Install Raid for Free ✅ IOS/ANDROID/PC: pl.go-ga.me/ivsdorlu and get a special starter pack with an Epic champion ⚡ Drake⚡ Available only for new players 🎁 Use the promo code JTSKIN to get the Epic champion Stag Knight and a Skin for Stag Knight designed by JonTron! Don't miss your chance, the promo code is valid until October 7th, only for new players. 📱 If you are an iOS user, enter the promo code here: plarium.com/en/redeem/raid-shadow-legends/

@MR-backup

8 ай бұрын

You had me at gun shields; shut up and take my money!

@beepboop204

8 ай бұрын

the only shields i use are the latex kind 👀

@valkoharja

8 ай бұрын

Sound reasoning Matt.

Thanks for the response, Matt! The sheer amount of variation in history is overwhelming... There are things that fall in between, like the Indian Dhal, which is sized and shaped like a buckler and gripped in the center, but by two small straps instead of a rigid handle. Categorization can get really tricky. Yeah, the cavalry argument... I've never found it terribly convincing because strapped shields were used on foot in a number of different areas and time periods, and center-grip shields were used on horseback, too. Like you point out as well. Obviously not everything people did was 100% optimal at all times though. Good point about defending your legs. Unless you have a long kite shield it's more difficult than with a center-grip shield, so armor helps. Clearly the ancient Greeks agreed and combined their Argive shield with greaves. I'm kind of envious of how many different types of shields you have. :) But I'm trying to limit clutter in the space I have, so wouldn't want to add (m)any more anyway.

@scholagladiatoria

8 ай бұрын

You wouldn't be envious if you saw the trouble I have storing them! Cheers for the original video and for dropping by.

@trennantpiccolo5817

8 ай бұрын

The two titans of the sword community are commenting on each other. My two greatest inspirations. I know I am not worthy to join in this thread but I must at least do so once. I'll see myself out -Unapologetic Fanboy

@Farweasel

8 ай бұрын

To be honest, the only Indian Dhal I know well is the restaurant version based mainly on Legumes However, Usefully (?) I'm also aware of the difference between Standard Dhal & Tarka Dhal ........ The latter's 'otter.

@Farweasel

8 ай бұрын

WHAT? I'm supposed to be 'more constructive'? Well OK - I'd suggest one reason to hold a Dhal Buckler with two short straps might be to *reduce jarring* If someone clouts your 'bar held' Buckler good and hard with a broadsword it can make your teeth ring never mind your arm .... *Maybe straps will act as partial shock absorbers* ?

@Skallagrim

8 ай бұрын

@@scholagladiatoria Yup, that's not hard to imagine. :)

Definitely think you're onto something here. Concerning the use of armor, the Macedonian phalanx insisted on using stapped shields and _bronze greaves protecting the shins_ , while the Roman army usually didn't use armor protecting the shins, opting instead to use the shield.

@scholagladiatoria

8 ай бұрын

Damn... that's a great point that I hadn't thought about. When using a medium strapped shield against a spear, getting stabbed in the leg (or a feint at the leg followed by a stab to the face) is pretty common... But with a boss gripped shield it's definitely easier, to me at least, to deal with spears. If you've got armoured legs, that stops being so much of an issue.

@ryanharting2251

8 ай бұрын

It's pure speculation but I think the increasing prevalence and length of swords may have also offered a way for unarmored people to more easily defend the legs while defending the upper line with the shield, with this being doubly effective for a more comprehensively armored fighter.

@oloflarsson7629

8 ай бұрын

And the hoplite shields where also strapped, but combined with greeves. Perhaps the italic choise of boss-griped shields, was partially to make it possible to keep the cost of the equipment down (only a greave on the left leg), and therefore allowing larger armies, in a era when citizen soldiers were expected to equip themself?

@Tobascodagama

8 ай бұрын

That moment when you out-context Matt Easton. 😆

@scollyb

8 ай бұрын

I was going to raise Hoplites as the counter example. But you are right about greaves

I think Todd did some experiments and found out that a boss will absolutely protect your hand while an arrow can nail a strap shield to your fore arm. It will catch the arrow but the arrow can often pierce two or three inches. To me that is a big ouchie!

@EriktheRed2023

8 ай бұрын

More recently he shot up a shield covered with leather and a special concoction. He thought that made the shield too heavy, but it did reduce the distance arrows pierced it. Weight /would/ be less of an issue with a strapped shield. Then add mail sleeves on your arms.

@manfredconnor3194

8 ай бұрын

@@EriktheRed2023 Or better yet, "plate sleeves" (e.g. Gauntlets, vambraces, couters, brassards, cubitieres, rerebraces, pauldrons, etc.). No one will be nailing your arm then and it fits quite well into Matt's theory.

