Are Historians WRONG about NORMAN CAVALRY SHIELDS?

[@emmanueleustache4715]

Of course we want a video about shield straps ! What a strange question to ask

[@mitcharcher7528]

We may, in fact, wish to see several videos about shield straps.

[@pattonmoore]

I'm thrilled! I've been dreaming about shield straps for days now...

[@itsQuintcy]

Indeed! ​@@mitcharcher7528

[@RobertFisher1969]

Comments help the video and the channel in the KZbin algorithm, so asking a question that is sure you get lots of responses isn't strange at all for a KZbinr.

[@FockYeah]

Literally

[@ModernKnight]

In my experience the tail part doesn't cause issues with controlling the horse at all, especially if you're sufficiently skilled at riding. The tail does smash onto your knee though, even through maille, and after an hour or so at Senlac field (reenactment!), really causes big bruising.

[@sunnmringenriksheim7812]

I was thinking the same. If you ride well the Shield should not bounce that much. After having tried some mounted sparring with padded clubs, I actually found the Shield to be quite useful as it covered my "weak" left side.

[@ducthman4737]

Could it be because on a horse you can go a lot faster and therefore airflow will bring the shield automatically in this position? Also the way the straps are placed on the shield holding the reins with the hand that holds the shield will bring it in this position.

[@itsQuintcy]

Would you consider to use a shield thats straped in another way next time?

[@isamartell]

If it causes bruising after an hour, then why would someone continue to use it that way?

[@mithras5768]

@@isamartell Because the alternative is worse than bruising...

[@domstafford1894]

Really nice video, but at 12:54 there's an important counter-argument - all the cavalry are holding their shields horizontally, except for the front-most, who's leaning forward in the saddle, and has his shield vertically and in front of him. This suggests that while they may have ridden with the shields horizontally, for exactly the reasons you argue, they may have brought them round when reaching melee, so the bottom would protect their legs (which are otherwise at a very easy height for an infantryman to cut)

[@nietzscheankant6984]

Yeah - and if you go the kite shield Wikipedia page, you can see a section of the tapestry depicting cavalry charging infantry (ie. getting into melee), and the cavalrymen are effectively holding the shields vertically.

[@claireclark5209]

Counterpoint: for a mounted, armored fighter matched against spearmen or other lance/spear armed cavalry, the single most vulnerable target is the unarmored HORSE. That long shield held in the manner depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry might not cover the leg of the rider, but it's doing a pretty spectacular job of covering the rider's torso and the lines to the more exposed flank of the mount.

[@woutvanostaden1299]

That's pretty much what I was thinking too. (I was looking for a comment thread to attach that very point😅) Since I love medieval fantasy speculation (what weapons and group strategies etc are best for what races/what army compositions.) I think for centaurs, these shields would be a very useful idea if the centaur in question doesn't want to wear "a ton" of armor, since the differences for light and heavy cavalry especially with the addition of ranged weapons might prefer a certain style of armament to match a certain light/heavy hybrid fighting/weapon style on how to fight. Due to the advantages of troop density having an obedient two-legger on your back that can protect you from other angles and also poke at a bloke. I could see shield arrangements become quite "fluid/adaptive/varied" depending on context. Like in a lance duel tournoi with strict rules, doubling up on defenses on offense and defense is very useful. Where as during a field battle having a shield on the other side could be very useful. This could lead to having different " riding squires" for different situations although depending on squire size, armor, weapons and fighting style, why not have both. (I know weight) For example if we take light scirmishing ranged weapon scouts, that are all about being quick, hard to pin down, (lightly armored), not worth the chase etc, having 2 light kid sized and most importantly kid-like weight on your back that both can take there own shots is very useful besides they can help you with looking around while scouting. Compare that to a far more heavy melee unit that are both clad in heavy armor and you will really get 2 very different pictures. Imagen having to fight an army where the heavy infantery frontline is made up of big heavily armored minotaurs, the cavalry is centaurs with faun squire rider (I'm choosing as the smaller lighter form of satyrs for them to be like a gazelle so they can sorta keep up with the running gait of a centaur {humans are too slow} and I have seen images of them wielding bows and there is lore for good acrobatics which serves the flexibility in mounting and dismounting {though their hooves would make for interesting stir-ups} perhaps rabbitfolk could work well too and the satyr be the archery support), whatever we have for flying race equivalents (harpy, angel/aasimar, devil/tiefling, arakocra or some other kind of bird or batfolk {perhaps repeating crossbows are a good weapon for them in case their wings would interfere too much with bow and arrow) as the earial element and if we can even have giants, it would depend on the enemies ranged capabilities, if they don't have ranged and or no experience with giants, send in the giants first, but if but if they have lots of ranged and experience with giants, have the giants be the clinchers, that move in/around (stealthily at first) and crush and dispers the enemy troops by flanking them after the enemies are engaged and distracted. How the hell would humans, elves and dwarves fight against something like that? What do you think?😅😊

[@flash7355]

Well, we know from recounts of the battle at Hastings that Norman knights dismounted and fought on foot with the same gear they had with them when needed or when their horses were injured. Their wargear needed to ba able to be used on foot. On horseback they were fast so they had some protection from that alone, arrows and thrown weapons were a danger when approaching enemy formations so they propably approached shieldside somewhat diagonally if moving slow and when closer charged a formation and then retreating being pursued downhill then turning and killing the ones chasing them out of formation. In the charge spears were a danger and heavvy axes killing horses I would think the point of the shield held like that also protected the horse and rider when wheeled about and retreating down hill just a tad bit harder to strike them in the back when they did that move if they turned to wheelabout clockwise. I would think they were propably well trained horsemen and on fast horses more agile than later knights using heavvier horses and more protection.

[@KasumiRINA]

This. People forget that at the time and place, horses were used as transport (i.e. by Saxons) for infantry. Even Normans, who actually fought on horseback as well, still needed gear for fighting on foot. Remember, it was still Viking era.

[@АнтонОрлов-я1ъ]

I was arguing that kite shields were initially infantry shields for years! Byzantine chronicler Leo the Deacon writes about medieval Rus' warriors of the second half of the 10th century: "their shields are strong and reach their legs for greater safety" and "the Tauro-Scythians (=Rus') left the city and lined up on the plain, protected by chain mail and shields that reached to their very feet". Those warriors were predominantly/mostly infantrymen who fought on foot (although there are some descriptions of Rus' horsemen during this period of time as well). And their "long shields" seem to be either kite shields or maybe some sort of proto-kite oblong shields. But I think that kite shield also had some uses in cavalry as well. At least Ioannos Kinnamos stated in his "Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenos" that, before the reforms of Manuel I Komnenos in the middle of the 12th century most of Byzantine cavalrymen used round shields, and Manuel’s reforms included the adoption (or readoption?) of longer kite shields reaching the feet of the horseman. So there were some reasons for cavalrymen to use kite shields instead of round shields.

[@petros311]

I beleive most likely Manuel I Komenenos did the Readoption of teardrop shield but on biger norman style size, the byzantines used prior to that a native version of teardrop shield that was smaller than the now known kite shield. also in modern history books they refer the Rus shields on Tzimiskes expedition as rectangular and not teardrop, i wonder if they used also kite style shields?

[@АнтонОрлов-я1ъ]

@@petros311 As far as I know, there are no sources for rectangular shields used by Rus' warriors (or by any warriors during that time period). On the other hand, kite shields were pretty popular in the lands of Rus' during later time period and stayed in use there longer than in Western Europe. So it seems reasonable to assume that those "long shields" mentioned by Leo the Deacon were similar to kite shields. Only one shield used by Rus' warriors of that time is found archaeologically, and it is round, and that option clearly contradicts the description of "long shields reaching to their feet".

