Why did MEDIEVAL KNIGHTS stop using SHIELDS?

[@scholagladiatoria]

Install Raid for Free ✅ IOS/ANDROID/PC: clcr.me/YBhVJK and get a special starter pack 💥 Available only for the next 30 days

[@geoffreyb1483]

Get that bread

[@christiandauz3742]

I suggest Walt Socha's Crossover Series. Two books, Conflict and Contact You would find it interesting

[@publiopaolacci495]

Get that bag king!!

[@chieckenman4432]

Whhyyy

[@ZOMBIEHEADSHOTKILLER]

no one wants to play your shitty game, and get scammed out of money. how do you think they get the money to sponsor you and all these other channels?............... it comes from the people who got scammed..... they are basically paying you with stolen money.

[@philipzahn491]

Seeing Scholagladiatoria praising Raid is like a 5-star restaurants waiter talking about the McDonalds next door before giving out the menu.

[@jm9371]

...and suggesting a $200 bottle of wine to go with the Big Mac.

[@LordInter]

man gets paid, im ok with it 😊

[@TheBarser]

@@LordInter it sucks

[@tkeleth2931]

@@TheBarser must be nice, not needing money

[@TheBarser]

@@tkeleth2931 youtube is not a real work for most but a hobby. No reason to sell out

[@slicerneons3300]

You mean it's not because they unlocked the dual wielding skill and preferred to use two weapons instead? My preconceptions are shattered.

[@megalamanooblol]

Dual wielding would be using 2 single handed weapons in a more traditional understanding. This is ether great weapon skill or 2 handed weapon skill. Also those knights were just noobs and gimped their progression, anybody who played Mount&Blade knows that you use 2 handed weapon on a horse back with large shield carried on the back for protection against archers. During siege you take 1 smaller shield for use in off hand, 1 handed weapon, 2 handed weapon and large shield on the back.

[@slicerneons3300]

@@megalamanooblol This guy knows what he's talking about.

[@AnotherDuck]

@@megalamanooblol I prefer just using a bow to take out a bunch of rabble at a safe distance, while leading my ranged horsemen in circles around the enemies, until I run out of ammo, after which I switch to a more appropriate melee weapon to take out the rest. Matt sure is right about matching your weapon with your troops, though. It works so much better if you can fight with them.

[@aivanther]

Great Weapon Master feat gave them quite an edge

[@kronoscamron7412]

Laughs in niten ichi ryu

[@BYGTraining]

"I think I can give a relatively concise answer" *30 minute video* 😂 😂😂 God love ya, Matt, you're an all-time great, sincerely.

[@Likexner]

I cant help but wonder, who ever asked him to be brief? I know i like his videos no matter how long they are. Actually, longer may be better as long as the quality is there.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

You have to consider the context - a thorough answer would be the length of a book. (Insert innuendo here, I’m bad at it.)

[@NevisYsbryd]

@@Likexner A lot of people _used_ to comment about the length and sometimes ask him to be shorter, although I rarely see that anymore.

[@Eulemunin]

For him this is concise.

[@AnotherDuck]

@@NevisYsbryd He's gotten better. I think his main problem with length is that he often reiterates a bit too many times on his topics. Saying the same things several times can get a bit lengthy, since if you repeat yourself you're not adding much more content while adding a lot in the time spent delivering your message. It's not particularly efficient, as a lot of people watching don't have that long time to watch, having other things to attend to, such as watching other videos.

[@aldente3868]

When you're a walking medieval tank with few weak spots it becomes more important to focus on hitting your opponent as hard as you can. Especially if he's likely to be an armored medieval tank as well. You'd want a weapon that can swing hard enough to punch through the armor or concuss through it as well as half swording to stab at gaps. Not to mention I'd imagine grappling becomes far more important when fighting in armor and grappling is easier with both hands.

[@Robert399]

That's true but that's an equally good reason for knights to KEEP using shields to defend against said weapons. So that can't be the whole answer.