@PJDAltamirus0425

8 ай бұрын

Yeah, but a lot of people used strapped shields without extensive armor. Scottish highlanders, Spanish Rotterdam, the ancient Greeks didn’t use arm armor and their strapped shields during the Trojan war with the boetian shield . Also, it is kinda a counter to Matt point about the reemergence of boss shields on the late Middle Ages about armor making fitting straps to your arm a pain in the arse

@manfredconnor3194

8 ай бұрын

@@PJDAltamirus0425 Yes, but many of the shields you mention were impervious to most missiles of their time making arm armor superfluous. This is certainly true of the Aspis and the Boetian shield the former being made of thick wood and the latter being most probably made either of wood or more likely, many layers of hardened hide stretched over a wicker frame. These shiels were heavy and could weigh up to an estimated 22kg. Replicas have been field tested by desk jockies and can be comfortably employed by sleep deprived modern desk jockies for at least three hours. A trained Greek warrior or a Greek farmer would concievably be able to hold the damned thing up for a monfer period of time. The scottish targe is also a very thick shield either made of two layers of wood with their grains set perpendicular to each other bound with hide and reinforced with iron bits or just out of a piece of iron. Most contemporary bows were probably not going to penetrate those. Perhaps a very heavy draw-weight crossbow or long bow bolt/arrow (resp.) might or a gun, but even many of those projectiles have been shown to be deflected or slowed if they did not hit the targe squarely. What on earth is a "Spanish Rotterdam"? I must confess, I have never heard of those. Arm armor may have not been as important with strapped shields as leg armor as Matt suggested. However, the presence of heavier polearms with lugs, hooks, and other such bits for hooking feet or delivering blows significantly more forceful than that of a spear during the later Middle Ages would also seem to speak against Matt's theory. Perhaps even more than what you have suggested here. (It's hsrd to gauge the tone of such messagrs, so just to be clear there is no snarkiness intended here on my part.)

@PJDAltamirus0425

8 ай бұрын

On, umm, Rotella men. Spanish light infranty units with sword and steel shield. Also counters Tod's idea that shields had to be light.@@manfredconnor3194

To expand on your point (which I agree with) we could also look at strapped shields that existed in antiquity: The big, heavy hoplite-shield. When we look at vase-paintings of greek hoplites, we ALWAYS see this shield in combination with greaves on ancient pottery

Don't forget Tod's experiments of arrows vs shields: A shield boss would protect your hand, while you might want decent armour on your arm with a strapped shield.

@bradm.c.9569

8 ай бұрын

e.g. I'd find a Roman scutum very appealing if I didn't have armour on my arms/legs, while a strapped shield would be nicer to wear if I knew my armour was adequate.

@manfredconnor3194

8 ай бұрын

@@bradm.c.9569 I do not find them appealing at all if I have to hold them up! They do protect you a lot though.

From my experience sparring one on one and in a phalanx in hoplite panoply, I can support your ideas on two points. 1) even with the relatively huge, 90cm, aspis, warding the shins is difficult and requires you to crouch. 2) I have little trouble with swordsmen- it is far harder to close on a spearman who can step laterally and backwards than the usual thing you see where the spearman loses his mind and crashes shueld on shield. The only swordsmen I find difficult are those with a scutum. Held away from the body it simply cuts off too many lines of attack and is wide enough that it is difficult to get around with a single step or punto reverso. The end result is that it forces me to to keep moving or to risk a shot that may hit his shield and get stuck. Getting stuck in a shield is a game-ender and something that most do not even realize is a problem because they only use blunt or padded weapons.

It may have even been you who mentioned it, Matt, but someone in the community mentioned an important point: not everyone uses the most optimal tool. I’m sure there were plenty of men on the field who looked at one of his comrades and thought “man, would be nice to have a strap like that guy, seems convenient”. Relatedly, I collect American frontier paraphernalia, and I’ve had some antique knives that were well-planned, well-crafted and well-kept. I’ve also had some, with many signs of long, hard use, that were frankly shit. Sometimes the best tool for the job is the tool you have, not the nicest one you can think up.

Wouldn't strapped shields also be better at absorbing the shock of strikes of these shorter weapons (swords, axes, maces) than center grip shields? I'm asking as someone with no actual experience.

@scholagladiatoria

8 ай бұрын

I think basically yes - I think there are several reasons why strapped shields are preferred in bohurt, and I think this is probably a reason. Though it would be interesting to get some bohurt people's opinions here, as it's a fairly different thing to HEMA or most reenactment.

@michaelhartmann4247

8 ай бұрын

​@@scholagladiatoriaThank you for your reply 😊.

Another idea: One of the advantages of the boss grip, is that arrows don't staple your arm to your shield. By the time armour starts to cover the extremities (and therefore the arm), the chance of an arrow to penetrate both shield and mail is pretty low.

I wonder if the increased use of heavy forced weapons such as the war hammer meant the boss grip was not as effective (hand and wrist vs forearm with the strap shield)?

@scholagladiatoria

8 ай бұрын

I'd say that strapped shields became popular before things like warhammers and maces were very common, but they do perhaps seem to have become more popular around the same time as an increase in the coverage of armour and more availability of swords for more of the troops (ie. around 1000-1050 AD)

I've noticed a correlation between the presence of boss gripped shields, and javelins (and to a lesser degree slings).

@act.13.41

8 ай бұрын

Against a javelin, you would definitely want your shield far from you, due the the penetration. Against pilum as well, for the same reason.

@snakeoveer1046

8 ай бұрын

I wouldn't think too much of it since the chinese used strapped rattan shields along with javelins, the ancient greek threw javelins with their strapped shields and you see many fletched javvelins in late medieval or renaissance art

Tangential, but a fair bit is known about Aztec shields, since there are 4 surviving specimens which have been studied on top of what's mentioned in historical sources, manuscript depictions, etc. The 4 shields do differ a bit 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 KZread 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.