[@Cahirable]

@@АнтонОрлов-я1ъThey could have been narrow oval shields, like the Trondheim shields, which date to the 11th century but which may represent an older style that co-existed with kite shields for a while - there's an oval shield in the Bayeux Tapestry, for instance, and a few 11th or early 12th century manuscripts show some oval shields mixed in with the kite shields.

[@АнтонОрлов-я1ъ]

@@Cahirable Yeah, oval shields are a possibility. But Rus' was trading, fighting and providing mercenaries for Byzantium for more than a century by that time, so if kite shields were used by Byzantines in the 9th and 10th centuries, it is quite possible that Rus' would adopt those as well. Although in this case it is strange that Leo the Deacon didn't say that Rus' warriors were using the same type of shields as the Byzantines - it seem that the shields of those Rus' warriors were bigger|/longer than the Byzantine shields of that period.

[@petros311]

@@АнтонОрлов-я1ъ probably the Rus as many other cultures of the time they used many types of shields and not just one. most weapons of the time was custom and tailored to the client and its reasononable to assume they were diferent types and shapes shields atleast to some extent! the Rus as a nation born by viking and slavs its logic to supose they use early on their history the types of shields those people use. do we have eny historical depiction from Rus book or art? the byzantines depict in some art the Rus warriors but in most cases they give them byzantine weapons. in the Osprey book the byzantine armies 886-1118AD they sugest for the Rus a rectangular wooden shield and have a draw on it on the last pages. and sayed that this type of shields were slavic in origins and were used for many centuries, but i dont know were they get their info on that.

[@randalthor741]

Huh, I actually didn't realize people believed that kite shields were primarily cavalry shields. I've always thought they were meant to be used both on foot and on horseback, and that cavalry would often use them on foot when they fought dismounted. I don't think I've ever read or watched anything where they really talked about the kite shield as a cavalry shield vs. an infantry shield, though, I just made the assumption that they were meant to be used both mounted and on foot based on what I've seen on the Bayeux Tapestry. I never really gave it much thought beyond that.

[@hazzardalsohazzard2624]

It used to be conventional wisdom online that the Norman teardrop was an evolution of the late Roman Scutums, which would be much harder to use on horseback.

[@donaldpratt2296]

⁠@@hazzardalsohazzard2624really? My understanding of the conventional view for the last century was that they were for cavalry and the speculation was often that they were a development from round Scandinavian shields to make them better suited to mounted combat(a supposition I’ve seen less often recently, but still in the mix.)

[@ttaibe]

the books I have read and also what i was taught in school, the shields were designed for horseback.

[@DrKarmo]

​@@donaldpratt2296iirc the earliest depiction of a kite shield was found in byzantium, the design likely was invented by the romans and spread to northern europe as well as to the levanto where it became popular with the fatimids

[@martytu20]

All of a sudden, the adoptation of heater shield starts to make sense. If knights are increasingly becoming mounted shock troops and less time dismounted, a teardrop shield is just going to get in the way.

[@Vlad_Tepes_III]

The development of teardrop shields into heater shields was influenced by the development of better leg armour, not the transition of knights from functioning as both cavalry and mounted infantry to functioning mostly as cavalry and less as mounted infantry, because the latter did not happen before knights were made obsolete by the advancement of firearms.

[@MiroslavBaldzhiev]

@@Vlad_Tepes_III I would assume it is the other way around. Leg armor was improved because of the shields people were using did not cover the legs sufficiently. Leg armor was extensively used in ancient times by the greeks who used round shields.

[@marcm.]

Heater shields are those that are heart-shaped? As a horseman I would say that depending on size they might or might not be good. I know initially, if I were to try this, having a shield on horseback I would definitely go for a round shield. I would test other shields as long as they're not too long and not too big. Of course I have no idea what mounted troops of the time were expected to do, but for me the clincher would be trying to do any form of quick maneuver and then a jump. I would rather just the front of the horse to be protected, including possibly the legs. In fact if going against more than just light infantry I would definitely want to protect the horses legs and have some form of frontal protection and neck protection for the horse. I would then use the horse as a shield as well as a battering ram while wielding some weapon towards the sides and protecting the horses sides that way

[@FiliiMartis]

That's what I thought as well. It's evidence that the tail was not needed for cavalry. And regarding leg armour, I also think that evolutions don't happen in a vacuum. So it could be that both influenced each other (i.e. some leg armour leads to no tail on shields, which leads to even better leg armour, which leads to more heavy cavalry and specialisation of roles... but all this is just speculation on my part).

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@marcm. Armouring the horse was a thing, but it was rare outside the heaviest cavalry. And even when armouring the horse the legs are never armoured outside of barding hanging from the body.part of it is cost, but alot of it is horse stamina. The real issue you'll find is that knights fought in tight formations. Knee to knee, and often knee hooked behind knee. Horses extremely close, with little room to manuevre the horse as a shield.

[@Mangowaffle]

It would be interesting to just recreate the situation on the tapestry. Sit on an actual horse with an accurate size and strapped shield and see how it feels to hold the shield as they are depicted. In my head it seems a rather unnatural position to have the shields tail painted back as they do,which tells me they were very intentionally doing it for a reason more important than comfort or even protection. Likely as Zach says, interference with inputs to the horse; and as Matt says, the better horseman beats the superior swordsman. Anyway lovely video Matt, good to see the spears and swords are coming in nicely in your garden!

[@ModernKnight]

Done it many times and both positions work fine.

[@jmlandels]

With a good rider there is no interference with the horse. It's the orientation of the strapping. When your forearm is vertical relative to the shield, you hold the shield horizontally so that your rein hand is not up by your chin when not using it against an oncoming opponent on the left. You only bring the tail down to defend the left flank from an attack from behind, or when approaching an opponent on the left side (very rare with a sword, more common with a spear).

[@rararnanan7244]

The cavalry not only hold the shield pointing backwards, they also hold it much higher than how Mat demonstrated - in the tapestry it looks like the cavalry are leaning the shield over the shoulder. Maybe it was more stabilizing to hold the shield agaist the left shoulder while riding. Another guess is that holding the shield close to the body, high, and horizontally gives you much more coverage to the back, so your entire left side is covered against arrows in a wide arch almost 180 degrees.

[@danyoutube7491]

I think it would have been easier to hold the shield the way they seem to be doing in the tapestry for long periods, holding it close and slightly over the shoulder, and I think you are right about it giving coverage to the rider's back as well as their flank. I think the cavalry were stabbing and throwing their spears at the Saxons (shown on the tapestry) and then making a right turn to go back down the hill, using the length of the shield to minimise the exposure of the rider's head and back to missiles as they turned away from the Saxons.

[@mrman2415]

Until youtube suggested this channel to me one day, I had no idea how fascinating medieval weapons and armour are.

[@zsoltbocsi7546]

until this channel i thought a i know a lot about the those, but then i realized how wrong was i'm. My knowledge was so lacking

[@matthewneuendorf5763]

I could see a rider holding the shield horizontally during maneuvers, but with the option to switch to a vertical hold in close combat.

[@kevinlorimer]

When he shows the tapestry I noticed that the long line of horsemen riding up all have the shields pointed backwards, but at 12:53 I see the horseman at the front of the line who's actually exchanging blows is holding it vertically. This made me think that they would hold the shields back when just riding, and only deploy it fully when needed. However, I also note that slightly to the right, the 'front line' cavalryman approaching from the other side is exchanging blows while holding the shield back, so it's not clear cut.