[@kaiceecrane3884]

@@Robert399 the weapons used were also pretty good at defending against the same weapons

[@Robert399]

@@kaiceecrane3884 Clearly not as good as a shield

[@kaiceecrane3884]

@@Robert399 ahh yes, sheild vs poleaxe, more protection

[@aldente3868]

@@kaiceecrane3884 Yup, plus for a knight on horse back being armored also would mean a hand free to hold the reins without a shield possibly getting in the way. Not to mention just how utterly devastating two handed pole arms were. Would not want to be the guy with a shield and a sword who had to close the distance against a guy with a pole arm and armor.

[@KlausBeckEwerhardy]

Policemen would state that shields still are very important nowadays. It's a question of context I think. 😜

[@killerkraut9179]

@Hello Me There exist kevlar shields

[@martinwinther6013]

@Hello Me And is this also the explanation for ballistic shields?

[@toddgreener]

I'm loving all this talk about social change, caste dynamics, and the human need to prove their worth. Any book recommendations or particularly enlightening primary sources that I could dig into on these topics?

[@Electromash92]

A Distant Mirror might fit what you're looking for.

[@Havvran]

not exactly the same topic, but Ilja from the That Works channel made an interesting video about the social concepts influencing the design of armor in different periods. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z52Um6N8n72paqs

[@tamlandipper29]

Interesting view. I've wracked my brains and can't think of anything. For contrast you might try Tommy by Richard Holmes? Goes into some caste dynamic s.

[@chellybub]

@@Electromash92 I was actually going to reply with exactly the same recommendation! It's a great book on a very fascinating period of history :)

[@paultowl1963]

Bridgekeeper: “Who would cross the Bridge of Death must CONCISELY answer me these questions three, ere the other side he see.” Matt: “I am not afraid!” Bridgekeeper: “What is your name?” 30 minutes later Matt is still talking while the rest of the party had flanked the bridgekeeper and moved on. 😁 Liked the video, dude.

[@davidbrennan660]

A duel verbal between Matt and Lloyd would epic .......if inconclusive.

[@erikjarandson5458]

@@davidbrennan660 Nah. Lindy would win, by a clear margin. By the end of it, we'd all, Matt included, be dizzy from all of Lindy's asides, detours, interesting details, anecdotes, and inventive ways to include insults to Napoleon in particular and the French in general. Remember, Lindy struggles to keep his videos under an hour, often completely unedited; if he let himself completely loose... he'd probably break KZbin.

[@dj_koen1265]

Lindy is the goat for a reason

[@tsylvester2523]

It wasn't just knights who started dropping the shield, in the early medieval era England and Scandinavia you've got quality soldiers in good armour relative to their peers, even if just mail, opting to use a dane axe, same for the gallowglass in Ireland for hundreds of years. It's not so much the evolution of armour technology I think, but a trend of quality soldiers with heavy armour for their time and place (context etc) opting to eschew a shield for the killing/anti armour power of two handed weapons Conversely you also see the resurgence of the shield with the rodeleros and such at the time where people are opting to armour down

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

You also had plenty of two-handed close-range weapons used by soldiers without shields in China going back to antiquity. & in Japan, etc. & some soldiers used two-handed close-range weapons without any armor at all, as vulnerable as that made them to projectiles.

[@AndrewTheFrank]

But I don't think there is much indication that the Dane Axe was meant as a front line formation weapon but more as an honor guard weapon.

[@BelleDividends]

I believe the dane axe was combined with shielded spearmen. The spearman in the front, the dane-axe men in the back/second row. It was used in combined arms warfare and (I believe) never by itself.

[@matthewzito6130]

I'm not disagreeing with your point, but it does seem like two-handed weapons became more popular as armor improved, possibly because it was increasingly difficult to defeat armor with one-handed weapons.

[@matthewzito6130]

Another big factor is whether or not you'll be fighting on foot. ... Two handed weapons make little sense for someone who does most of their fighting from horseback. However, the late middle ages saw a decline in the use of heavy cavalry.

