metal mail made from gold or copper, and "breastplates" made from wood or wicker (potentially, these may just be weirdly shaped gambeson pieces)
There's a ton of variety with weapons, too: People know about Macuahuitl, of course, but there's a lot of variation in how those are depicted (one handed, two handed; large spaces between the blades vs the blades being flush with one another to form a continuous cutting edge, square blades vs triangular, etc) as well as other totally different weapon types: There's other bladed or serrated or studded clubs or "swords", including some L or boomerang shaped ones and/or some which were curved/arced like a kopesh; as well as more traditional clubs, bat shaped clubs (which could be studded or flanged) or sharpened wooden batons; as well as maces with ball or torus flanged shaped striking heads, depending on how you interpret some accounts, some may have even had spiked morning star heads! For polearms, you had simple spears with singular points, some which had additional serrations along the side of the shaft, while others had the entire striking portion/head end covered in serrations or blades instead of having a thrusting point (the Aztec Tepoztopilli is an example of this, and was apparently used for slashing like a halbred alongside thrusts). Some were 12+ foot long like pikes, while some were shorter then typical polearm length, almost like glaives, with a macuahuitl or other bladed head just placed on a short staff. You also have axes, some with stone blades (in some cases, being more like war-picks in shape, some with multiple blades/points) and others with copper or bronze axheads, etc.
I was going to go on to talk about some specific campaigns and wars, like the Aztec-Purepecha conflict, but I'll just say that if you want to read about Aztec militarism and want a good place to start, to check out Hassig's "Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control", which is THE gold standard overview on the topic, is approachable for laymen, covers both warfare, equipment, the geopolitics of Aztec expansionism and political influence, and goes over the different campaigns and conflicts we have recorded under different Aztec emperors; though It sadly ignores a fair amount of obscure armor and weapon variations seen in manuscripts and sculptures, and some may argue it understates the ritualism in Aztec warfare... however, most people drastically OVERSTATE the presence of ritualism (no, soldiers didn't avoid killing each other just to take captives, though taking captives was a part of warfare), and Hassig's work does a good job pointing that out, it's just that because part of the thesis of his work is to focus on the pragmatic realities of Aztec militarism, the ritual aspects aren't his focus.
They sound similar to the wicker-work shields of the Persians, but with the hide covering like the Zulu sheilds.
@@aelfredrex8354 I don't know much about either the Persians or Zulu, but yeah, I could see the comparsion, except that I'd emphasize the opulence and artistry of the feather mosiac fronting. I really cannot stress enough how mind blowing some of the more ornate feather mosaic pieces are that survived and were made for the Spanish (for real, look some up!), they look like the finest catholic paintings you've ever seen, but iridesecent and glittering. None of the mosaics on the surviving shields are as detailed, but the technique is Prehispanic and accounts mention similar detailed pieces being made pre-contact.
@Skallagrim , I think the Romans went with center grip because of the regional/period preference for javelins and particularly the invention of the pilum. The pilum's wide tip, long narrow shank, and heavier shaft was optimized not only for penetrating a shield, but having enough reach/momentum to hit the person behind it. If you have a strap shield and the pilums come flying, even if you don't get your arm skewered you can't extend your shield out far enough to put comfortable distance between yourself and the pilums' pointy end.
I read in Dando-Collins "Caesar's Legion" that a pilum could potentially pierce two overlapping shields, effectively nailing them together. No idea if that's true, but it would be rad if it was.
Definetly not.
A) pila were soley used by romans, why would romans design their equipment as if they would be regulary fighting romans.
B) Pilums actually had reduced penetration power. The long soft metalshaft means much of the impact energy is lost on impact, as the pilum deforms. This was however by design, as instead of maybe hitting a dudes arm with enough force to cause a scratch, you definetly would disable his shield with 1-2 kgs of weight sticking to it, which he could not pull out again.
the roman "fencing" technique in battles relied heavily on a bash with the shield boss, to open up the enemy for a stab to the lower torso. Which means for an unarmored opponent end of fight.
@@stephanpetri262
1)The roman kit originated fighting other italians who used the same equipment that they did.
2) The pilums did not deform. That's a dated hypothesis. Modern historians believe quite strongly that the long shank was to pierce shields.
@@malcolmclancytv2262 The kit was designed to fight samnites and eutruscans and the like, who all had equipment similar to the romans.
I'm partial to the Kite shield. Solid defenses, but more maneuverability than the Scutum, and still very serviceable as a weapon. *Tell me how the grass tastes, little man!*
Same
Well, Shadiversity seems to agree with you on that according to his video on which shield is the best.
Does anybody else think that guy got a concussion?
@@michaelfranciotti3900In that helmet?
@@magicoofmac8904 helmets can't protect you from your brain hitting the inside of your skull (aka concussion). A lot of football players suffer traumatic brain injuries despite wearing helmets.
I think Rome went for a Centre grip shield because the way the bar to hold it was set made it easier to rest on the ground.
As for the best Shield.....I want to say Pavese, not just because you could carry it, but you have your own little wall too. Worked great for the Genoese Crossbowmen.