@rachdarastrix5251

8 ай бұрын

They had bamboo? I thought they used cactus. Thanks I needed to know where I can go to get some bamboo.

@MajoraZ

8 ай бұрын

@@rachdarastrix5251 Yep, Mexico has native bamboos! When you see Conquistadors or other accounts talking about "reeds" it's often in reference to bamboo. Of course, cotton, maguey, and other sources of plant fibers were used too for clothing and such.

I think it would also be influenced by the speed of deployment, so to speak. A boss gripped shield can be grabbed and used at the moment's notice. Useful for both a professional army like the Romans and for small migration era brawls. But my guess is this becomes less of a factor when you have all body armour that takes a long time to equip anyway.

Honestly I feel like it's not just spears. Missile weapons become more effective, common and powerful, melee weapon quality goes up, Cavalry starts to hit harder. Armour develops accordingly and once you have that heavier all over protection the reliance on the liter versatile shield as a do everything defense lessens. Of course during that transition there is a lot of overlap based on the weapons being used at any one time by any culture.

In Praecepta Militaria they have very long spears and large shields at the same time. In this context they use the guige and straps (supposedly) to hold the spear with two hands as a defense against cavalry and arrows at the same time. The guige enables them to let go of the shield and push it to the side so that it end up on the back to free up both hands. Personally I believe it has to do with the defense against cavalry for the most part. However, if the battle turns into a melee, straps protect better against blunt force. It's also easier to protect the head against blows from a horseman with a strapped shield when you are standing on the ground. It absorbs more blunt force and is harder to knock out of the way. Also, axes used from horseback was common in the 12th C. We see the same with the Macedonian phalanx, only with smaller shields. They also had straps and guige.

What I found interesting is that there other type of shields which were carried into the battlefield and then they placed them down on the ground as an arrow screen.

My armoured fighting group uses arming swords & strapped kite shields. My instructor feels boss shields aren't as good in melee. He felt boss grip best for shield walls, strap for out of rank fighting.

I'm going to be completely honest: I prefer strapped shields. I always had an easier time using them and they just feel "right". That's not me advocating either stance, I'm just saying what I prefer.

@rachdarastrix5251

8 ай бұрын

My preference is take a rotella and put it on the front of a highland targe.

Back in my SCA days, I eventually used a combo hybrid style shield with an offset boss grip. I used a Wankel shape , a triangle with rounded lines. The boss favored the forward corner and the arm strap was wide and comfortable. But the good ol' center boss grip on a round or a buckler was always just fine for a scrap by how I learned.

Also if you don't have much armour you need to protect against projectiles with the shield. The centre gripped shield will be easier to move and cover any angle.

Old timey soldiers had to be strong and tough as hell to fight with big spears and shields all day or they would die at the hands of a fitter opponent. Great video as always.

My understanding is that there are bossed strapped shields, since the boss in its own right has function and purpose on a battlefield even if it isn't protecting a grip.

From my experiments it seems you just have to extend your shield to be really efective against javelins and arrows. It just go thru half way and without enough armour it would be deadly if you hold your shield close to you.

@user-uy1rg8td1v

2 ай бұрын

Spartan shields had a layer of bronze over their shields which I believe would prevent missiles from penetrating too far or at all.

@krystofmraz

2 ай бұрын

@@user-uy1rg8td1v IT would need to be really thick, Like 4mm or somethink since IT was soft sheet metal. With Simple recurved bow I Can penetrate skull of Wild boar when landing on flat surface. I believe these was designed to keep SHIELD in one piece. Think Is on curved surface arrows tend to slip instead of bite in And penetrate which makes this solution of SHIELD very efective (Cooper Plate Will help here much more i do believe). But with right Angle, arow or javelin still Can go thru. Also phalanx Have one more advantage. Its really unbeliavable how much missiles tend to be deflected by Spear a little bit And land without energy needed to do much damage.

Where'nt the Gengis Khan Mongol horde shieds kind of between strapped and bossed ?!? Back in the day when I learned about it, the consensus was (but how thourough was the understanding of medieval combat back then...) the double strap arragement was supposedly done as to hold both short straps in the hand to use the shield as if it was a handle on a bossed shield. But how agile is it compared to a true handle to hold it by two straps ? Where the two straps long enough to put the arm through to also use it as a strapped shield when on horseback ?

@scholagladiatoria

8 ай бұрын

I think they were double-strapped, but this is essentially boss-gripped in function, like Indian and Persian shields. As far as I recall.

man it's amazing how many different types of shields and personal preferences for what type and shield and the use of said shields in sparring there are, and how we're all accepting of eachother's thoughts on that seeing the ups and downs on them...surely we can keep up that positivity and unity in our community and not just drop people because strangers may say what they think is wrong...

"much more common" This makes me happier than I would have expected.

How about arrows? Looking at Tod's shield videos arrows seem like they would likely injure the arm holding the shield on a strapped shield. But a shield boss probably protects the hand really well. So maybe with more developed armour on the forearms, strapped shields would be safer to use against arrows than with the less developed armour of the past?