[@markjones4457]

@@kevinlorimer horses for courses! As the shield is on the off side to the weapon, i'd assume it didn't get much use whilst mounted, whilst fighting an opponent who's in front or to the right, but is protecting from attack from the left and rear. A knight would automatically try to keep an opponent in that zone. just like a horseback archer can most effectively shoot to the left.

[@ducthman4737]

When the straps are placed In the historical correct way holding the reins with the hand that holds the shield will bring it in this position.

[@andrmoro8430]

Very sound argument! Sparring with a buckler, I do not always hold it in an extended hand, it is not necessary and tiresome. Probably the same happens on horse: what is important is the possibility to cover the leg when necessary

[@robertharding5972]

I'd concur with jraben 1065 here. The Bayeux tapestry images shown represent cavalry in the charge, not in melee. I'm no expert on the tapestry, but I'd like to see whether cavalry is ever portrayed corps-a-corps, and if so, is the shield still 'tail back'. I'd point out that jousting, or any single-combatant encounter, is a very different animal from mass combat. While horse handling is critical throughout a joust, it's less *possible* when thrust into a press of enemy cavalry or infantry. In any case, the thrust or beat of weapons and shields will send confusing signals aplenty to the mount. While the 'tail back' position might well prevent communication errors between rider and mount during maneuver, once contact is imminent horse confusion is inevitable. Protection for not only the rider's leg but the horses flank becomes more important. None of this alters the fact that this teardrop shields are superior to round shields for infantry of course; it would be logical that it was developed for shield-wall infantry as suggested. My two cents.

[@mnk9073]

I think the "dragoon"-idea is solid. You are cavalry when there's horses available and the tactical situation requires it if not you are infantry. Lugging two kits sucks so you bring one you can use for both roles.

[@MrBottlecapBill]

Yes and you may do both jobs at the same time as well. Especially when it's not unlikely your un or lightly armoured horse will be killed under you and now you're on foot. Of course during the interim the horse could use the protection.

[@mnk9073]

@@MrBottlecapBill Exactly, I don't remember for sure but I think it was William Marshal who got five horses killed underneath him in a single battle. Fairly safe to assume many a cavalry charge ended with an infantry melee...

[@brianschwatka3655]

Well prior to the American Civil War the US had three types of mounted units. 2 Regiments of Dragoons 2 Regiments of Light Cavalry and 1 Regiment of mounted rifles. So seems the idea carried over.

[@tamsinp7711]

Given that cavalry would normally be in close formation, the riders' legs would be protected to some extent by the horses on either side, reducing the need for a shield to extend down to protect them.

[@MisterKisk]

The earliest evidence of these shields comes from the David Casket, dated to 900, and a Byzantine illustration of the Iliad, which is dated to 900-1000. Both depictions are of infantry (or at least men on foot).

[@Cahirable]

That section of the David Casket is unfortunately a later recarving. See "An Imperial Byzantine Casket and Its Fate at a Humanist's Hands"

[@MisterKisk]

@@Cahirable Is it? That's unfortunate, but even still, the Iliad illustration pre-dates the Bayeux tapestry.

[@Cahirable]

@@MisterKisk I don't disagree! The Syrianus Magister dates to the 9th century and mentions a long shield that can only be an oval or kite shield, and by the mid-10th century they're the standard shield in military manuals.

[@BH-rx3ue]

makes sense. Also i suppose if the straps are horizontal, if youre trying to control the horse with its reins in your left hand, it'll naturally angle the shield like that in the first place because your arm will be pointing at the back of the horses head.

[@MisterDoctorFunk]

I’m interested in the strap discussion. It seems a very specific detail and understanding how we know the “correct” strap arrangement would be very interesting to me.

[@nickmerry7002]

Interesting theory and very possibly right. One consideration not mentioned though is that a cavalryman might lower the kite shield to protect his leg when engaging in melee or coming close to other combatants.

[@j.f.fisher5318]

Just looking at it, it makes no sense to me as a primarily cavalry weapon. It doesn't cover an exceptional amount of anything on horseback compared to other shield shapes. Ok maybe it protects one leg but... while on foot it's the optimal shape to cover as much of one's body as possible without being oversized. That's an interesting point about distractions to the horse.

[@nbsmith100]

you only need to protect one leg on horseback- the one on the side that's facing the enemy. the horse will hide the other leg. i think there's more likely to be an issue between how long the elongation is on the shield if you're going to be riding horseback as you are usually more in a crouched than standing position- whihc i think would favor kite shields more than the norman teardrop shield. Don't know for sure tho as i haven't really seen anyone riding around with a norman teardrop shield in a ready or fighting position. (have seen it with a kite shield tho- and was very impressed that all I could see of the person's body was just one foot+just a bit of the lower leg, the head, and the hand that was using the reigns).

[@j.f.fisher5318]

@@nbsmith100 which enemy? We're talking about cavalry not jousting.

[@nbsmith100]

@@j.f.fisher5318 if you're going to be fighting someone on horseback you're not going to be facing them head on with the horse, you're also going to be avoiding closed in areas so you're very likely not going to be surrounded on all sides right up to your horse. Goes for whether you're using a spear/lance or a sword. as for using a shield while on a horse that's mostly going to be for protection against arrows or other horseback combatants (in which case if it's another horseback combatant you are going to most likely be in a situation where the joust is the preferred way to attack). also jousting grew out from using spears/lances on horseback- there's a very good reason that jousting became a sport and was practiced a lot. even when it was dumbed down to be as non-lethal as possible it was still a very dangerous sport.

[@jmlandels]

The orientation of the strapping makes a huge difference when using a kite shield on horseback. Horizontal strapping (ie, with the forearm vertical) lets you support the tail with your elbow which stops it from wobbling, and allows you to tuck it out of the way when not in use (as depicted in the tapestry). When fighting in melee on horseback, your most vulnerable spot is the 7-8 o'clock position, ie, the left rear quarter. If you get an opponent coming up behind you on that side, you're pretty much toast. A shield tail on that side is a HUGE protection if you can hold it horizontally and protect your back. Bonus: you can actually use the tail as '3rd leg', like a dressage whip, to ask the horse to swing its hindquarters away, affecting a turn on the forehand (which is an incredibly useful move when fighting with spear, especially against someone coming up behind you). Against infantry, your most vulnerable spot is again on the left, and the tail of that kite can save your leg and your horse's flank to give you time to turn. So the kite shield provides amazing protection, but has its downsides on horseback. Because it's bulky, its makes reining harder, and it's harder to turn your body to the right (not impossible, but harder). But remember, the Bayeux horses aren't armoured. Once barding became more common, the need to protect the horse was decreased, and of course plate harness for humans protected the rider better. The disadvantages of the kite shield outweighed its protective capabilities. It's a useful protection for both cavalry and infantry. Of course it's designed to protect you on the horse and the ground, because when you're fighting from horseback, you never know when you might end up having to fight from the ground.

[@markusmencke8059]

Interesting idea. Also: IIRC a lot of US Cavalry actually fought their battles mostly on foot, even after the introduction of cartridge-using breech-loading weapons (like the Springfield Rifles, starting in 1865). The horse was more of a means of fast travel for them.

[@Vlad_Tepes_III]

Mounted infantry ftw

[@Riceball01]

From what I undetstand, this was particularly the case after the Civil War. Interestingly enough, the US used to have both dragoons (mounted infantry) and cavalry but folded the dragoons into the cavalry but operated more as dragoons.

[@DieNibelungenliad]

I don't think horses like loud bangs, bright flashes, choking smoke, and scorching heat; all at once over and over again with whizzing of rounds and thuds on the ground from returning fire. The sensory overload will scare em quick and survival instinct, fleeing in a herd, will kick in

[@marcm.]