For dueling I've found the celtic/germanic center grip oval type to be extremely useful, especially with a tall boss. You can hold it vertically and pivot off the calf for excellent defensive coverage, or put it high and brace on your upper arm with the point forward to fight very aggressively and control distance. And with a tall boss you have the ability to trap or deflect in other ways too. Great balance of coverage against maneuverability and versatility. Going from that to a kite shield in the context of a small skirmish in hot weather was rough, as a kite shield has to be a lot thicker to be protective since your arm lays across it and the whole thing is held close to the body
I think one thing people don't realize about the Roman sputum is they valued maneuverability ever since the 3rd Samnite war, the center grip gave them more versatility when outnumbered, which they often were despite Hollywood depictions, and allowed them to hold the shield further from them.
Not to mention you can do all kinds of other cool formations other than a standard shield wall with them. You can't do those with a strapped shield.
The Romans' choice of a center grip had nothing to do with maneuverability. Their shields' size, weight, and shape limited motion far more than properly designed/arranged straps would, particularly in close formation. In fact, considering the scutum's weight, straps would probably have _improved_ maneuverability, as they offer greater leverage.
However, strapped shields also would've left a lot of legionnaires with shields stapled to their arms by arrows and nailed to any and every body part by pila. Being able to hold the shield away from the body, as you mentioned, would've been massively advantageous, if not essential, given the Roman's tactics and armor technology.
@irrelevantfish1978 A strapped shield would have limited the movements possible with a shield, a center grip allowed the shield to be held both higher and lower, while a strapped shield would be better in a normal phalanx, the Roman's fought with either relatively short spears or short swords, so they needed to move around the shield rather than moving the shield around them. Although the point about arrows is interesting, I hadn't considered that.
@@potatolord2196 Please tell me which movements you're talking about, because aside from holding the shield away from you, I can think of none made possible by a center-grip that wouldn't expose more of your body, clonk a friendly, and/or have no practical value with a shield as large and heavy as a scutum.
@irrelevantfish1978 Lifting above your headwithout turning the shield, holding it in your left hand, holding it at unusual angles in general, and letting go of the shield, which doesn't have much use in the battle but us good for skirmishes and just more convenient in a camp.
I've read that the Roman scutum had a horizontal grip (which showed in the picture you used in this video), so the wielder could lift and hold it with their fist pointing down at the ground - much less tiring to use it that way, and the size of the shield meant that the reduced maneuverability wasn't much of an issue.
The grip orientation helps, but it's still comparatively clunky.
The center horizontal grip helped for the testudo formation too, since it allows to extend the arm further away from the body while better controlling the shiled than a vertical grip in this specific context (the horizontal grip allows a more relaxed grip and the possibility to flex the wrist in the "direction" of the scutum). Furthermore, a centered grip allow to put the lower end of the scutum on the ground when not in use while being ready to use in case of a moment of rest for the legionary, while a strapped shield needs to be slipped on and off
And the scutum was used in a time where javelins were still largely used, so it allowed to keep the shield further from your body in case of "javelin fire" from the enemy, and to just "release" the shield if eventual javelins got stuck in the shield, making it feeling heavier in the front with their long leaver
The Roman Republic originally used Greek style Hoplon Shields, fighting in classic Phalanx formations with 8ft Spears. The Romans soon switched to elongated Scutums, and ditched the Spear for Short-Swords and Heavy-Javalins. Why did they switch? My best guess: The 3-meter wide Hoplon shield required a tight phalanx formation, and Romans wanted more versitility. Also, the Romans could thrust around the Scutum sides, while still protecting their front. A Hoplon had to "open up" for sword thrusts.
@@Skallagrim Roman have knees, just crouch-spread your legs to shorten your height.
The Scutum basically sits on the ground when sisto=stop, bini aut ue=pair/brace to resist any missiles except when you march in formation pro/forward.
Why the advance on any position was done in lulls & why 1 or more pilum thrown relatively close at about 16 to 30 yards in stages if possible before engaging in melee with gladius/sword unlike any army till Rome or even later it was mimicked with little success as they didn't understand the underline principals.
Romans didn't like enemy projectiles so they carried Scutum to make the effectively nullified.
Roman scutum as well as castra =camps & forts is what set them apart.
I recommend Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus epitomes in what most see as 4 complete works that concern military matters.
It is the only complete Roman military treatise from the late Rome unfortunately nothing earlier survives intact.
Romans fought nothing like any that came before due to (manipular formations) rather then front lines slamming into each other.
Roman were fighting checker formations while everyone else was still using line formations even after for the most part.
The Romans were fighting a completely different type of warfare to those they engaged.
Only Carthage proved a temporary obstacle due to their superior cavalry that the Romans adopted a lot from then improved upon.
10:25 The thing that would worry me about strapped shields is arrow penetration. Check out Tod's Workshop's tests of arrows vs shield in "Do shields stop arrows?" Arrows would technically be "stopped," but would still penetrate and could go through into the arm even with chainmail. So imo the Scutum's center grip shield makes sense. A center grip pairs well with a simple metal boss, which would prevent arrow penetration through the hand/arm.
And btw another plus of the Scutum is its curved shape which I wish you could've elaborated on more. We can guess that the curve makes it more difficult to manufacture, but more effective against arrows and controlling enemy attacks in melee.