There is a saying among hikers that "One pound on your feet is worth five on your back." It occurs to me that lightening the legs could be a deliberate strategy in warfare. Especially in armies like the romans where soldiering was their full time job and involved a huge amount of on foot travelling (I think?). The significance of endurance off the battlefield could be huge logistically and in terms of strategic flexibility (and possibly we already have some evidence of that maybe in the military relevance of roman roads?) but that wouldn't necessitate them not donning leg armour before battle. But come time for battle your army is now essentially composed of serious endurance hikers, which could be an advantage you want to capitalise on as heavily as possible. So instead of giving them greaves and a smaller lighter shield, you give them good upper body armour and a shield that they use to cover their legs. And then leave their legs entirely unarmoured but extremly light meaning that they can use their great hiking abilities to perform battlefield scale maneuvring significantly faster and for far far longer than your enemies. And I think they did their long marches in formation too? Which I imagine is extra good practice for the battlefield right.

Possibly with Bohurt they use strapped shields so they can't be wrenched from the hand, considering the beatings they take ?

I'm by no means an expert on any of this, but the first thing that came to my mind were axes. If somebody tries to hook my shield with an axe and the shield is strapped to my hand I don't really have a chance but to follow. With a boss-gripped shield I have the option to let go. At least that were my thoughts 😅

The earliest evidence of the strapped kite shields in art (The David Casket) was being used by infantry. So the cavalry argument being the introduction of these types of shields is completely bunk.

90s urban gang film: "Better get strapped." Matt Easton: "well actually..."

Hey Matt, have you ever checked out Schwerpunkt's work? He made just recently an interesting video about Medieval shields. He's an armchair PhD in Medieval history but he gets pretty through as far as combat and tactics work, as he's an extensive military historical background. I'd love you two to cooperate at some point

@scholagladiatoria

8 ай бұрын

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check him out!

@DensApri

8 ай бұрын

He really needs to learn how to script his videos instead of wasting his viewers time with endless and senseless rants about random conservative bs. I tried several times to watch his videos but gave up eventually, he's insufferable to me

what about the use of pole arms with the ability to hook and wrench the shield away. What was the role of pole arm development in shield use?

I'd say any shield that protects you from what is attacking you.

@scholagladiatoria

8 ай бұрын

I mean, yes. Can't argue with that as a standalone statement :-)

@trennantpiccolo5817

8 ай бұрын

Touche as someone has been in that position 😂

Does how active the use of the shield is affect the choice? You can punch a boss grip shield out quickly to take a spear or sword out of line. Are strap shields more useful in a passive, defensive role, just providing coverage on the weak side, or swinging it front when the king screams "Ouch, that's my eye!"?

This ties back to ancient Greek hoplites: strapped shields in antiquity, BUT also prevalent leg armor!

See I was thinking that the relation between spears and strapped shields was more down to actually *using* the spear- that is being able to control it better with 2 hands while have some of the protection of the shield. Of course, using the spear this way would diminish the effectiveness of the shield defensively, but against cavalry for instance you primary advantage is the reach of your weapon. In this instance the shield would be primarily provide protection against missile attacks, rather than in the melee.

I think one big reason why strapped shields become more popular as armor improves is that it's far easier to disable a gripped shield when you can take blows with your armor; in unarmoured fighting, hiding behind the shield is your main way of staying alive, but when you're fully covered in nigh-inpenetrable armor (like in buhurt) the shield exsists moreso to absorb the impact of enemy weapons and allow you to close in; and there the strapped shield is more useful as it's harder to disarm or redirect/collapse the guard. (and it's generally more comfortable to absorb a heavy blow with a strapped shield) It seems somewhat unlikely to me that the strapped shield came about because of spears becoming less common when spears remained *by far* the most common weapon on the battlefield for almost the entire period where strapped shields were popular; I'd venture to guess the armor itself is a more important factor over all; the shield went from being the main defense to being only a portion of/addition to the defense and this caused the shield to be used differently moreso than the spear going "from 95% prevalent to 75% prevalent" so to say. There's also the Aspis in the room to talk about here; the Greek phalanx was made up pretty much entirely of spearmen, and it almost esclusively fought other spearmen, yet the shield was strapped rather than gripped. (and as an important parallel, one of the characteristic armor pieces of the Hoplite is the greaves that protect the legs)

Formations of certain Armies in battles, and how they were used, could affect the difference between shields.

Medium-sized strapped shields were common enough in military & civilian use in Renaissance Europe. This included use by unarmored folks & partially armored people with unprotected legs (or lower legs). Apart from bucklers, which could get quite large at times, center-gripped shields appear to have been rare in this period. There were plenty of spear-type weapons on Renaissance battlefields, & some in civilian life. In large encounters, various military writers thought targetiers (troops equipped with targets, typically medium-sized strapped shields along the lines of the rodela/rotella) were effective against pikers.

I wonder if it's not just spears - but also combined with the movement towards heavier main weapons. Spears started to give way to halberds and bills and pollaxes and such - and they are a much harder striking weapon. A strapped shield can be made to be much heavier and thicker due to the fact that it's easier to carry that extra weight if you have it strapped to the arm. I'm not sure i'd want a more 'disposable' viking shield for example if i were up against a halberd or god help us a knight with a more modern lance - i'd want something thick that i could brace with my whole body. Just a thought.