16:30 it would be interesting to have a video talking about the different ways horses were used from the Roman times all the way until the 19th century. I mean I'm talking about a small quick primer rather than a more depth thing. As a horseback rider it would help inform me as to what was expected in the past

[@atrior7290]

Also in Trondheim (Norway), a place famous for its warriors where cavalry basically wasn't a thing, archeologists found oblong shields that they nicknamed "proto kiteshields" Seems like those did not evolve with cavalry in mind.

[@konsyjes]

Yep, makes perfect sense. I think the Byzantines used these a lot, as well as the Slavs. My impression is that there wasn't such a clearly designated cavalry shield at this time as we see later with the kite or the smaller roundshield of the hobilars or the Byzantine horse archers. Like you said, cavalry itself was not quite a fixed role at least in the West

[@thumper8684]

Maybe shields pointing backwards were the medieval artistic equivalent of go-faster stripes.

[@AF-mw8gy]

I think that is an interesting point, that it is an artistic choice to show dynamic action. Or maybe it’s the artist explicitly showing the tear drop shape of the shield even when the rider is viewed from the right hand side.

[@andrewosborne8993]

😂😂😂

[@pbpbpbpb52366]

Interesting video, I have done mounted Norman re-enactment for many years. We used the g strap with the shield over the shoulder, meaning the left hand was fully free to control the horse,. The long tail would nicely fall to fully cover the left leg and gave great protection. However the main disadvantage being you couldn't mauver the shield to fend of a specific blow. We did try allsorts of strapping arrangements, but any arrangement which put weight on the left arm tended to interfere with controlling the horse. Also the bits in the horses mouths the Normans used were pretty severe, and they trained for combat far more frequently than us as weekend warriors so that probably gave them an advantage. Also I should also point out that the shield never interfered with controlling the horse using this g strap method, legs and hands are only aids in controlling the horse. The main means of control being body weight position. If legs were the main means of control, then any scabbard, shield, lance, bow quiver, saddlebag or what not would have the horse acting unpredictably. There is a big Norman bash down at Hastings in October, why not come down and speak to some of the riders and get their opinions.

[@MrMonkeybat]

I hve not seen a kite shield reconstruction that uses the strap arrangement from the Bayeux tapestry. The tapestry shows four straps in a sqare like dhall grip. So they can be griped in the fist as a center grip o put over the forearm either vertically or horizontally qute versatile. Plus a longer shoulder strap attached to the top two attachment points, often folded over the front to keep it out the way.

[@mjolnir4639]

I would love a video exploring the possibility of use of shields with two handed weapons like billhooks. Were shields with straps ever used with these weapons as I have seen some depictions in period art of their use but nobody talks about it.

[@EmilReiko]

Im not convinced you became a cavalery man at 11:45 - Please add coconuts for immersion

[@zackdines]

Coconuts? In Mercia?!?

[@EmilReiko]

@@zackdines the swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plumber may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land.

[@maxfan1591]

Back in the 1980s I went to an event run by a medieval re-enactment guy here in Australia. He described how he and a friend dressed up in their Norman rig, including kite shields, for some jousting. His opponent knocked him off his horse, so he took up a stance on foot. He said he braced himself behind the shield with the shield's point hard in the ground. His friend charged at him, then got his horse to rear up and come down on the shield with its forelegs...which knocked the guy flat. Which was a cool story when he told it, and which still seems reasonable to me - that the point at the bottom of the shield could be shoved into the ground for support, at least at the moment of receiving a mounted charge. Having said all that, in the first land battle fought by the First Crusade, at Dorylaeum, in 1097, Bohemond's contingent of Norman knights fought on fought while waiting for the remaining Crusader contingents to arrive.

[@jraben1065]

The teardrop shield cavalry appear to be charging in a group, and are sensibly keeping their shield tails back, clearing their horse. But what if enemy infantry got within striking distance on the left flank? Then the cavalry might bring their shield tail around to protect their left leg, and to protect the horse's flank. Once you are in combat, the danger posed by enemy weapons is much greater than the danger of slightly bumping your horse with your shield. And using their shield-tail defensively entails intercepting attacks by holding the shield away from your leg, body, and horse, (thus avoiding constant bumps to the horse).

[@jacktribble5253]

The artists of olde wouldn't depict the long, boring parts of warfare. The moment of contact, the engagement of enemy... That makes for good interest. Paintings and tapestries weren't about to be wasted effort. They would depict the most dramatic moment. The clash. And, yes. Better Infantry shield than Cavalry.

[@skasteve6528]

Normally, I'd agree. In the case of the Bayeaux tapestry though, it shows a simplified version of the whole expedition, from the building of the ships to the final battle. It was designed to show, not only William's battlefield leadership, but his organisational skills in getting an army across the channel, to the point of contact. It's saying 'not only is William the rightful king of England, he has the abilities required to govern the country effectively'. Also, the Norman cavalry were largely negated by the Saxon formations, tactics and their height advantage. Obviously the Normans overcame these advantages and cavalry was crucial to breaking some of those formations, but obviously, not in the usual way.

[@wesleyjarboe9571]

First of all, Matt, I love your content. Most of the information you offer is excellent. With that said, I have to disagree with your assessment of the kite shield being better for infantry use. To be clear, I believe the kite shield was favored by Norman knights specifically because it could be used for BOTH mounted and foot combat, not because it was superior for either one. My reasoning for this belief follows. The Bayeaux tapestry depicts many horsemen holding their kite shield with the point turned behind them. This allows the shield to be maneuvered in the saddle like a round shield, preventing the point from getting in the way if the rider needs to bring it across to the right side. The rectangular arrangement of the straps depicted allows the forearm to be inserted along the long axis of the shield, providing exactly the grip I described. Then, when the rider dismounts, all he has to do is move his arm crosswise to the shield, utilizing the other two straps, and this allows the vertical orientation of the shield to protect the legs while fighting on foot, as depicted in the tapestry and other sources. This makes the shield a very flexible and adaptable tool of war, hence its popularity. The third picture on this website depicts one of the Bayeax imges I'm talking about. www.angelfire.com/wy/svenskildbiter/armsandarmour/enarmes.html

[@MrBottlecapBill]

I should point out that holding the shield on an angle would also protect the lightly armoured horse a bit while riding.

[@bergsteiger9152]

First time I saw the tapestry as a kid I thought the horsemen were just keeping their shields out of the way because they were too big.

[@jonasbarka]

Our first piece of evidence is the bayeux tapestry. Our second piece of evedence is... also the bayeux tapestry! (If only those who made it knew how thorougly it would be examined.)

[@MJHemmer]

Anecdotally, I fought on foot with a teardrop strapped at a 45 degree angle in single combat (extremely effective) and in battle. This was/is in the SCA, where we have a vested interest in not getting hit (simulated weapons, swords made of wood with roughly equivalent weight and balance as a live weapon). I found the leg protection to be excellent. My legs were very well protect from low front, side and “wrap” attacks. With slight hitch of the shoulder, my head was equally protected. My stance was/is left leg forward, front (right) edge of the shield somewhat advanced for targeting purposes. Further, it is difficult for your opponent, to “pull” your shield (using an ax or hook), as you can brace it with your leg or shoulder as required.

[@Baffyn]

Thank you for a fascinating video. It brought to mind an episode of Time Team (Series 12, Episode 13, “Animal Farm”) where the archeologists found a horse bit at a manor which belonged to a baron who opposed King John, so early 13th century, but the knights are still pretty much “Norman” knights. The bit was articulated with the reins being attached to a lower piece which swung from the upper piece which went through the horses mouth. The explanation was that this articulation allowed for considerable slack between the reins which were held in the shield hand and the bit in the horses mouth. Consequently, the knight could swing his body and his shield while fighting without tightening the reins and wrongly steering his horse. It may be that war horses were trained to be steered by the knees, thereby allowing the knight freedom to use his shield as he needed to.