Edit: and like others have mentioned a javelin (whether it be from enemies or from a pilum from a fellow Roman) could also penetrate shields pretty well.
There is a very good reason Strapped shields only became prominent in the era of heavily armored soldiers; the Greek Hoplite shields were used with relativeely light armor (often nothing on the arms) but that's because these shields are generally tought to have been very thick and heavy to the point where they likely could not be penetrated by most projectiles of the time; in most other places it is the same idea; Strapped shields are often smaller and thicker (and more often metal-clad) exactly to prevent those deep penetrations; Tod's tests show particalarly powerful bows going through shields from close range at roughly 90deg angles of impact, often (though not always) there would be more layers of armor protecting the arm beneath that shield and most battlefield situations would not have everything set up so perfectly to favor the bow; the tests do a good job showing the top range of damage that can be dealt to a shield.
PIla are pretty cool weapons; the way they can "reach behind" a shield after penetrating it is impressive; those things would cause absolutely massive disruption to enemy battle lines if thrown from close range; honestly, based on their effectiveness I find it surprising that Pilum-like weapons went out of fashion so early in medieval history; perhaps it was a result of the smaller scale of battles in that time making it's particular merits less valuable compared to just using a long fighting spear; the Angon does seem to have been more specialised for throwing than the Pilum was. (most Angons being barbed makes them less than ideal for use in melee)
I’ve always thought that the main consideration should be “what am I looking to shield myself *from*?”.
Arrows, big shield that doesn’t need to be nimble. Single opponent, something smaller and nimbler. What is my opponent likely to be armed with? And so on.
CONTEXT
I never really thought too deeply on the reason shields are how they are and the variations . Very informative, I learned a lot thank you :)
And even in battles, as you mentionned, skirmish and large pitch battles are different things, but also siege ! A shield to protect yourself while climbing a ladder, or while reloading a crossbow also has their own requirement :)
The interesting thing about the Gou-Rang is, that it looks like it could serve as a decent weapon in a pinch. Those hooks look pretty nasty.
But you don't have the structure (if you don't modify it) ; it would be pretty akward
Well, practically any shield can be weaponised. I don't think anyone would shy away from a shield strike if they get the chance (and said chance happens to be better than that for their weapon).
Part of why the Romans went with center-grip is because they valued maneuverability in their tactics, and they used way more formations than just shield walls and tortoise. Strap-grip is great for less maneuver-intensive tactics, like you said, but if you try to make your army a battlefield speed demon then you're going to have a harder time. So, I (and the Romans) like the scutum shield since it can do both; big and heavy enough to stand up in slower formations, but the center-grip allows it to be used in a versatile and faster fighting.
I also like the kite shield since it's grip design can be both a center grip and a strap grip, as Shadiveristy demonstrated on one of his older videos.
According to some modern research the Romans didn't actually fight in a close formation. The front rank would move forward to engage the front rank of the enemy, they did this so the soldiers had room to move. Centurions always fought in the front and their job was to be aggressive and urge their fellow soldiers to actually be aggressive to, since the natural tendency of anyone is to just hold your shield out in front of you and keep the enemy at bay, this is why Centurions had a higher casualty rate than regular Legionaries.
I should also add that the Romans mass-produced their equipment, which may be why they went with square shields, because they are easier to mass-produce than oval shields (at least I would think so).
Personally my choice for shield would be for personal body sized round shield with both center grip & strapped features, of course with the sling. Personal body sized is important imo since sometimes a bigger person would find a round shield like viking shield to be rather small, while smaller person would find rather big instead.
Now that's for design only. I would argue the biggest factor for the best shield should be the materials, which one are the best for overall defensive capability, the weight, easy to maintenance, & the best techs for its durability.
a WELL ROUNDED explanation Mr Skall! Thank You very much for another awesome video
This thing about viking "shieldwalls" Was something I would have never put thought into, but I've Heard of similar things, likes horses of the seas meaning Ships.
Very cool video, as always.
My call would be the square-topped kite shield. It has useful corners for counter-punching against blows, and is long enough to protect the forward leg as well. Useful with a center grip, you'll have more control with an arm strap instead.
I guess it's the same answer as what is the best sword
wtf katana is not a best shield tho....
@@rapidtreal4612of course. Never heard of dual wielding swords ? With a katana on your Offhand you are unbeatable 😅
@@Dennis-lp7xe you can't dual wield Katanas it's against Genova convection
The Katana.
I do agree on the Kite Shield, it is about as close to a perfect shield as possible for medieval battlefield use. Also of note, the Kite Shield was known to be both strapped and center gripped, though the presence of a boss was not always indictive of center grip design.
The Gou-Rang is definitely interesting, but I guess it is pretty much hard-countered by stabbing weapons like Rapiers. Then it becomes a smallish buckler with weird protrusions that don't do a whole lot.
But were there popular rapier like swords in the far East? Based on the stuff Skall has covered, they had generally less armor, so more cutting weapons, less thrusting. I don't know.