Here is another idea. Center grip shields are more of standardizable item. Because they are held but the fist instead of through the arm, sizing is simpler . As a lefty first starting out is the SCA, I used boss gripped shields a lot even I liked strapped more cus boss grips don’t care what your arm size or dominant hand is. You’ve raised the point through most of the Middle Ages weapons were a private purchase where as most of the ancient world had highly organized empires or city states so less private purchase custom equipment. Also, another different, strapped shields are kinda lower tech. Two strips of leather nailed to pieces of wood compared to forged or dishes piece of metal then drilled or drifted through and nailed over a large hole.

Something of a collarary, as combat transitions to the thrust centric rapier, the boss gripped buckler enters fashion for defense. Engaging the point at distance is viable, so technology and techniques conform to the practical.

Is the use of closed formation infantry tactics relevant to this conversation? Do we know how often the square/circle/wedge/tortoise formations employed by the romans remained in use? Those appear to require a boss grip, particularly for the overhead shields. One would presume some sort of closed formation persisted through the Migration era as a defence against cavalry until armour became so encompassing as to permit open order infantry.

Here I go down the shield rabbit hole I guess. *grabs popcorn*

My whole experience with shields is a 2 hours workshop of gladiadorial fighting, so the only thing i know for sure is that a boss grip will eff up your knuckles.

Could it also have something to do with strapped shields offering a more solid defence against lances (and bills and the like) that were becoming more common in the high and late middle ages?

Tod Cutler of Tod's Workshop has been shooting arrows of a power similar to a bow found in the wreck of the Mary Celest at shields lately and it got thinking about how the combination of armor and shields changing over periods might have been influenced by the power and use of bows and thrown missiles in armies. With you talking about the coverage improving as armor started improve in those areas as shields changed shape in Europe, isn't that also the same time that armor on the arms got better as well? I ask because I wonder if a boss gripped shield might have been better for protection against arrows for a lightly to un armored soldier. Then as armor improved, if an arrow went through the shield, the armor would then be enough to stop it, so a strapped shield would not be as risky to the arm.

Gauntlets seem like they would make boss gripped shields harder (not impossible) to use, and they provide protection from projectiles and spear points when using a strapped shield. The metal boss would be less necessary, potentially, to protect the hand

First of all I'd like to thank you and Skallagrim for always being kind to one another and combining your thoughts to brainstorm. It means more to this community than you know. Second, my observations when fighting with strapped vs center gripped shields is that I personally prefer a 36 x 36" Norse round shield. this gives me roughly a 1.5 ft extension of my arm which I can use to defend, attack or manipulate my opponent's weapons or shield. The sides of the shield that is not in use for manipulation is useful for defense or even ducking your head beside (not behind, you still need to see your opponent). Any edge or even the flat of the shield can change roles as I fight and react to my opponent. I fight with my shield edge forward and slightly tilted, never face forward, fyi. I'm nearly in a boxer stance but with my shield hand half extended not more than 90 degrees. It allows for good control, sight, anticipation and coverage where needed. I had an epiphany while watching videos on shield combat because proper shield work had always eluded me in the past. I found that Roland Warzecha had some very interesting points to make about how to use a Norse round shield and I started to adopt some principles and made it my own. There is a very specific something that Roland did in a video while sparring that gave me the idea on how to develop a very nasty trapping technique that covers yourself well, kills any power from their strikes and opens them up for an easy attack. There are ways to counter it but it requires them to become unstable and vulnerable. The same principles can be applied with strapped shields but with much more limited reach and mobility. Thanks again for the great videos! Cheers!

Without even watching the video let me guess - 5,000 years of shield use and real life experience and in the end both types are useful.

You think shields or armor will ever break the gap on that arms race again? Or is atomic disintegration a bit too much for defensive plates?

@scholagladiatoria

8 ай бұрын

Shields made quite a comeback for police use, and even military in some applications.

@josharchibald4637

8 ай бұрын

I'm inclined to think so. It would, of course, be material dependent. But relatively small improvements in strength, cost, and feasibility could close the gap.

@garrenbrooks4778

8 ай бұрын

​@@scholagladiatoriaI mean, plate carries are in function essentially coat of plates only with fiberglass instead of iron.

Gauntlets in later periods may also be a factor in favor of strapped shields i think too

are there any founds of shields that had both? Would that even be possible?

@scholagladiatoria

8 ай бұрын

That's a good question, and I'm not certain of the answer. Generally the answer is no, however, I suspect that if we look hard enough there might be some 15th century pavises that allow for it.

@bl4cksp1d3r

8 ай бұрын

@@scholagladiatoria I've came to this thought since I've seen how the boss grip of your red crossed shield is very flush with the surface, and then i thought back to the strapped roundshield that I've made, so now my head is spinning with ideas to make it possible. Thank you for the answer :D

@snakeoveer1046

8 ай бұрын

There were shields that could be gripped both ways, most notably the kalkan in the mamluk army. I remember reading in a manuscript that it recommended switching to the centrer grip when rushing archers. I also believe some heater and kite shields could be gripped both ways.

@bl4cksp1d3r

8 ай бұрын

​@@snakeoveer1046thank you, I'm gonna check that out, especially the kalkan

As always, you thought it through. It makes a lot of sense!