[@darrinrebagliati5365]

I had always thot the horsemans shield was the shorter bottom pointed one I've always called a heater shield. These never really made sense to me until il you just showed us with spear on foot. But the shorter one wouldn't do much to protect the leg; was there to defend and deflect attacks on the body while plate covered the legs(IMO). Strapping it vertically would really make it more maneuverable to defend the legs, but why would someone want it canted as you have it? Great vid! Thanks!

[@narsil1984]

Im convinced by the horseman arguments though I have no personal experience. When me and my friends began messing around with HEMA swords, I became a shield maker and after some failures (bad materials and methods), got some pretty decent pieces done. The point on leg protection is so true. The viking-style round shields we use are great but defeating them is all about moving them: swipe the leg, feint that to hit the head etc. This becomes quite different with a kite shield, the leg is well protected without much movement - even if they are quite heavy. At least the ones I made are built to stand to alot of abuse so get quite heavy. I need to work on a better strap design though, I just went with centre grip on all of them - it works surprisingly well on kite shields too though it probably works alot better for short sessions of sparring than long battles as it's hard to hold them like that for long.

[@andrewyoungchesapeakeartis501]

Matt I think you are correct in your direct assessment with the evidence as it is presented to us. However I think the danger in assuming an x versus y-axis placement of the shield is based on foot or horse is art The Bayeux Tapestry It's very stylized like a lot of medieval art. My understanding is that it was created by women decades after the battle. So it may not necessarily be a 100% accurate in so far as it's direct interpretation of equipment or equipment or technique. This is not to say that I write it off or ignore the tapestry because it is a valuable piece of evidence but I'm not sure that A generic stylized depiction of Shields as horizontal necessarily proves much. Years ago I had access to an amazing book the head depicted the tapestry at full size. And I was even luckier to be able to laser photo copy this book into a virtually 1: 1 of the entire tapestry. I certainly can't recall every detail of it but I do remember thinking at the time there were a lot of knights depicted as riding forward prior to the actual engagement of battle To the points that both you and Zack mentioned, I think you're right.... I do think the shield may have been angled in a horizontal fashion to avoid too much confusion with the horse. But much as I have argued that (despite popular modern anti- theory) sabatons we're almost certainly worn by mounted knights because the foot and the leg were so prominently displayed as targets, I think the shield would have been lowered to its vertical position upon reaching combat. So indeed I think you are correct in suggesting that the shield may not have been held in a vertical position during the full gallup-- I think it's equally logical to suggest that the shield was indeed brought to that position during the din of gathered, close combat. And I think that the kite shield may have been one of those objects in history that really proved useful for multiple purposes. The spear is another good example of an object that was useful on horseback or ground. And you may have discussed this slightly but the act of pulling the reins of the horse are more easily facilitated by angling the Shields slightly which presents itself in that horizontal position. At any rate thank you for putting some thought into this because it did challenge some long held assumptions. I've been enjoying your videos for some time! Cheers Drew

[@SixDeadZeroHEMA]

Odd that anyone would think about this as a cavalry shield... look at the Bayeux Tapestry - yes there's tons of depictions of horseback use of this shield but there's also probably around the same number of depictions of it in infantry use. It seems to be a prevalent contemporary shield full stop. There's also a depiction of two of them being used as a serving tray for some food which always tickled me.

[@EricBjarndyr]

Hi Matt ! Thanks for your amazing work! I follow your channel for at least 8 years now and always appreciate your well documented theories. Another evidence of your theory could be found in the depiction of the roman era cavalry auxiliary. Some of them might have used oval or hexagonal shields: in that case the same issue of shield orientation might have occurred. Again thanks for all your videos!

[@APV878]

Good stuff! I had come to a similar thinking a few years ago, that they are being "multi functional", able to fight both mounted and on foot, so why not use a shield that can be utilized for both, just held/suspended at different angles, etc. We see mounted archers become a thing in the 1460-70s ie Burgundy/Charles the Bold, where they're armed with (longbows) which are not designed to be used from horseback, but that the archer can "deploy rapidly" and get to a tactical position faster than by marching/running, etc. So why not consider the Normans having a sort of "mounted infantry" tactic. (a concept of "mechanized infantry" before motorized vehicles....) I also think of the point on the kite shield held horizontally on horseback is to help protect the back of the horse!

[@krotenschemel8558]

I think there's a bit more to the discussion. The way I would see it, is that the teardrop shield is in many ways a "best of all worlds" shield, which makes a good shied on food and on horseback. It's main feature is surely that it's design is similar to what a fuller means to a sword, you get to remove a lot of material without gaining a disadvantage, making the shield as light as a round shield with as much protection as a scutum. Now with the cavalery, we actually see the shield down at section 52 in the tapestry. But I'm gonna argue that you can see this as different "modes" the shield can be in. It can be down to protect the leg, It can be up for better riding. For example, if you come to a standstill, you might want to put it in the down position. (But what I would also assume is that the pointy bit can be used for stabilization. If you get hit on a center-grip round shield in the wrong angle, it'll akwardly pivot around your hand. But at least for one direction that's impossible for the teardrop shield, as it will hit the horse and thus block the roatation. ) Anyway, point is, this shield is quite an excellent design all around and that means you can have replacements of only one type that will perfectly suit the entire army, making it very easy for supply and logistics. And even in battle a horseman can just "borrow" a replacement shield from an infantry man. So, I would argue that the shield's advantages for the individual combatant are one thing, but it is a huge advantage for the army as a whole.

[@nuancedhistory]

They're specified as infantry shields in the Sylloge Taktikon (950s CE) and were probably invented if not in Byzantium then the Caucasus/Pontic region or the Islamic world. They are also specified for cavalry use but they're of different size and for certain cavalry roles. EDIT: Also chausses were already in use in this period and had existed since at least about 825 CE.

[@Tommiart]

I think it was in a video with Zac Evans that you talked about heater shields on horseback and how they could protect the back from blows from behind by retracting the elbow...which would be cumbersome with a kite shield and all but impossible if held vertically.

[@2bingtim]

I agree with you analysis Matt. When I made my kite shield I put the straps in a square(the outline of a square, nails at the corners, straps along the edges with enough space/slack to get a forearm through) so I could either hold it with a horizontal or verticle for arm, whichever suited best. I made the mistake of placing them a bit too high, so I have to raise my arm more than necesary to get the top of the sheild where I need it for best protection. Never learned to ride a horse though.

[@RichardFay]

You've demonstrated that the kite shield would be used by men on foot, and the Tapestry actually shows this. I'm just speculating here, but one reason to carry the shield with the tail facing backwards could be to prevent it from banging against the horse's flank. OTOH, armies which fought primarily or exclusively on foot , like the Greeks, Romans, Vikings, or Zulus, didn't generally use kite shields; they might be round or oblong but they usually weren't kite-shaped. What distinguishes the Normans from those others is that Normans fought both on foot and on horseback. Speculating further, another thing that might be relevant is weight. A round or oblong shield which provided the same coverage as a kite shape might weigh more, which is significant if you're carrying the entire weight on one arm. An infantryman might be able (I don't really know this) to shift some of the weight onto the shoulder more easily than a horseman could.

[@GeoGyf]

The Eastern Romans certainly used kite shields & they were influnced by Normans (up to 12th century). They also used oblong shields but these were in the earlier periods, when they used more shield walls. Their kite shields were used strapped leaving them with free hands to wield the short kontarion (up to 2,5m) or the long kontarion (spear, 4-5m). They also used round shields a lot. The Eastern Romans were a combined arms force, they used infantry & cavalry in equal measure.