[@HoJu1989]

The last European soldiers thar I know regularly carried shields were the Spanish "Dragones de cuera" well into the 18th century, light cavalrymen deployed in today's Southwestern US who carried leather heart-shaped shields (yes, pretty much the same design the Moors were using from at least the 13th century), along with lance, sword and carbine. Quite a striking image of the Old(er) West. Those shields were apparently good to ward off native arrows.

[@ArmouredProductions]

Shields are my favorite, and I find it disappointing that there isn't *a lot* of sources/manuals etc about Shield use compared to say, a Longsword. The Spear (and other weapons) & Shield was the most used weapon combo throughout all of history around the world, yet there isn't actually a whole lot of sources on them. I think it's *because* it was the most common weapon loadout that they didn't bother writing it down and was also used a lot for formation fighting which isn't easy to teach in a book. Lots of stuff we study is more 1v1 things than big formations for battles.

[@NevisYsbryd]

That and most treatises were for dueling/civil disputes, not military, and people rarely carried around shields (other than bucklers) in their everyday lives like the might swords.

[@matheusalves5160]

Shields have indeed lost they popularity in the 14th century, but just that, they never have sopped to being used. As we can see in the Pastrana tapestries, it shows many knights and man-at-arms in full plate armour using shields. And the tapestries show's the Portuguese conquest of Asilah and Tangier in the late 15th (1471). Shields, as pretty much anything in the Middle Ages, it depends greatly of the context.

[@Brass_Heathen]

Yeah they didn't patch the whole European server all at once.

[@MisdirectedSasha]

I think probably weight had something to do with it. Plate armour is, of course, possible to move around in if you're used to it, but late medieval plate armour was quite heavy compared to what was worn in the 13th century and before. Shields are also pretty heavy, depending on how heavily built they are. So, if you're wearing plate armour AND carrying a shield, you're carrying a fair bit of extra weight. Since your armour is already fairly protective, the extra weight of the shield might become hard to justify. In a siege or a tournament, the extra protection of a shield is worth it because you don't have to walk very far before you fight, but if you have to march a few kilometers before a fight and then a few more back to camp afterwards, you start looking for redundancy in your kit pretty fast. The calculation is a bit different for mounted troops, who could carry kit more easily, but there was a trend towards having men at arms dismount and fight on foot that started in the mid 14th century.

[@Gargoiling]

You've touched on it in other videos but a shield is also used to display a coat of arms. That might be a reason for conservatism (why knights did not immediately ditch shields when full armour developed). It's interesting that surcoats also went out of fashion in the later period. You would think it must have become harder to identify individual knights in the 16th and 17th century. You would think a knight trying to recapture the Arthurian past might want to display their arms. You mention social change. It would be interesting to consider if there were other ways for knights to identify themselves or, if not, why it became less important

[@BelleDividends]

I believe your cultural take explains it, with the improved armor more easily enabling such a move. However, as of right now I don't believe the armor improvement alone would have done it. So basically, the age of the knight was dying because the common soldier was improving and undoing the necessity for knights. It's also the time when the first instances of "peasant armies" beating knightly armies occurred (the swiss, the flemish 1302, ETC). The knights as a whole sensed their age had passed and tried to reinvent themselves to re-establish their necessity. Previously they were the only soldiers on the battlefield who could fight instead of being just mass fodder, now they tried to be the kind of soldier a regular, more sensical trained warrior would not dare to be. So they redoubled on their identity as shock troops and wading angels of death in the battlefield. They tried to make their class special again by inventing a special culture separating them from the people: suicidal courage, defender of the downtrodden, romanticised respectful courting and loving of women. That last part possibly was the birth of romance as we know it today. The first part, suicidal courage, probably thinned their ranks on the battlefield, actually speeding up the decline of the knightly class because they were physically disappearing. A few centuries later, all that remained of the knight was a simple nobility title.

[@angustrelkov4686]

Extremely well put.

[@trondbirkeland8094]

How about a squire carrying the shield until it was really needed? He would probably need it more than the knight in the meantime and would hardly figure on murals.