What about when you talked about stability of the shield when boss gripped vs strap against other weapons than spears that were more prevalent later that used more hooking.

i guess if you look at the greeks your theory definitely checks out. Their shields were strapped and they did have leg armour

Complex subject, but this seems likely for at least some people. I wonder if the asymmetry of the kite and heater shields made them less wieldy with a boss grip. Also, did shields get thicker/heavier as time went on (scutum notwithstanding)? Seems like the heavier it is, the harder it would be to hold away from your body.

I have no HEMA experience, but I imagine, that a boss- gripped shield becomes uncomfortable heavy, if used with an armoured arm. In my understanding, Vikings or Anglo-saxons didnt wear mail on their arms, so perhaps, when this type of gear became more popular, the boss gripped shields is simply too heavy to use..?

@russellfisher1303

8 ай бұрын

Boss gripped shields were still used into the late medieval period in tandem with fullplate arm protection

I think Buhurt is not a relevant source of knowledge regarding historical warfare, because of thrust being STRENG VERBOTEN!!!. I don't think maille chausses protect really that well from spear thrusts anyway, the downward angle benefits from gravity and make it easy to apply more body weight behind the thrust. But talking about armor, one thing that might have played in favor of the strapped shield is simply gloves. Centerbar shields are already easy to overpower thanks to the leverage the shield offers over the user and his puny grip, but add gloves to the mix and you lose so much traction over the shield handle that it almost becomes uncontrollable.

In a previous video on shields you mentioned that some people had strapped shields with bosses. Is it likely that those shields had both boss grips and strap grips?

@scholagladiatoria

8 ай бұрын

Unfortunately I have looked for evidence of that and so far failed to find a single solid example. Hence my previous video - it seems that those shields retained a boss for some other reason, which is quite puzzling!

@snakeoveer1046

8 ай бұрын

My interpretation of the artwork is that some kite shields with bosses could be "center gripped" by holding straps in your fist. No idea why the boss was kept on shields whose strapping arrangement does not permit this.

@c-w-h

8 ай бұрын

​@@scholagladiatoria I have a feeling it has to do with seizing castles. Placing shields above the head and allowing the edges of shields to clash with the boss for strength. You have to think of the crazy crud thrown down upon them. But I am a know nothing for shield knowledge.

Both is the best option. I would choose a medium round shield with both, making it very versatile.

@scholagladiatoria

8 ай бұрын

The thing is that I can't find any evidence of that being done, and realistically it would be very difficult to switch from one to the other while in actual combat.

@SkepticalCaveman

8 ай бұрын

@@scholagladiatoria not during combat, but before. I was just talking about my preference, not what was actually done in history.

@snakeoveer1046

8 ай бұрын

@@scholagladiatoria There were shields that could be gripped both ways, most notably the kalkan in the mamluk army. I remember reading in a manuscript that it recommended switching to the centrer grip when rushing archers. I also believe some heater and kite shields could be gripped both ways.

Most of the shields I have built have a boss, as good as I like to thing my wood working is I like the certainty steel.

Good video. It got me thinking. Would have to do with impact force? Spear on horse back, pole arms…. The boss shield will certainly turn in your hand when trying to resist those. Thnks Matt for your excellent vidéos

I imagine myself as a similar sort of person in a medieval setting. I’m in my mid forties, strongish and fit, but by no means a trained warrior. I’d think I’d be a prime candidate for emergency conscription, particularly if many of the younger and/or better trained men have been previously pressed into service. It seems, to me, that anyone hoping to get useful fighting out of a guy like me would do best to give me a simple hard hitting weapon, like a mace or axe, a helmet, and a large strapped shield. I’m not going to learn formation marching, let alone formation fighting in a week. There’s no time to teach me to effectively use a sword and shield together. Armor would be wasted on me. I’m going to go into a fight knowing how to shy away from a blow and how to swing a heavy club like thing. A strapped shield would retain most of its utility in my hands, at least I wouldn’t drop it when something scary happened.

When transitioning from shielding oneself to performing another, or an extra task, a strapped shield also allows one to, for all intensive purposes, let go of ones shield and still have it remain in place, and able to be re-gripped at any time.

@jwnomad

8 ай бұрын

for all intents and purposes

@basilbrushbooshieboosh5302

8 ай бұрын

@@jwnomad s'il vous plaît

Price is always always always a factor.

If armor is universal strap grip thing? Why wasn’t the rontella center gripped and the targe center gripped even thought they were used by mostly unarmored to lightly armored people even though they were facing down pikes and bayoneted muskets?

Definitely what you say. I think it's one of the reasons. I have thought also maby the power of missiles was also in play before plate armor was a thing. Heavier, thiger shields are easier to carry strapped. Also, pesant armies probably were not so well trained/built to carry heavy boss shields.

It seems like you would have been able to make spears that were specialized at attacking legs wearing mail chausses. I can definitely see how the relative thinness of ones lower legs, combined with mobility and the protection of the chain rings could prevent any serious injury from most spear thrusts. however, if you were to instead use something like a trident, with three very narrow triangle shaped points, I feel like this would have been a very strong weapon against someone who had not much ability to block their legs. It would be hard to evade due to the wide nature of the trident design, and I feel like the spear tip could be made the same weight as other common designs as well. I've never seen such a weapon depicted though during that time period which I think is odd. my only thought is that this would be almost entirely useless against a horse due to the shallow penetration.