[@waldfuzz8188]

Basically, the main theory of this video has always been obvious to me. But it is not my profession to gather such information and present it. So: well done! I fully support your theory. In my opionion it still has 2 weaknesses: 1. The creating artists of the Bayeux Tapestry where definitely not witnessing the events themselves and had few knowledge of warfare. They just reproduced what imagination they had of mounted knights, from rather few meetings and also what they have been told of the events. 2. Most armoured warriors on the Bayeux Tapestry definitely wear leg armor. Not yet evolved to what full chainmail will become later, but William of Normandy would definitely have the economic power and ambition to equip his force with the peak weaponry of his time. This should also enable the warriors to use smaller and lighter shields. kind regards ;)

[@marcm.]

13:50 as a horseback rider, I will tell you right now that that shield would be the last thing I would consider if I wanted to ride a horse. I think you're absolutely right, it's not just the interference, which is absolutely a big no-no if you're trying to control a horse in any complicated maneuver, but you would absolutely not use it like that while jumping. Something round would be better. Something square above the thigh would be okay. I'm not entirely certain how I would feel, without using one first, but the heart shape ones might be okay depending on size. And we haven't even gone into something like balance. Personally I would just armor my legs and use a buckler size shield that straps to the arm or a small shield, that's round. Even leg armor would be something I would have to think about, it is usually just better to use the front of the horse as your shield rather than trying to protect the sides of the horse and your legs and hips. So some good armor at the front of the horse and something to protect its legs, would be a better use of the whole weapon system, with me using a long sword or a spear or something with a longer blade than a spear would have but still be similar otherwise

[@puppetguy8726]

Some times historians take illustrations a bit too litterally, as if it were a photo, like the illustration from the battle of Älvsborg in 1502, due to that one illustration historians now believe staff swords were a thing in late medieval Scandinavia, while no other shred of evidence exists.

[@KasumiRINA]

Good video! A counterpoint: samurai longbows were assymetrical to be used from horseback. The bottom part was shorter. In a similar way, it's plausible that this shield shape was a compromise between a round and rectangular shield BECAUSE it was easier to carry on horseback.

[@victortuten4399]

Very good video! I enjoy your insight and believe you may be correct. It is easier to make one type of shield in war than two. That tail could be a very effective bashing weapon from a horse so I can see where it MAY have started that out that way, but I believe it was designed to protect footmen and not horsemen. I am betting additional straps were used while on horseback to help keep it out of the way and as a compromise so one shield can protect you on foot on on horseback.

[@SteampunkGent]

There is a circumstance where the teardrop shield is beneficial to cavalry and that is when attacking a dense shield wall with many spears because attacking for impact would get both horse and rider killed. Instead I propose that riding along the SW from left to right and stabbing over it with a spear is more likely. The teardrop shield them protects the flank of the rider and part of his mount. Similar shields (with a flatter top can be seen in several of the effigies in the Temple Church in Middle Temple, London.

[@jorgesanzivorra]

My understanding of kite shields has always been that it was an infantry shield also used by cavalry because at some point of the battle many many knights would lose their horse and would keep fighting on foot. The main tactic of infantry against cavalry has always been to kill the horse first and then go for the knight while he is vulnerable on the ground.

[@brotherandythesage]

Thanks for adding the input from Zac!

[@ThePhantomSquee]

My favorite shield design! I used one in my first larp and found the additional leg protection invaluable. This is a compelling alternative take that I hadn't considered, and I'd love to hear more about it--and about the shield straps, of course!

[@WhatIfBrigade]

Makes sense to me. Throughout history, lots of calvary has functioned as "dragoons" or mounted warriors who sometimes dismount for combat. Even if the teardrop shape had no advantages on horseback, it would still make sense to incorporate it to make the riders better fighters if and when they dismount.

[@peterchristiansen9695]

This is perhaps a little out of the scope of this video. It’s just sort of an “addendum” to a comment that Zac - in a recent video-collaboration with Tod, as it were - makes in passing about carrying swords, and therefore scabbards, when mounted (i.e. on horseback, obviously). Zac, in his video, touches on the rider not wishing to slap his/her trusty mount on the flank with his/her scabbard; as everybody can probably comprehend, this could potentially trigger the horse into instinctively concluding: “I’m being attacked by wolves (or something)!!!”… 😱 This is conceivably pretty much why the Japanese bushi (“samurai”), from ca. the 12th century onwards (possibly earlier), when mounted, traditionally would wear their swords (originally; the tachi) cutting edge down. This in a fashion so that the tsuka (hilt) was noticeable lower-hanging than the tip of the blade - and consequently, the end of the saya (scabbard). This considerably minimized the risk of your scabbard hitting your horse. 👏🏻 This old method of carrying the long(er) sword (daitō), notably, did not so much facilitate the fast-drawing techniques (iaijutsu), of the general art of Japanese swordsmanship (kenjutsu), that were developed later for the uchi-gatana - i.e. from the latter part (15th and 16th century) of the Sengoku Jidai and further developed and refined throughout the Edo period. However, the practice of wearing the long(er) sword “tachi-style” was widely maintained throughout the medieval and feudal eras of Japan, when the warrior was mounted - or when in armor, especially for those of higher rank. Apart from being seen as ‘traditional’, it is likely that the understanding that ‘you really should avoid annoying (or spooking!) your mount’ carried over to subsequent generations. 😉

[@oldmangames9292]

It's pretty straightforward and been well known amongst re-enactment groups that 'knights' of that period were as likely to dismount and fight on foot as they were to stay mounted. The strapping allows this with different angles. Later as heavy cavalry became dominant on the battlefield, and much more associated with social rank/nobility, mail chausses were worn, the shield shortened to the 'heater' shape ( a more mounted-focused design), and those knights were much less likely to dismount and slum it with the common infantry. That infantry, who in the same period ,(13c) were still commonly seen with long kite shields..

[@mightyvikingjim]

There's also textual evidence for this from the sagas (as reliable as saga-evidence can be!) In Egils saga, Ljots shield is hewn through above the knee and he is killed, and in Njáls saga, wounded men are carried away on shields - a feat difficult to accomplish with round shields, but easier with long ones. Also in Njála, Helgi hews off the tip of a shield during the Burning, which effectively requires a teardrop shield. All of these battles are done on foot, and these warriors act mainly as mounted infantry, not cavalry.

[@jaxric8518]

Absolutely true, and forensic archaeology confirms it: the legs were one of the preferred targets during combat. Cuts in the leg bones are a constant in bodies buried after combat in almost any period. Which raises the question of why those parts exposed in combat were not more adequately protected, even with reinforcements of layers of cloth or leather. Perhaps the difficulty in running if one had to flee?

[@Anomalocaria]

it's a good argument. the only other explanation i can think of is just that it may have been an artistic choice that the artist made in order to consistently show the full shape of the shield, without the bottom half of the shield being obscured by their own horses (or other peoples' horses in the case of soldiers facing to the left). there are soldiers in this example that are facing left who could've had their shields held vertically without their horses obscuring the shape of the shield - but there always seems to be ranks beside those soldiers whose shield tails _would have been_ obscured by the first soldier's horse if they had been holding _their_ shields vertically. in fact - i think the very first example of cavalry with shields in the Beyeux Tapestry is a group of four cavalry soldiers with kite shields held _nearly_ vertically, showing what i mean. the first soldier's shield is unobscured, but the three behind have the bottom halves of their shields obscured. i can't find another example throughout the entire tapestry. i think you're probably still right, especially considering that the one example i could find still shows the soldiers' legs completely exposed, but it's still maybe worth considering lol

[@Acer_-vn3lg]

I loved this video, especially because I am a SCA heavy combat fighter, who specifically uses a Kite shield for most of my sword and board fights. I have mine vertically, strapped like what is pointed out for the horseback riders, which my biggest complaint is that with that it’s pretty much a single grip shield with reduced length but I plan to fix that, so it’s optional whether it’s diagonal or vertical. I really do love being able to walk out with my portable castle wall and hear the groans of everyone else when they realize they have to run around me trying to get a hit😂😂

[@climbernerd5995]

Would love a video about shield straps. They aren't super obvious so they get neglected but shield straps and grips really are a crucial consideration regarding a shields function and usage. I mean if you think about it the primary difference between a dagger and a spear is the handle and it makes such a huge difference in usage that we don't even use the same word for them. In my mind shield straps are analogous to that kind of vast fndamental differential just very unnoticed.