Don't think so. Thrusts are relatively easy to displace (and that is one of the reasons parrying daggers were used agains rapiers to a greater extend than against more cut-oriented swords). I've never held a hooked shield in my life though, but by the looks of it, I would imagine that displacing thrusts with it might be MUCH easier than with a normal buckler. It might be even easier than with parring dagger, at least if the grip allows you for a handshake grip or something similar.
@@Wild.Beaver Jians can be veeeery nimble with thir thrusts. Not exactly "thrust-centric", but they are good at that. And they have coexisted with that type of shields, at least, as far as I can tell from a fast search
I think the reason why the scutum was centergrip was because of the testudo formation. It's easier to pick up and hold up a shield with a centergrip shield than a strapped shield. And if we look at the testudo, the shield is concaved into the soldier, so a centergrip is needed over a strapped shield in that case. That's my speculation, let me know what y'all think.
Edit: Shad would be proud by your statement
And once combat doctrine (on a personal scale) had come up with a very efficient way of using a gladius-scutum combo, changing the scutum would be a problem- even if your results were better after a few decades of development, that's still a few decades of development, instead of your perfectly good current set up. They were at a local maximum, in a sense.
Also, if you have a shield as expansive as the scutum, the lessened mobility of a strapped shield could limit your offensive options -particularly when you have to attack towards the front due to the formation.
I was wondering if the pilum has anything to do with it. When Tod was testing the pilum with his javelin throwing friend, I recall the national javelin thrower struggled to throw while holding onto a shield. Maybe easier to discard for a throw?
@@Sa1d1n Metatron actually showed that the scutum can be set down and then you can throw the pilum. The scutum is more for the plumbata and gladius
I wonder how far a soldier in the second line of the formation could extend his shield over his front line comrades. Keep in mind that the shield forming the roof need to lifted above your head, which basically limits your left elbow to being within +-25cm of directly above your head. Unless you are using a center grip, in which case you can extend your left hand to 60cm forward of your head. (At that point you would just be keeping the shield in the correct position on top of the shields of the lines in front of you and behind you; the weight of your shield would basically be carried by those shields.)
And the further your body can be from where the shield needs to go to rest on the (vertical) shield of the person in front of you, the more room you are giving them to maneuver.
The scutum was center grip because it gave it flexibility. The Romans started off using the Greek phalanx formation and the same equipment as the Greeks (and pretty much the rest of the mediterranean world.) They switched to the scutum when they switched to the manipular formation which was done when fighting the Samnites, who lived in the mountains of south-central Italy. The manipular formation allowed the Romans to fight in uneven terrain while still maintaining some unit cohesion and the scutum allowed for both good coverage while in tight formation while its center grip gave it more maneuverability in looser formations when the Legionnaire was more likely to have to engage in single combat. Also remember that the scutum's grip is horizontal and not vertical like in the Scandinavian shields which makes it easier to carry and maneuver for its size, this last is coming from experience using both. The shape of the shield and placement of the grip had nothing to do with the testudo formation as that was adopted long after the scutum was in use.
Loved the video, Skal! Keep up the great work! As a long time viewer, it was cool to remember some of the shields you've talked about in the past, especially in comparison with each other!
*Max Easton hiding behind the scene, trying to holding himself back from saying "context".*
Great video I love your pragmatic approach to the topic. Whenever talking about shields in history I always think of the battle of ilandlwanna 1879 where zulus where able to successfully defend against musket fire by wetting their leather shields leading to a victory of melee force against guns
@zombiesteve566 If memory serves, the British also technically ran out of ammunition at that battle. They had plenty of cartridges, but the majority were contained in *very* sturdy wooden crates that were screwed shut and couldn’t be opened readily.
Perfect video! You start off with the obvious blanket point "The one that works best for you, because no one is the same" and then go on discuss your opinins on what you like! I feel like people have a problem with this balance. Some go with "this thing is the unarguably best version of thst type of thing, end of discussion" while others dismiss all options with "Well, there is so such thing, all of these things sre relative, any discussion is just futile." The truth is, while everything is relative, the statement can still be a good opener for a discussion that may enlighten and inform us on things we never thought of.
The Scutum is a centre gripped shield, but with a *horizontal* bar to grip on to, rather than the expected vertical one: this might have made it possible to "rest" the shield just by holding it with the arm straight down. The added offensive impact impact of have a bossed shield also makes sense when it's combined with the gladius: you're going to be at a reach disadvantage against most opponents, so once you do get at close range, you want the offensive power to overwhelm them as quickly as possibly. Lastly, the elliptical "celtic" shield was not uniquely Celtic, it's more likely that the Romans got it from the Lucanians, Samnites, or some other Italian tribal grouping than the distant Gauls who only settled in the Po Valley in the 4th Century BC.
My first Mount and blade experience was a mod called Bretwalda. I remember being in this skirmish and all my guys were in shield wall. and the enemy got close and a flurry of missle weapons came at us. stones, slings, javalines, axes, spears... all clanging against our shield. I knew then and there, nobody would ever charge into battle in that era without a shield.
Clearly the best shield is the one in your hand. The worst shield is the one in the other guy's hand
I think the disadvantage of a strap is that it puts your arm against the shield. In a Roman battlefield they'd be facing enemies who are chucking spears/javelins/pilums at them. Those will go through the shield and injure your arm in a strap shield. With a boss protecting a center grip, though, you lose the shield, but you're still fighting effective, especially if you can drop the speared shield and get another from your mates.