I think this makes a lot of sense. Boss gripped shield work nicely against piercing weapons (spears and arrows) because they give you freedom of movement. When the body armor became too strong people began to use shorter (sometimes almost blunt) weapons. And strapped shield work better if you need to stop a blow because the energy will divert into your hole body with a shield so close to it. Love your work btw

Great video, both this and Skall's. But why don't they have more views!?

@scholagladiatoria

8 ай бұрын

Traffic across most channels and websites is down right now, due to other things going on in the media.

Best shield is the riot shield from uncharted 2. No doubt

I think the advent of full plate ushered in straps instead of boss, you could afford to focus less on shield work in armour - pre armour you needed the extra reach and geometries of using the boss and it was 50/50 weapon and shield focus......pop some plate on and you can focus 70/30 weapon and shield, it applies to cavalry too. Possibly.

great questions and great theory. Matt.

Surprised you didn't cover the part where he talked about, if Romans really did use different formations

What does that Scutum weigh Matt? What do those Rotellas weigh? It would be cool to do a piece on the gun shield and the lantern shield as well. In the age that you are referring to, were there not polearms, like glaives, bills, bill-hooks, halberds and the like? Would it not still be effective to cut at armored legs or to hook them? Wouldn't this kind of speak against your theory? Oink! = @ )

The adoption of the boss gripped shield seemed in some parts of the Greek world as considered something quite revolutionary. Could it be as you said because it was better at opposing the spear which was the predominant weapon of the Hellenistic melee combatant. I think highly likely that your on to something.

my experience is also that strap shields are far more effective for a more prolonged fight. with a boss grip and light or no armor you can probably more reliably get that one good cut or stab which ends a fight but with more armor you are more likely to need to deliver multiple blows,push someone over etc and in this case the boss gripped shield will "table" all over the show whereas the guy with the nice stable strap shield will be pushing around and bullying the boss shield. This is also largely why you dont see them in HMB. A great way to test this is to simple get two people one with a strap shield and one with a boss and do 1 minute or 2 minute continious fighting. Strap shield guy will eventually just push through and dominate boss shield guy (unless there is a very extreme skill difference of course)

I think this idea makes a lot of sense. I do a armored combat sport, not buhurt, and our rules make us fight as if we were lightly armored or unarmored. In that context I much prefer a center gripped shield. But if my armor could withstand most blows or I only needed to worry about very heavy blows, a strapped shield has several advantages, it will not rotate in your hand if struck hard, it delivers a much firmer strike or push, it is better at checking an opponents shoulder out. I guess in short, strapped shields are in my experience better at receiving very hard hits, and as a tool to manipulate your opponent in close fighting. Boss gripped shields are better at defending at longer range (even normal sword engagement ranges).

So. Best shield. Depends on what the shield is being used for and against what weapons. For one on one combat in a trial by combat circumstance as was common after the fall of the roman empire to roughly 1114 AD in Europe a center grip round or teardrop. For mass open field battles during the same period the center grip tear drop was generally accepted as the best available because it could be used on foot and while mounted. During the roman era the square cornered or even the rounded cornered curved scutum was best for massed formations. Prior to this, during the Greek era, a strapped round that was rounded was used, however the greaves on the lower legs were considered part of the overall defense of the body (This is also true during the early period of the Holy Roman Empire, greaves were required gear to be a warleader/member of the nobility). The grip on the Roman Scutum was horizonal instead of vertical which allowed for a reinforced two handed grip on the handle, however for 1 on 1 fights the center grip round/teardrop was better due to the ability to hold the shield higher due to the vertical grip. The Scutum, due to the curve, had a center of gravity/mass that actually placed the weight of the shield and the impacts on the shield further back, behind the wrist. Center grips, however, became far less practical when faced with mounted impacts so the strapped heater became popular, as it was based on the tear drop which worked for both dismounted and mounted mass combat. The Heater almost immediately gained both the square top corners and a slight curve. The strapped heater became the standard for both mounted and dismounted combat, either 1 on 1 or mass battles. However, it is still true that a center grip round, a center grip tear drop or a center grip mini scutum, that has a slight curve placing the center of mass of the shield behind the wrist with a vertical grip contained on the front of the shield within a iron or steel boss will always be best for dismounted 1 on 1 or small unit combat. There are 7 methods of defense: Line blocking, Arc blocking, Linear defense, Circular defense, Cone Defense, Bubble Defense, and Body Oval Defense. Of these a strapped Heater or Round can only do 5 of them, whereas a center grip round, teardrop or light scutum with a vertical grip can do all 7. The primary weakness to a center grip shield, horizontal or vertical grip, is when the shield edge is hooked, with the beard of an axe, some variation of a hammer, a polearm or whatnot, generally causing the shield to be dropped and especially when the hook is followed with a thrust into the face or upper torso of the shield bearer. Round shields (and tear drops) with a vertical grip are resistant to shield hooking in general practice as the shield will twist and turn causing the hooking item to slip off the shield. Strapped shields that are solidly hooked will pull the shield bearer out of formation, dislocate shoulders, and generally cause the shield bearer to slip, twist, or fall and in general allow the shield bearer to be open to attacks from all sides.

