Decline of Shields

[Lukianos]

Hey guys,

Maybe some of the more 'historically inclined' members might be able to answer this question. But I am curious as to what led to the decline of the shield in mounted warfare?

Specifically, before the unanimous adoption of gunpowder firearms which ultimately led to the relegation of heavily armoured cavalry to a 'final blow' type action, these same cavalry slowly began to disgard their shields. This is reflected in MTW2 in units such as the Gendarmes, Gothic Knights, Famiglia Ducale, Broken Lances, etc.

Any ideas? I have as yet been unable to find any concrete explanations of this phenomenon. Some texts I have read hint that advanced plate mail made them so well armoured the shield was only really for jousting protection.

Anyone else want to weigh in?

[Nazgûl Killer]

I think that is actually right. The plate mail was so effective, that most attacks simply skid or bounced off it, rendering shields useless. Realizing this, riders would often much rather disregard the shield that would limit them significantly in combat. I used to ride horses for a very long time and I can tell you that holding a shield is an extreme inconvenience when swinging a sword, when keeping your head on a swivel and when holding a lance. It makes your left or right hand simply useless, and forces you to hold the reins at all times, and requires amazing coordination to both use the reins and protect yourself with it.

I once actually rented some medieval battle equipment for video purposes (Cinematic project by my friends), having had a lot of experience riding horses they needed me, so I had to ride around with a lance, a shield and a sword strapped to my waist, and the shield is an immense pain. The lance is so heavy that they had to strap it to my hand while I was riding the horse, and the shield, even when strapped, was so inconvenient, its upper side kept hitting my helmet and my chin, made me bite my tongue, and the bottom tip kept hitting the horse while it was riding.

Utilizing battle equipment on horseback, especially in battle, takes years of training as I've learned, and I bet that any knight would be delighted to toss its shield aside for a proper plate mail.

[Ishan]

This discussion is better suited here, if you are interested in only historical facts then tell me, i shall move this thread to VV section then. More historians can give you hardened facts on it there.

[crzyrndm]

The use of shields actually decreased for infantry as armour got better as well. In tournaments especially, where there weren't any arrows flying around, 2 Handers became quite common towards the end of the medieval period (sorry, I can't find the reference for this, it was a while ago).

The entire reason, so far as I can tell, is that plate armour had reached the point where the shield was no longer neccesary. Late period armour gave better protection, for less encumberance. By dropping the shield, which only marginally improved defense against swords by this stage, they were able to increase maneouverability enough that they probably took less damaging blows without the shield than with it.

EDIT

Here's one
http://www.knightsandarmor.com/armor.htm

[PrestigeX]

Quality of the plate armors, made the Shields redundant in many cases -- for a fully armored knight / man-at-arms fighting on foot they'd use Pole-Arms capable of puncturing through armor or atleast hitting with such force to knock an opponent over.
Jousting they had Shields of various types, but often it became like a reinforced shield-shaped piece attacked to the breastplate. Some of these were designed as 'targets' and had mechanisms to break off outter layer to reveal an underplate (ie. sections of shield break away, to reveal a bright red under-plate). Much of the armor from the later middle-ages was designed primarily for Tournament or Parade, so some of the examples do not accurately represent that which would be worn to battle.

They still had buckler shields for a long time, but these are small round shields and often carried by civillians , and used for dueling etc.

The pike warfare made famous by the Swiss Cantons, and micmicked by the Landsnekts also brought in a new fighting style for infantry.

I'd imagine the shields were gradually replaced by the Pavise. Instead of a man using his shield fluidly and as a weapon in its own right, they turned more into "man portable defensive unit" to be picked up and taken along , deployed, used to shield from missle fire etc, but during actual combat or particularly Offensive combat, heavier Pole-Arms would be the choice as they had the best ability for countering heavily armed foes.
Even those pikes, we imagine a pike block turning an enemy into a skewer of shiss-kabob but really the objective was just to push through the lines and knock over the enemies, trampling over them and using their side arms (swords/daggers) to dispatch fallen enemies.