[@TheStugbit]

I think definitely this kind of shield wasn't designed, at least primarily, to be used with cavalry. There are plenty of similar shields preceding this that look similar while being used by infantry. Now, I think the shield can still be used by cavalry effectively. When it comes to protection and how it was depicted in the artwork, I think the reason for the horsemen to keep the point towards the back is because of two reasons. One is for the point of the shield not to keep hitting the horse and the knight's leg as they move forwards. Another reason I think it is to protect the back of the horseman. I think when it comes to a cavalry charge, most likely troops on the ground won't aim for the legs alongside of the horse. This is because the horse would be running on a charge and all the situation will take place very fast so it is much easier for a ground troop to spot the silhouette of the horseman on top at first glance than a leg all blended in with the horse's body. So, since horses aren't that fast, it can happen still that a troop that just has been passed by could try to hit the back and side of the horseman. In that sense, perhaps this is why they kept the point of the shield horizontal stretching all the way to make up for a larger area of protection. It could have been tough that those cavalryman could even swing their shields depending on the situation as they go through.

[@fenrisgrins]

the knight would hold their shield in the way shown whilst riding, the shield on the forearm and reins in hand. During melee combat they would certainly have utilised the tail of the shield defensively. Good video, interesting shield type. Do you know where it is first attested? It seems that kite shields were a recent introduction from the Eastern Roman Empire, possibly popularised by former members of the Varangian Guard. Yes to a video about shield straps!

[@nbsmith100]

Matt i'd like to suggest a possible point. One thing i've rarely seen people comment on is how well kite style shields do benefit horse riders- The teardrop style works well because you only need to cover about half to 2/3rds of the body.. the other not covered part is hidden by the horse. ALso the shape of the shield allows you to hug the shield in close to the horse as well while keeping things pretty squared. my question on the norman shield is why did they go with the elongated teardrop shape over say basically a skinnier (and thinner) pavise/tower sort of shape? If i had to make a guess is that the shape evolved from something that was originally developed to be easier to use on horseback (altho possibly might not have been the primary focus of it at any point of the evolution). I'd also wager that as it got longer it reached a point where it wasn't as useful on horseback as say compared to a more normal kite shield. Or it could be a case of just convergent evolution. Do you have any thoughts on this or any insights on whether this could be a valid case for the design shape? also I would love to see someone do a comparison video on using the elongated teardrop shield on horseback vs using a kite vs any other type of shield on horseback just to see how practical it would or would not have been.

[@davidhouseman4328]

I think you make good points about it's infantry use. But for cavalry I'd point out there are different points of action. The picture you showed looked to be in a charge, I'd see the kite as useful is once you'd stalled. There your legs become the easiest accessible part and your more limited in movement than on foot. So it's at that point you cover your leg.

[@RheaMainz]

The shield bottom telling the horse to turn left or something applies here though. You could be successfully defending your left until your shield tells your horse to swing in that direction and get its head punctured. At that point, the horse might buck and send you sprawling. While an ordinary shield is less passively protective, you could still lower it and deflect attacks.

[@rogerlafrance6355]

One wants the biggest yet lightest and easy to carry and use shield. Removing unneeded surface is a practical a foot or horse back. Having every other man, invert his shield, would also create an anti arrow wall? Also, most knights spent much of their days training and working their horses, most had good control of their mounts regardless of the battlefield.

[@2007bing]

I would love to see a video on Norman shield straps. Love the video.

[@ricardodemarco3486]

SHIELD STRAPS VIDEO, NOW!!! Seriously, I like to make wodden swords for a bit of display and swinging/swashing around in the yard, and even if these are made out of wood I like to keep things like proportions and point of balance accurate. I also want to make shields, but so far I have butchered the straps, too hight, too low or too. I would like to have experts like Matt & Co. talking about it like the knowledgeable people they are.

[@daemonharper3928]

Great vid - 100% agree. They carried the shields that were best suited to the majority of fighting they did....and at that time it wasn't cavalry, it was shield walls and spears. I imagine they used them on horseback more for arrow protection than against foot.

[@climbernerd5995]

I wonder if, alongside its uses in infantry leg protection (/on foot protection) it may have served a variety of purposes on horseback too. I'm thinking about a video you did with Zac (and the corresponding one one his channel too) and how Zac spent a lot of time engaging you to his left. That might explain why some of the knights in melee hold their shields at a lower angle. They want to be able to use the bottom to protect the back and side of their leg if they end up in an engagement to their left at a slower speed. (Very similar to how they might be used on foot infact.) They may be able to protect their back with the point end. They might be able to cover a wide range of horizontal angles all at once which could be handy if they get crowded by a group. They could defend their horse's side and rear with it. Knights might need to orient their shields horizontally to protect themself or their horse from incoming arrows. And they might use the tail just to provide just enough extra weight behind the strap that the shield stays horizontal (resting against their arm) and doesn't end up flipping around.

[@stephenarbon2227]

Most of the Norman cavalrymen dismounted before the battle, and thus would be appropriately equipped for fighting on foot. Their horses were purely for transport. This use of mounted horse for transport was still used up into WWII. The exception recorded at the time were the [East] Bretons [who were descended from the Alans]; They fought from their horse, never on foot, and used a second horse for transport. What type of shields the Bretons used, I don't know, but given the apparent level of detail on everything in the Tapestry, they should be able to be picked out.

[@OlivierMosimann]

What an interesting theory; it certainly seems convincingly presented to me.

[@notbotheredable]

In terms of dismounted cavalry, Henry dismounted his knights at Tinchebray in 1106, so it was certainly not unknown for Norman knights to fight on foot.

[@guitarguymi]

One observation I have that would make the teardrop more effect on horseback for protecting the leg. When fighting in a stationary position from horse back the legs are exposed. The shield could then be used to cover the exposed leg by tilting your arm. When riding tilt the shield when stationary have it upright to protect the leg.

[@silverseer573]

Hey, Matt! Question here: I've seen people fight with kite shields upside-down. Like, the narrowing part upside and the wide part on the ground. It always looked goofy to me, but maybe there's something to that? More leg protection, more space to swing a weapon?

[@-Bile-]

Yes please, I would love to see a video on the minutia of shield straps! :)

[@Cahirable]

I mean, it originated as an infantry shield by the Byzantines, developed some time before the 10th century - the Syrianus Magister is recommended reading according to Constantine VII, and has internal evidence indicating it was written after 790 but before 909 - and near universal in use by the mid-10th (c.f the Praecepta Militaria)

[@andrewdangel7847]

One of the big points missing here is that the guige in not being considered in holding the shield while riding. The guige is the fundamental building block for making a kite shield work on horseback. That is also why the shields on riders in the tapestry look high, because they are anchored around the neck. The way you grip and manipulate a kite on foot is fundamentally different from how you grip it on horseback and your shield needs to be properly set up to do both. While I will not say that a kite shield is developed entirely for riding, it is uniquely good at it. With my guige and strapping set correctly I can trot and canter without the shield interfering in any way with my leg and seat.