Curious about what you said about the shield wall. I remember reading from awhile back an account from a monk (I think?) during the Siege of Paris where he described the Norseman as forming a testudo so I’ve always had that picture sort of in my head
The Kite Shield is definitely one of the best. I've had one built with an X-pattern trap design that allows for center-grip or strap, with a guige strap, and also a handle closer to the bottom. In this way, it is possible to keep the shield very close to the body with your arm relaxed hanging down. It becomes more like an elongated sleeve shield.
You are my favourite history channel by far. You and a few other smaller creators are holding out against the algorithm and bless you for it. Shadiversity has obviously become a kid's channel with editing similar to other scrub channels and Metatron is just a reaction/drama channel at this point. I know it it difficult to respond to this in fear of souring relationships with the other medieval channels, I just wanted you to know you have our support and we are not blind to your injustice.
More of a HEMA channel, a lot of history isn't discussed on this channel, because it isn't history channel.
I kinda agree with you. Although I too have to limit that in similar regards as @Wild.Beaver does, as I find Skal to be focused on historical weapons. He is more focused on this niche (with the openness to some popcultures) & shines with his more practical approaches, humour & good editing. I also find Skal seems to be quite humble, very self critical, up to very harsh with himself & overall a chill & sensible guy. Especially the humility is something I don't think that many bigger creators share (or they don't show it, idk).
Especially what you say about Metatron & Shad I must agree. I de subscribed Shad years ago. I found him always too loud for my taste, too sensational, too artificial (eg his project of a fake castle I found very annoying). And Metatron is just a raging guy nowadays. I don't watch history stuff to get angry. I just wanna concentrate on an interesting topic of practical military history and its applications to enjoy calmly with a smirk on my face.
In larger channels I still like Matt Easton's Scholagladiatoria. Nowadays it feels like some of his videos are repeating elder ones of him. Also I find his recent sensationalist speaking habits tiring & I find he stresses a bit too much how much of an expert he is (I'm not saying, he isn't, but stressing it so much is a bit annoying to me personally. I understand, that he does it to get more views, what is fair). However I like his meme words (eg context) & he regularly releases interesting new & niche videos. Also this combination with actual antique swords I often find quite nice.
@@caspar_van_walde You got mad because the guy built a play fort for his children? Really?
@@bloodleader5 Negative. This is not what I meant. It was quite some years ago when he bought some land to build some castles out of carton or so (idk for sure anymore, but I don't care enough for that to check, what it was), so it might be we don't even mean the same thing. But this is not of big significance. What annoyed me was, that he made such a big deal out of it, as if he started Guédelon 2.0. And mad isn't the right description at all for what I thought. It was more, that I found his communication style annoying. It's less about that one project, rather that was the point (or at least that, I can remember) where I noticed, Shad's videos don't interest me anymore. Sometimes when his vids where suggested to me I tried to watch, but I found little fun in that. But that obviously doesn't mean he or his projects are bad or so. Just not my thing.
Shad realized the money was in being a right wing troll and so embraced that lifestyle. Hard to do if you aren't a hateful bigot already though.
Love the Greek Aspi myself. Not as big as some shield but good protection from projectiles.
Just considering whether the user has to deal with arrow volleys or not seems like it'd play a giant factor in what shield is "best". I think it'd be interesting to look at bow usage in war vs shield development and see if they correlated or not.
It would also matter what kind of arrow volleys. Very powerful bows can shoot dangerously far through some of the thinner shields, while lighter bows could be fine.
The centre grip may also help to deal with shots coming partially through the shield by allowing more distance between your body and the shield.
My theory for why the Romans used the center grip is so that when the guy in front went down, it didn't drag their shield down with them, the guy behind could move up easier if the shield could either be held up if noticed in time, or moved out from underfoot easier if you were not limited to moving it attached to your fallen comrade.
Also, logistically speaking, as much marching as they did, carrying it with a straight arm vertically while possibly resting the top on your shoulder would be much less fatiguing on the arm than carrying it with a bent elbow, as they carried their shields vertically so as not to smack those behind or in front of them or THEIR shields.
Damn, that Order of the Dragon shield looks neat. It would be a good choice for me to buy considering I'm Romanian ;)
Also, for anyone wondering, the inscription is "O quam misericors est Deus, justus et paciens" (O how merciful is God, just and patient)
Literally scrolled through comments just to find this. Thank you!!
Pavise and crossbow/arquebus, another acceptable example of "twirling" and turning your back to the enemy
You may still want to put the Pavise on the ground and stay apart from it, just in case some enemy arrows penetrate it partially (e.g. get halfway through before running out of momentum).
Loved this video. Informative and entertaining, as always. I truly hope you've been having a good week Skall😇
The daos in the background look beautiful! the sheath adds so much to the presentation
I think Roman Shields probably can work well when held with the arm straight down at the side. Doing so would be far less tiring than holding the shield up in front of you. I've never had a chance to try but it's seems so in my mind's eye.