[Asmodian]

Mounted knights used shields in late XV and XVI century, even after gunpowder weapons and polearms was introduced.You can see thouse shields in many late XVcent, and early XVI paintings.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

I don't see the point of shields, with the exception of specialist foot soldiers, as I would imagine that a small number of shield armed swordsmen would be incredibly useful against pikes.

[Fuyff]

The pike warfare made famous by the Swiss Cantons, and micmicked by the Landsnekts also brought in a new fighting style for infantry.

erm the macedonian phallanx is not new nor the invention or the Swiss

[PrestigeX]

erm the macedonian phallanx is not new nor the invention or the Swiss

In it's day and age, it was a new form of warfare, as continental europe had not used effective phalanxes in a very long time. Pikes were used in the middle-ages, but they were more of a defensive weapon and the training and regimentation of the Landsknets/Swiss was new for its time.

At flodden, the Scots King had brought over Landsnekts officers to train the scottish troops -- they figured that because the Pike was a traditional weapon in scotland it would be easy, but the style and formation of the Landsknets was far diffirent from the Schiltrons the scots used in battles like Falkirk or Bannockburn. Ultimately the scots army crumbled, the king killed, and the English won a resounding victory.

[Shamefur Dispray]

You mean to say no one had heard of Alexander the Great despite the fact that roman catholic church was around for 1000 years

[PrestigeX]

You mean to say no one had heard of Alexander the Great despite the fact that roman catholic church was around for 1000 years

History is cyclical. When the pike phalanx came back into fashion, it was new at the time. I don't see why you folks fail to grasp this concept. Relative to the status-quo of the middle ages, the swiss pike formations / fighting style was new and different.

It would be the same as if , 18th century garmets and fashion became the latest trend - it would be ' fresh and new' relative to the jeans and t-shirts we wear now, despite having previously existed.

[ccgr1121]

You mean to say no one had heard of Alexander the Great despite the fact that roman catholic church was around for 1000 years

The church is nearer 2000 years old, actually

Also, the church was in everyone's lives directly (only in Europe, I know...), while Alex the Great was known only to those who were learned. His tactics were not exactly well known.

[Kine]

The change in the role of cavalry and it's tactics probably had a hand in it also. in the early medieval period (and a long time before that), cavalry was the default anti-infantry in addition to making up the main body. The English changed that when they started dismounting their knights (after having learnt their lessons against the Scots) and suddenly the infantry were the later period's default anti-cavalry answer. back then an army's priority was to field as many horses as they could and infantry simply bulked up the ranks. Later on infantry men-at-arms gained prominence (due to many reasons but mainly economical). And as weapons and armour improved / refined, the cavalry's role in an army was slowly diminishing being seconded to auxiliary, tactical or command, a reverse when only a few generations before they made up the main body. It's harder to pin down the answer because western and eastern europe used their cavalries differently. While in the west nations were pre-occupied in finding a cavalry answer against the 'English' tactics, the east never did employ shields and horses as the west did. The west were more stubborn because at command level, all their warriors were mounted since that's how it was back then. And gunpowder was not the cause of heavy cavalry's relegation into the background. It infact probably extended the horses' use on the battlefield. It was the lack of an answer to anti-cavalry infantrymen tactics that killed the idea of ever using heavy cavalries in organized battles. And because of this, armies began adopting horses only to what it did best and that was in it's mobility to flank or close gaps and their ability to pull wagons and baggage. Neither of which required the use of shields or heavy armour. The shield was dropped as the cavalry was utilized differently and the infantry army became the mainstay. Shields among the infantry ranks were later dropped as firearms warfare took over and the light cavalry enjoyed a short extension. Heavy cavalries and shields lingered on for a short while after probably due to culture and the nobility's aversion to walking. This too changed when politics was seperated from the warrior and the ruling class were absent from battles.

[Asmodian]

that a small number of shield armed swordsmen would be incredibly useful against pikes.