[@Riceball01]

I don't think that would work in actual combat unless the squire was right next to the knight/master ready to hand them the shield at a moment's notice. If the squire is going to be right there, close enough to hand their master their shield when called for, then they'd likely be close enough to the fighting that they'd be busy fighting as well and would probably need a shield themselves. It would be a bit awkward trying to fight using a shield while keeping a second on you somewhere ready to hand off to someone else. If said squire was not right up there along with their master but instead hanging back so that they're out of the fighting then the issue becomes a matter of the squire's master somehow signaling their squire that they want their shield. Given how noisy a battlefield can be, even without gunpowder, it might be hard for the squire to hear a call for a shield. The knight/man at arms could use some sort of horn or wave a small flag or banner of some kind, but that would distract them from fighting. And even if they could somehow signal their squire, there's still the matter of the squire reaching their master, without getting killed along the way, in a timely manner. Alternately, they could try to fall back to the rear and get their shield from their squire, but by that time the need for the shield might have passed and they've wasted their time falling back and going forward again. There's also the matter of Medival combat not being some mass brawl like you see in the movies and on TV where it's every man for themselves and no formations. A knight or man at arms would have had their place in a formation and would almost certainly not be allowed to fall out of formation just so they can fetch their shield.

[@airnt]

@@Riceball01 the common practice was to have the squire/valet ride with a spare lance and the helmet. The shield is too faffy to put on and was often slung on the back. handing a new lance between charges is easily done, can even be done across another horse if needs be, handing a shield and putting on a guige and enarm in full armour is really faffy. helmets were often donned when they were aware of the enemy, but this is easier from another horse to help with than putting on a shield by far. in terms of closeness in actual battle, we know of multiple ranks of cavalry charges being made up from different types of riders, and jsut being a few ranks back could mean the valet could hand a lance at very short notice. Also using swords and what have you the valet was not necessarily a non-combattant. in some cases there is a medium cavalry type between them, like the 'Coustillier' Also in the numbers we are talking about, this just sheer mass of horses when backed up by a large bunch of valets on horses just looks like a larger number of men-at-arms from the front, and there is a distinct protection of using the front rank as human shields against arrows and whatnot. but these composite units regularly are very very large and in the hundreds of riders, up to 1200 or so sometimes. (in fact charges of 3000 are mentinoed as far back as 1214)

[@joshjones6072]

Haha Squires holding shields makes so much sense.

[@airnt]

@@joshjones6072 have you ever tried? because i really don't think it does

[@Blaisem]

I think your discussion on the last point "off the cuff" about the existential crisis of Knights would make a great topic for a separate video. We often hear about the romantic perceptions of knights, but their sense of vulnerability in the social hierarchy, their military niche being encroached upon by indentured soldiers, the insecurity that motivated them to reaffirm their ideals in old archetypes of knights, and especially an examination of their evolution through the late medieval centuries viewed through the context of tangible events such as the black death or the renaissance, would be topics I'd be very interested to hear more about. The impact of technological advancements should also play a role here too, I'd imagine. I feel like this more human story of knights is altogether not broached at all in any popular discourse on the medieval knight, and I fear in several ways our notion of knights may be more fictitious and uninformed than realistic as a result.

[@WhatIfBrigade]

You covered this in regards to leadership, but a shield is really bad for giving visual orders because your troops can't see one side of you. For semi-professionnel or professional archers or billmen, you need training, communication and coordination. A halberd or longsword is much better at pointing out targets or directions on a battlefield and giving your troops a rally point than a shield and hammer.

[@AndrewTheFrank]

But conversely they could just have a shield and big stick (such as spear) and use the spear for pointing and the shield might encourage the officer to not charge in and die. But that would go into the point brought up in the video of them using a weapon that is more fitting to the unit.

[@cliffordjensen8064]

Good point, I had never even considered that. Did not the infantry officers in the 18th century still commonly carry some sort of pole arm while leading flintlock carrying troops?