That targe at the beginning, what a beautiful piece of art 😍
I've read that, according to period sources, the rectangular scutum fell out of favor because it was too easy for soldiers on guard duty to fall asleep leaning on the more stable rectangular shield, where the oval one would tend to let a sleeping soldier fall over.
Ha! Nice one, but i rather think that being beaten to a pulp by your tent mates would be enough to keep them aweake. If in hostile territory, a sleeping sentry could be burned alive. I think they fell out because of cost; flat shields were lighter, used less resources.
@@Lollygagger-k4p Late Roman round shields like those found at Dura Europos were concave, not flat. They were however cheaper to make due to not using pseudo-plywood construction and, in general, not using as much material overall.
Thanks. They always look flat in artistic renderings.@@docholiday7975EDIT: According to Wiki, both dished and flat shields have been found at Dura Europas. I think by the ending deacdes of Roma, theywere a pretty much mixed bag of equipment, with both their enemies and the Romans having pretty similar panoply. Lots of "barbarian" troops brought their own weapons as well, including clothing. It's hard to say whether centuries of Roman influence changed the barbarian's panoply or whether the changing style of warfare changed everyone's during the same couple of centuries.
*Here is my generalized perspective.*
- Round shields for duels and small scale formations/battles like you said, because their surface and impact force are more predictable, plus you can use them as weapons more easily.
- Elongated shields for formation combat, because in formation they will cover the most area and interfere with the people next to you less. Plus they are better to hunker down with but that requires your flanks to be covered by someone.
A wall is the pinnacle of shield min-maxing. It has a massive area of protection in exchange for literally all of its ability to maneuver or carry it effectively.
the other pinnacle being "no shield"
The brick is the best shield, allowing mobile easy to build shields and ammunition for ranged combat.
So Maple from Bofuri taken literally?
(She isn’t a wall, she’s just Tammy as hell but slower than a turtle.)
I appreciate you! I'm doing research for a book and want characters to use different type of shields. Your videos have always been informative!
I know this’s a shot in the dark that you’ll respond to this, but are there suits of armor where the shield is built into the gauntlet or forearm of a suit of armor?
The lantern shield has an integral gauntlet
There are shields that have built in gauntlets, often combined with a blade, spikes, pistol, lantern what ever you liked.
but often we find that armour replaces a shield, large one piece gauntlet / forearm are comon for cavalry.
The argument about the viking shieldwall reminded me of the reaction video Skal did to Matt Patt(?) complains about For Honour... in it Skal refers to the accounts of a monk who was present when the vikings attacked Paris where he recognized them using a testudo formation when attacking the walls. I happen to think its a bit of the same thing with the shield wall... it is something others have described the vikings using, because they themselves have seen it described elsewhere, but its more like the vikings just happened to know how shields work... like its not exactly Tsun Tzu levels that are needed to figure out to put the shield between yourself and whatever harm is coming your way.
Something like a lantern shield with an extending blade strikes me as likely one of the best options for civilian use, along with the Gou-Rang. A number of Renaissance fencing texts are surprisingly critical of medium-sized shields for dueling. George Silver didn't think the sword & target was that great. Girard Thibault gave techniques to defeat rapier & target with rapier alone, & seemed to think this was relatively easy. Domingo Luis Godinho grouped sword & dagger, sword & buckler, two swords, & sword & shield all together, giving no indication that sword & shield has any particular advantage. Etc. On the other hand, some Iberian masters wrote highly of sword & shield.
This was kinda perfect timing. I was talking to a friend about shields a few days ago and the tradeoffs between different things.
So this is brilliant.
I've always liked the idea of a jack of all trades soldier, equipped with light armor, an arming sword, a mace as a secondary weapon, and of course, a medium shield. I never really considered WHICH shield though. I guess in the end it really depends on the context of the fight, after all.
Kite shield, maneuverable, medium to light weight, good protection, pairs well with a mace or arming sword. For a light foot soldier this would be good.
a roaming bandit with a brigandine, a spear, a short singled edge sword or knife, and a gou-rang might be pretty cool.
@skallagrim As a Larper who uses a tower shield, the reason I believe it is center grip is first formations like the turtle are easier to do without your arm strapped up to it, you can get angles that would better deflect falling rock as well. Also in wall formation it is easier to collapse to the back rank without a strapped shield, as if your shield is broken it can always be dropped and you pulled back, or it needed faster to pickup and reform the wall. Finally yes you can rest them on the ground they can even stand on their own, and make a great leaning rest.
Just to add on a thing you can do with a Kite shield. Shadivers has already made a simple video about "Which is the best shield" and a dedicated video about which the Kite Shield is the best shield, so I do wish for people to watch it for more stuff about the Kite Shield. What you can also do is carry it over your back, there are examples of it being used when riding horses aswell. Not to mention if we have to rule out armor, if someone were to try and sneak up on you (minu the dagger at least cause that will make a difference) then it is easy to imagine the attacker to be forced to meet within your eyes reach. Minus that, it is great for traveling to let it hang on your back with a belt strap and a great deal of coverage with it to defend your back aswell for whatever surprises that might happen. Oh!!! There is also more than one way to strap the Kite Shield to your arm so it is pretty versatile aswell.