[@ReedCBowman]

It looks to me like the main determining factor in how the shields are held horseback on the tapestry is whether or not the person is engaged. When they're shown riding along, the shields point either straight back or with the bottom edge level to the ground. When the rider is brandishing a spear, or actually engaged in melee on horseback, the point tends to drop to around 45 degrees. Still not protecting the leg, but possibly an indication of the fact that in actual battle, one is more accustomed to holding the shield with hand up, so when it comes to blows, you move more into that position. There's also the consideration that that is the reins hand, so what you're doing with reins to control the horse is also going to be reflected in the position of the shield to some degree. Then there's the guy holding his shield backward and pointing with it...

[@Robert399]

I agree with you that it's probably an infantry innovation. But I could see it being useful on horseback, mostly against enemy infantry if you've come to a halt. It wouldn't have to be defending the leg necessarily, just getting in their space at head/shoulder height and interfering as they try to swing at you, pull you from the saddle, grab your reins, whatever. (Idk if that's enough to make them good cavalry shield, but it's a benefit.)

[@Anglo-NormanWarlord]

Excellent video, compelling argument, and good evidence!

[@MiroslavBaldzhiev]

throughout history cavalry tends to use small round shield even in armies in which the infantry uses large tall shield. I suspect one of the reasons is that the small round shields can be easily maneuvered to cover both of your sides, while a longer shield can only protect your left side. You can see that in the roman cavalry as well. That's why I never assumed the teardrop shields to be cavalry shields. I would also assume that is the reason why the norman knights used their teardrop shields horizontaly while on horseback. The long tail of the tear is not effectively protecting them in that way, but it is also not in the way if they try to move the shield to their right side.

[@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah]

It looks as if the cavalry near the front hold their shields lower. I think we need to do a good job factoring in the possibility that holding the shield behind indicates traveling (presumably charging in, in this case), such that, once in the thick of combat, it may be beneficial to reangle the shield in order to guard the leg.

[@DieNibelungenliad]

How culturally different were Normans from Anglo Saxons, other than language, of course? They were both Germanic peoples, with various Celtic and Roman admixture from living in France and Britain

[@davidhouseman4328]

I find it clearer to think of the anglo saxons of hastings as anglo norse, they looked that direct from cnuts legacy. And in combat it shows with the top troops being huscarls rather than the norman knights. But the difference can be overstated.

[@leonpeters-malone3054]

I'm of a few minds about this. The first is that there's a lot for context here. I think we have a dual purpose item. It's a balance of trade offs to serve the purpose of shield. I think the straps helped it get adapted to better cavalry use. Good use, even. Not great use, good use is good enough. I think it can be comfortably and effectively used on horseback and on foot. I think there's some thing to be said for doing things, as much as possible. I'm going to suggest that the horse riding perspective is quite important here. False inputs are a thing and the less there are the better. And smacking yourself till your purple in the knee? Doesn't sound fun. I should know, had a knee injury or two in my time. Do not recommend. When the other football team says that wasn't a dive, you know it was bad. I'm also going to suggest that there's some protective elements for the horse here, as an unintended byproduct. On that level, its length may help deflect spears to proto-lances from the rider and horse as well. Protection onion and all that. I'd have to check dates on other pieces, I'd suggest the more armour being worn shrunk the shields that were used in general. I'd include in cavalry use in that statement. Certainly it would appear to be more pronounced in cavalry use. You go to war with the equipment you have and making use of it outside it's focus to me is expected. Tank Destroyers of WW2? Turns out they could be real good light artillery and didn't crater the roads. Swap out a shorter barrel for a longer one, a better sight, that's a marksman rifle. Norman knight, men of war getting their shields and carrying, using them on horseback too? Yeap. If I got it, I'm finding a way to make it useful. Might take me a while, but I'll do it. If it keeps me alive? I'm going to be doing it every opportunity I can. Nothing to me doesn't make at least foundational sense. Does it make wider sense and can it be experimented on, proven with practise, that's my question now.

[@Kaiyanwang82]

It's a matter of charge vs engagement. When the knights are engaged (not necessarily dismounting) that little bottom bit is going to occasionally help.

[@temptempy1360]

@1:11 yep, not a "cavalry" shield - maybe a ride to battle and dismount shield, but the length and point width at knee would bang on your horse and allow a foot person to hide around it eg by ducking down. The cavalry version is much shorter, so you can reach over your shield side to do some smiting and chopping of heads, and a bit narrower so it doesn't bang against your horse. Not theoretical, we found that out when we jousted with them - we also found it made it harder when rising in the saddle for the lance or spear thrust. You use the long strap to hold it horizontal. The [shorter] tail actually covers your _back_ because your back is much more exposed on horseback because often you'll ride past a target, (slashed in passing) or be stabbed from behind by spearman.

[@hvymax]

Knights dismounting to fight in a defensive role was common into the 14th century.

[@MrOhitsujiza]

I wonder if the "tail" as it were, that goes behind the rider could protect more from behind? Like if you ride just past one opponent on your shield side if he tries to go for your body from behind the tail would be well positioned to help against that no? Thoughts?

[@Tipi_Dan]

Perfectly logical and intuitive, and I dare say, perfectly correct. I do find the retention of a vestigial shield boss on (some) kite shields bewildering, if not a bit annoying. It seems purposeless. Was this retention simply some kind of tradition? Did the retained shield boss impart some sort of advantage as a sword "stop" or basher? I much prefer a kite shield without one. Purely aesthetic, perhaps. All the better to adorn the shield heraldically. I want my kite shield decorated with my heraldic wyvern, not a twisted cross. I have been unable to source an appropriate, accurate, quality kite shield, so any suggestions are welcome. The problem lies in the fact that I am left-handed.

[@stevewindisch7400]

I had always heard that by far, the dominant form of battle in those times was the Shield Wall. And that the majority of mounted men were actually Dragoons, not Cavalry. They didn't really train to fight on horseback; they used them as battle taxis to get to the shield wall fight. Some were trained cavalry, used to scout and guard flanks... and to run down fleeing men when their wall collapsed. I had also read that the most popular weapon was the battle axe, to hook and pull down shields... so a long shield will hit the ground sooner and help protect that way. But I suppose true cavalry would choose a spear while in the saddle. A horse won't charge a shield wall, any more than they would an infantry square in Napoleonic times.

[@KnightlyNerd]

The way the cavalry are depicted holding the shield in the bayeux tapestry bears an incredible resemblance to later polish winged hussar shields imo, with the tail that sweeps up and covers much of the left side, but is much easier to move to the opposite side to cover without the horse getting in the way.

[@Enemy0fMine1415]

Honestly, all your points feel extremely logical and as you've pointed out, no single source is exhaustive. But, given lack of photographic evidence (for obvious reasons lol), there has to be a degree of logical assumptions based on limited information. Early cavalry had to be adaptive, as opposed to later examples, where it specialised in a single role. And given the shields depicted strapping, the way the images depict them being held, it ultimately leads to the conclusions you've formed. Never watched you before, but genuinely interesting.

[@FiliiMartis]

Via popular culture, I held the old view, so I feel like this video is made for people like me. I think you are making a very good argument. And while there are not that many sources, all the different angles you approach this issue from points to the same conclusion. So yea, I think you are right. Live and learn, I guess. Thanks for the video. 👍

[@AndyJarman]

Hilarious we are taking Marshall instruction from a bunch of nuns making an embroidery in Kent. Nuns would be very familiar with pitched battle wouldn't they!?