[@cristianespinal9917]

@@cliffordjensen8064 as far back as the Romans, centurions would carry a vine staff/rod. And as late as the mid 1900s, troops, especially NCOs and officers would carry a swagger stick as part of their off-duty uniform. As late as 1914 in Vera Cruz, Mexico, then Major Smedley Butler (USMC) exposed himself to the enemy to draw their fire and used his swagger stick to direct his troops' return fire. As for whether pointing out enemies/targets/positions would be a major consideration in not carrying a shield, I have no idea.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

Didn't stop roman centurions from carrying one. Shields were used when shields mattered.

[@gothic3theageofwar565]

Even the Scottish used round shields till the aftermath of the Jacobite War in the middle 18th century. Even modern police still uses shields sometimes during violent protests. Shields are one of those things which probably will always be use here and there in the future also

[@clone3249]

Great theory. It directly links to the Samurai preference of not carrying shields (which I previously thought was slightly idiotic) but put in this perspective of honour, status and fame; carrying a shield Isn’t a conducive choice.

[@whynottalklikeapirat]

One day a certain knight just had it with the shield and threw it to the ground going ”Screw that, if I am gonna risk my life, I wanna be able to scratch my effing nose while doing it” and allegedly all the other knights present were low key like “yeah, man totally” and immediately followed suit and after that shields generally just fell out of usage as armour BUT unexpectedly gave rise to a wave of sort of wok-like, shield-fried street cuisine across medieval Europe. Also a fair few knights received unexpected and rather violent nosebleeds from attempting to scratch their noses with gauntlets on.

[@CharlesStearman]

A thought occurs to me: does the heraldic significance of the shield have any bearing on this question? Did knights find other ways of displaying their personal coat of arms (on a surcoat for instance), or was such a display no longer considered important?

[@mz2062]

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the status of a knight was probably shown through the use of a particular banner. Lesser known knights knight banneret has a smaller tapered flag with a small retinue of men. Knight bachelor had a typical full flag and has several knights under them and their men. It may even be that a knights status on the battlefield could of also been the armour, its quality and also weapons and horse but from a whos who i am going with the flags.

[@b1laxson]

Not banners but tabards. Or surcoats. The cloth over the armor can be colored or layered. Its a need for your body to be identified. Only higher ranks would be a bannerette or banner or baron to >also< warrant having a banner on the battlefield. That banner might not be with the person so the need for the heraldric cloth over aromor is there.

[@mz2062]

Edit I actually got the banneret/bachelor the wrong way round. Bachelor was lower in rank. Fair comment B1. Another curveball...how on earth did men at arms distinguise themselves wearing plate armour against their enemies?

[@airnt]

by the 15th century many shields are no longer heraldically painted, btu otherwise, or the coat of arms is a tiny shield with much larger painting s of madonna holding it, and texts around the edge and stuff. the coat of arms is really minior and extremely hard to spot... on the shield.

[@PJDAltamirus0425]

@@airnt surcout and cloth cover heraldry predate plate armor by allot... in fact in the era of full plate armor, often times heraldry would be painted on or etched because loose cloth makes a great grappling surface.

[@jasonpike9626]

I'm surprised you didn't mention something here I think you have talked about before - the "arms race" between weapons and armour. The more armoured you opponents are, the more powerful your weapon needs to be, and this period saw the rise of mercianaries who were better-armourd than levy tropps. A two-handed weapon would usually be better against armour than an pne-handed weapon, but if you use it you need more armour yiourslef because you can't use a shield at the same time (or not so effectively). Having said that, you hint that there may have been some pretentiouness involved in the choice of sword size. I find this easy to believe: Given how difficult it apparently is for HEMA people to wiork out how the Landesknecht greatword was used in battle, it's hard not to suspect that they were invented mainly to show off and then the dopplesoldaten and their commenders puzzled over how to use them as well back in the day.

[@colinheyl7245]

I think your final point is the most interesting, here. A factor which people often overlook when discussing historical arms and armour is that the reasons for something isn't about penetration or increased defence. Sometimes, the reason is "They thought it was cool".