I like the introduction to a lot of different shields. Good episode.
I love the Scottish Targe. Best all-round choice.
Kinda lacking on protection though.
Regarding that of viking shield formations, we do actually have sources from france that specify what they looked like, and their wording was that of a "testudo" as the french defenders attempted to ward them off using arrows, but found little effect because of this formation.
Just a tid bit I heard from someone speaking of viking shields before, can't remember where, you might have more luck finding it.
The monk Abbon, during the siege of Paris in 887 (not sure about the year)
Hello Skal! About the roman scutum deriving from the celtic shield: both the celtic shield and the roman scutum derived from two different types of etruscan shields (one plain and one concave). But both the etruscans and the romans put aside the scutum in favor of the greek argive shield (the etruscans from the padan valley continued to use it though) and when the celts became their conquest and pillage of central italy the romans had to readopt the scutum as the hoplite phalanx was very weak against celtic warfare. If you look at the situla of certosa for example you can see etruscans using both argives and scuta
My personal favorite is the hussar shield. Relatively light, protects a large area, can be worn either by handgrib or bandolier strap, and it curves around you to protect against attacks from behind as well to a certain degree.
Before watching, I would say the Scutum, and my reasoning is that the design of every other shield was predicated upon what weapon you used, whereas with the scutum it was (arguably) the other way around. It was also v effective at the time, though obviously the nature of warfare changed.
It was supposed to weigh about 22lbs. Not the best spec, if fighting someone one on one and having to move around a lot. It worked best, when fighting in formation.
@@leofedorov1030 I will admit to a bias towards large scale pitched battles in my thinking.
@@terrenusvitaeScutum was most definitely suited well for those.
In the words of Matt Easton (schola gladiatoria): CONTEXT!
Good vid as usual Skall. Though a couple of small comments / corrections:
- The Romans actually did use the Hoplon / Aspis (Argive Shield) for some 200 years before adopting the scutum universally.
- The use of the scutum by the Romans should not surprise us. The Romans placed much emphasis on the combat skill of the individual soldier, which is why they typically used looser formations than many other cultures at the time, thereby providing each individual legionary enough room to properly use his shield and weapons. Additionally, the scutum is at the same time large enough to enable a close-order shield wall if the need arises. So the scutum (in its various iterations) makes 100% sense given Roman fighting doctrine.
The Roman scutum was the best shield, and you touched on the reason - it was used more effectively than any other shield.
Obviously some shields are better for mounted combat or skirmishers or whatever, and the viking shield must be noted for sheer perfection in versatility, (and you just got there. Yay you agree!) But the Roman scutum created an actual battlefield obstacle that opponents struggled to bypass.
Great video Skall, I’m excited for the next one.
A lot of the strapped ones are also cavalry focused, (Kite shield and heater etc) so you can have it on your arm while your hands are holding the stirrups of the horse.
What you were saying about how the Roman empire wouldn't have saved itself from falling if its armies were better equipped is absolutely *true* ; the opening cutscene to Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord makes that perfectly clear.
"But, like men, empires grow *old* .
Leaders *lose* a common cause.
*Corruption* spreads.
Old foes *master* the empires tricks...
And devise *new* ones of their *own* .
And eventually, the bonds holding the empire together, *snap* ; then comes the *civil* war, pitting *all* against *all* ."
With that outta the way, I can see where you're coming from with your stance on strapped shields vs center grip shields too; if you're in a situation in which you have to hold your shield up for a long time, like in a defensive formation or jousting, it *would* make more sense to distribute the shields weight over *more* of your arm; mobility wouldn't be so big a concern in that case. Center grip on the other hand would be better suited for smaller scale combat, in which the shield would need to be a weapon *itself* .
Shield fan here: YES! finaly a video on shields! they are so underrepresented!
Good objective discussion. As always, any battlefield instrument is a question of optimization. There will always be give and take.
As for shield walls: Anglo-Saxons fought essentially the same as Vikings & at the battle of Hastings, as far as I'm aware, the A-S used a shield wall albeit with kite shields which may not have overlapped. So while not Viking & from the end of the Viking era shield walls seem to be a thing. I think you could be right in thinking shields didn't overlap as that would make a stronger position it would limit individual mobility especially if breaking off to fight in smaller groups. Perhaps the Norse referred to a small group or a large group as shield wall? Maybe shield wall was a kenning but also literal; Norse did love multiple meanings.
I just find it hard to believe that in larger pitched battles, which the Vikings definitely had, that no defensive tactic like a shield wall would have been employed.
Some interesting points to consider. Well reasoned and presented.
Hey Skall and anyone else who is interested there’s this group of Scandinavian reanactors who call themselves the hirddmen. And they actually do authentic shield vs early medieval weapon tests plus multiple other things.
It appears that an application of layers of linen and animal glue was applied to many Carolingian/Norman/Scandinavian shields. It can significantly increase the durability and resistance to penetration of the "viking shield" . Leather and or layers of both it, glue, and textile are reinforcement methods that have been used all over the world as well from Zulu hide shields that were surprisingly useful against muskets, though not nearly as much against the quickly adopted rifles that followed. They bonded layers of thick bull hides together with simple glues.