Such swordsmen were used. Spanish troops fighing in tertio formation used sword and round shield "rotella" to fight against pikes. Tertio composed of pikemen, swordsmen and firearm shooters. But they soon realized, that pure pikemen formation was better than mixed one. Swordsmen rarely had chance to close to the pikemen to use his sword, and even that, pikemens have their own hand weapon and first ranks usually had heavier armour, so swordmen was not better troop. Late tertio was mix of firearms and pikes.

The change in the role of cavalry and it's tactics probably had a hand in it also. in the early medieval period (and a long time before that), cavalry was the default anti-infantry in addition to making up the main body. The English changed that when they started dismounting their knights (after having learnt their lessons against the Scots) and suddenly the infantry were the later period's default anti-cavalry answer. back then an army's priority was to field as many horses as they could and infantry simply bulked up the ranks. Later on infantry men-at-arms gained prominence (due to many reasons but mainly economical). And as weapons and armour improved / refined, the cavalry's role in an army was slowly diminishing being seconded to auxiliary, tactical or command, a reverse when only a few generations before they made up the main body. It's harder to pin down the answer because western and eastern europe used their cavalries differently. While in the west nations were pre-occupied in finding a cavalry answer against the 'English' tactics, the east never did employ shields and horses as the west did. The west were more stubborn because at command level, all their warriors were mounted since that's how it was back then. And gunpowder was not the cause of heavy cavalry's relegation into the background. It infact probably extended the horses' use on the battlefield. It was the lack of an answer to anti-cavalry infantrymen tactics that killed the idea of ever using heavy cavalries in organized battles. And because of this, armies began adopting horses only to what it did best and that was in it's mobility to flank or close gaps and their ability to pull wagons and baggage. Neither of which required the use of shields or heavy armour. The shield was dropped as the cavalry was utilized differently and the infantry army became the mainstay. Shields among the infantry ranks were later dropped as firearms warfare took over and the light cavalry enjoyed a short extension. Heavy cavalries and shields lingered on for a short while after probably due to culture and the nobility's aversion to walking. This too changed when politics was seperated from the warrior and the ruling class were absent from battles.

Good post. Only my lack in english prevented me for clearing this out. I can add that in late medieval (c.1450 and onwards) knight adopted firearms as secondary, and in XVIc one of main weapons. So we can see, that former knights found their place in cavalry units(reiters, mounted arquebusers and other).

[Shasqua]

What the others said. But I'd like to point out that in this time period, heavy cavalry was not obsolete. While the infantry formations duked it out, so would the cavalry on the flanks. Heavy cavalry like the gendarmes could usually smash just about any other cavalry, and were then in a good position to attack the already-engaged enemy infantry from the flanks or rear, as at Seminara. They'd usually (but not always) get killed attempting a headlong charge into waiting tercios, to be sure, but in the roles of defending or attacking the flanks against other cavalry, gendarmes were excellent, and could then decide the infantry battles.

[Shamefur Dispray]

Its still not a revolution its just waiting for the right time to re-use known technology/tactic. Can't call it revolution every time mullet comes back into fashion

[=Bright=]

It was a revolution in european warfare by that time. And as far as I know this tactics werent used in central europe at all, until the Swiss started it (though I can be wrong on this one)

[OGSleep]

They say the NFL is a copy-cat league, so is warfare. One group, tribe, city-state, nation, empire would introduce/re-introduce a dominant doctrine into warfare, and it was copied and refined until the cycle started again. There is about 11,000 ish years that warfare was fought at the length of a sword up to about 300ish yards.

[fadly]

Eastern cavalry do carry shields, but not the big tall shield of the european knights. it's usually a small round shield strapped to the arm.

[... where did it run?]

You can't use shield effectivly while riding a horse.
It limits your movments.
It doesn't give noticable additional bonus to well made plate armor used in later pariod.
Nor well organized tactics were used durning those times which incorporate shield as an offensive weapon or item needed to make strong formation.

Heh, sometimes I wonder that roman legion discipline and war tactics as well as equipment accounted to it was way more advanced than middle ages had to offer. In the other hand legions were proffesional armies..