I've always thought that the strap was the best, but when you really think about it.. a boss is far better for infantry. Holding the shield in one hand at roughly the center does mean that blows will cause the shield to tilt backwards more easily but consider what that's going to do? It's going to disperse the energy from that blow and slow down the weapon so that it does less damage to the shield and makes it less likely to penetrated it. It's certainly more cumbersome to hold a boss shield, but I think it would have a big advantage if you're on foot.

Heres my twopence as someone who've handled both. Stating the obvious here. Round boss on shield does add extra for offense. Prolonged operations, I'll take the strapped kitshield. Leg protection and strap support

Off topic, isn't "calvary" one of the most annoying spelling mistakes? You see it all the time in comments on videos about history and arms.

@minutemansam3122

8 ай бұрын

Yeah, which is funny because it's not even pronounced that way. It's pronounced as it's spelled. Cavalry.

@ZouMaKanHua

8 ай бұрын

It’s right up there with Marital Arts.

Your video on the boss-heater and Tod's shield tests got me liking boss-grips more. Easier for gauntlets and less likely to get wounded through the shield. Also, weren't SOME Spanish rotellas and Highland targes OCCASIONALLY boss-gripped? Can you do a video on wicker shields?

@hjorturerlend

8 ай бұрын

Not sure about Spanish rotellas, but Spanish/Moorish adargas often had a central strap arrangement that allowed them to be gripped in the centre. Mongol shields often have a similar dual-use arrangement.

@hjorturerlend

8 ай бұрын

In fact, Shildwache Potsdam has a pretty cool vid of a sparring match where they test the adarga against the rotella. Search "Monte vs. Marozzo?"

I think you are on to something. When looking at why decisions are being made, we have to look at the entire system, which would include the weapons the shields are meant to counter, as well as the additional forms of protection the shield is a part of.

I’d never choose a strap on.

@scottmacgregor3444

8 ай бұрын

You really want to get your hand on there do you? Must have a good grip.

What is bohert?

I think there's a part of this that's just user preference. If it works for this other guy, you try it out and you find it works? Why not make the switch? What's the line? Never say it was never done. From Nick Moran. Practicality and what you're using it can make a real difference.

Your point about mounted combat with shield will spawn jason modern history

larger shields have been bucklerized multiple times in history

I love your enthusiasm and passion for these subjects. I always learn something from your presentations. I definitely appreciate your explaining historical context and your references to experimental archaeology. Thank you very much for your ongoing efforts. Cheers!

Always love these kinds of positive collaborations/responses

It interests me that the shield used until the latest time in "Europe" was the Scottish Targe; not much larger than a buckler, but strapped to the arm enabling the wearer to use a Dirk in their shield hand, but still having a spike on the boss to be able to be used for aggression ! Is this the ultimate iteration of the Shield ?

@adrianjagmag

8 ай бұрын

No because Targe and smaller Dhal only work when you don't have to deal with arrows and other larger thrown weapons, or even spears (bayonets have less reach and are slower than spears). So both might be final iterations but depending on the period a larger shield could/would be better.

@ashleysmith3106

8 ай бұрын

@@adrianjagmag My point was that the targe was the LAST iteration of the shield ! I understand that larger shield may have been better in the middle ages, but as time passed warfare methods changed and thus the design of shields changed to reflect this !

To note for the downvote people: Your downvote still counts as a view and 'interaction' for KZread algorithm. I hope you enjoy the video in the end, you're very welcome 🙂

@matthewpham9525

8 ай бұрын

@@user-ni4gf8nx4r Shad has the emotional control of an eight year old, he’s not mature at all lol

@cedricburkhart3738

8 ай бұрын

Oh your message changed from last time.

@cedricburkhart3738

8 ай бұрын

@@matthewpham9525 Why would you even say something like that? It's definitely not literally true. It really wouldn't help someone predict what he would do at all.

"Big ones. Small ones" some as big as your head... Oops. 😁

If historical accounts are accurate and the TV show Rome actually took inspiration by Roman army tactics in each engagement average soldier will tire out after a few minutes anyways no matter what type of shield or weapon they're holding. Thats just how muscles work etc. And the clever solution in the the TV show Rome was that they would cycle through / rotate their soldiers on stand on the front of the actually fighting while the rest stand behind them and wait for their turn. That way every few minutes you will have a fresh soldier at the front while the enemy may not. As both you and Skallagrim pointed out and historical and archeolegocial accounts show the best shield and/& or weapon is entirely situational and with some cultural preference based on compromises.

But the Norman shields are strapped and probably also protect the legs from the spear...?

@scholagladiatoria

8 ай бұрын

That's the transitional period, and the usual assumption is that as mail chausses became more universal, so the length of the shield reduced correspondingly. And as armour became more complete, so spears somewhat diminished in close combat. There seems to be more emphasis on swords in close combat by the 1100s.

@Zbigniew_Nowak

8 ай бұрын

@@scholagladiatoria This of course makes sense, but I guess there's another factor that might make a difference: how quickly you can put the shield aside and how quickly you can get it ready for combat. The Greek soldier may have advanced in this phalanx, but the Roman soldier operated the siege engines, prepared field fortifications, etc. In such a situation, the shield was probably lying somewhere nearby so that he could quickly grab it in the event of a surprise enemy attack. Maybe getting your hand into this strap system would be longer or uncomfortable in a hurry? Again, imagine you are a Viking. You're on a boat, your shields are hanging on the side of the boat. Then suddenly you grab such a shield and run to the shore.