I bet you have quite a lot of fun when you start digging through your armoury / collection, its awesome
You were right about bias. Imagining the grip for a tináa and it being red cedar, it worked for the beach raids. But that's my bias
Skallagrim, if I remember correctly about the older argive shields, when fighting in formation they would begin to shift because they'd want to stay behind the shield. This shift in formation would be seen in both armies (if both fighting with the argive shield style) but would cause a change in battle tactics and how the generals would engage the armies. When the Romans went to the typical scutum, they would be removing some of the desire to shift the formation. This would allow the formation to stay as they were deployed and not begin to shift on the battle field. I believe this single trait would lead to the Romans changing from the argive shields to a more traditional scutum design even if not the full square shield.
haven't watched the channel for years,coming back
Heater shield is my fave. Very generalist, offers good protection and maneuverability, on and off horseback.
The shieldwall has since its first depiction on the stele of Vultures some 4500 years ago, been the most important formation for both trained and untrained infantry (not professionals like hoplites or legionaires). The shieldwall is also excellent since melee is a team sport; you combine your and your battle bros strength vs the others. Figthing alone or in open formations means that you wpukd face your strength off vs an opponents, and that will never end well, meaning that it is all about teamwork. The mesopotamians, babylonians, Egyptians, Persians etc used it with wicker shields. The vikings didn't upend all that with their Roundshields.
Warming rather shows that shieldwalls wouldn't have been static formations since you don't want your enemy to get close to wreck your wall. Instead you would, just like in the shieldwall of Hastings, counter an approaching enemy with spears and arrows. If the enemy got to close, you would have to engage ofc and try to break the enemy wall before they broke yours. Jagged formations like the maniple or svinfylking is excellent since you don't have to face an entire battle line along your own, but also makes it easier to push through the enemy line.
And also, looking at the vids on combatarchaeology, the shields are obviously fairly sturdy^^
"What XYZ is the best?"
"Best for what?"
Sir Context is always the most important one.
My all time favorite shield is the Heater Shield. It looks so nice and is a great balance of size and weight.
So what would be the best shield for a D&D style fantasy adventurer? And would that change if they were mounted? What about a flyong mount?
It would temd to me more dual or skirmish type encounters, but being outnumbered and facing arrows and other missiles) are commonplace.
So would we see a large, ovular, center grip? Or would we see kite shields?
I think we'd see the former on infantry and the latter on mounted.
As someone who's fought with a Celtic style shield that covered me from shoulders to ankles and weighed around 20lbs, it was indeed tiring and I ended up finding a way to rest it on my left shin if possible.
I got another one that was smaller, maybe from shoulders to knees, and less wide, and that was a huge difference. I have experience with Viking style shields, around the same size as yours, and it was similarly tiring to that.
I would love a video of yours with a scutum or talos (the Gaulish shield)!
Something important to note about the roman scutum is that while it is a center grip shield, it was a horizontal center grip shield which makes it relatively easy to carry because you have your arm straight down and not have it stick way out to the back like a kite shield. This is important when considering the context of it; indeed it was battlefield use, but into unknown hostile lands combined with the fact that the legionnaires had to carry it on the march against often poorly trained levied farmers. Battlefield use favours larger shields, but due to the risk of ambush and the fact that the legionnaires carried their shields on the march meant that it had to be reasonably comfortable to carry, while not swinging wildly and quick to bring up. Fighting against poorly trained levies means that the shield does not need to be super maneuverable.
Romans units emphasized mobility and rotation.
The units in front would not stay in front, after a period of time, the rear opens a gap, and the front line moves back, and the second line became the front line. A large shield with a boss, allows you to maneuver the shield better.
Question : would a strap on shield be closer to a piece of armor ?
Conversely : good armor is useful if it can protect from most fatal attacks , so what is an effective shield depends on the context ,
So really a "shield algorithm" to find the best shield for the given context would be tricky and would need several elements :
How free are you to move ?
How much do you need to move ?
What is the most common attack you face ?
How much can the best material you can carry protect you from that ?
And so on and so forth
And i bet such an hypotetical algorithm may come up with several solutions :
An heavier strap shield may be equivalent to a lighter center grip in some situations ...
Having war wagons to offer you protection /being in an enviroment wich offers plenty of cover may change everything still ...
And so on and so forth ...
No clue which is best. For which purpose? I did really like the spiked pavice Shad talked about. Always had a soft spot for the kite shields though.
Yeah, I'm a really big fan of the center grip viking shield. Its use might be contingent on the grip strength of your hand, but you can move it around so much better.
Could the center grip on the Roman shield be easier to hold over your head in that iconic formation?
From what I remember, the reason for the Roman center grip is practicality. The shield is big , heavy, bulky and had to be carried for miles upon miles.
Upposedlt you can't do that with a strap on so easily, it's easier if you can carry your shield like a suitcase. But you gave good points against it.
I can't remember sources right now, but it was mentioned in a few books, and there were a few videos testing ergonomics of shields. The community on yt isn't that big so I guess they should be easy to find, I'm way too lazy.
Spartan warriors also historically had a tactic of a kind of shield wall, typical to hold the front line from breaking. Nicely covered topic!