[@arkenarikson2481]

I guess that can feature as a reason. But I'd also assume that if the cool thing was considerably less effective than available alternatives it would feature rather shortly before people decided that being drab and alive was better than being cool but dead. But if its good *and* cool, hell yes, bring it on!

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

@@arkenarikson2481 Yes, but both individual soldiers & military systems often resist change. Qi Jiguang wrote about how some troops persisted in using hand cannons over the arquebus despite tests showing the latter was much more accurate. It takes time & effort to learn a new weapon. The actual process of military reform depends on a whole bunch of details. It could be suboptimal in either direction. Folks might stick with what they know & people in power might change things up just because. For instance, were all the new British swords necessarily superior to the patterns they replace? I don't think so. Etc.

[@arkenarikson2481]

​@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 If your life is in the scales, it makes sense to want to stick with "the thing that always worked best". I guess the most efficient factor to change the way a military body functions would be that an opponent reaches a superior level and adaptation becomes necessary for survival. This video brought up some other questions, now that I think about it. If knights using long, two-handed weapons were partly tied to the rise of semi-professional common troops with poll arms fighting in formations like pike blocks, what brought around this change? How did population and societies develop to give rise to these infantry troops? Why - if a pike in a formation is superior to a spear - did it only arise (in Middleage Europe) then? Does Northern Europe being gradually transformed from wilderness to cultivated land have anything to do with the fighting styles (like if a battle is more likely to end up in the woods, bogs or generally rough terrain you wouldn't want to be stuck with a cumbersome pike that only works in a well-kept formation but if most of the country is drained, evened out and under the plough manoeuvring in a pike block becomes possible)? Maybe Matt could go into the details sourrounding that period, after all. (or Raf or Shad)

[@Snowsc-dp7qo]

@@arkenarikson2481 Alexander the great conquered the world with pike blocks. Reason they werent popular in middle ages was due to lack of funding for proper armor and professional soldiers. You need actual soldiers who train together to have things like greek phalanx or roman shield wall. Medieval times didnt have neither the professional soldiers, money for arms or anything else.

[@edgarbm6407]

0:47 I suppose 30 mins is concise, relative to what we all know Matt is capable of.

[@Galatan19]

Everyone that has ever worn full plate AND a shield against an opponent that had the same equipment realized quite fast that you are getting nowhere in the fight. Its like trying to beat a safe. You just have to get rid of the shield and concentrate on the offensive if you want to beat your opponent and not just get exhausted. In other context, they are still useful but not as important as they were before full plate.

[@roffels11-gamingandhistory69]

Thanks for mentioning and showing lower status combatants, such as speermen. As a re-enactor of a 1370-1400 German speerman it is heartwarming to see and hear content about these infantry troops to correct my personal mistakes and confirm my personal research. Thanks!

[@macrendilysmir1876]

I would very much appreciate a little note in the Description listing the various "props" used in production. So often I see something awesome only to never be able to see where I could obtain my own.

[@ishitrealbad3039]

pole-axes and pole-hammers are my favourite melee martial arts weapons, it's a shame almost nobody makes any good ones today... market is oversaturated with mostly swords, which is a shame really.

[@wierdalien1]

Partly its becausr its difficult to make poleaxes safe

[@lowlandnobleman6746]

Mostly just certain types of swords. Notice how longswords and swords with Oakeshott type 10, type 12, type 15, and type 18 are most of the market, along with the occasional messer or greatsword. Try finding a good Oakeshott type 11 or type 13. It’s not an over saturated market because of swords in general, just that most swords available are part of the same six or seven categories.

[@AnotherDuck]

@@lowlandnobleman6746 People like things they think look like something nobleman would use. Which probably means they like what they've seen before, rather than trying to find something new.

[@LordInter]

@@wierdalien1 I'd agree with this point, polearms etc were such a devastating weapon unless its made of rubber its going to do some real damage. The physics involved in an impact from a 1h sword compared to a 10ft long stick with an axe on the end 😳😳😳

[@ishitrealbad3039]

@@wierdalien1 why would i want a weapon that's "safe"? makes no sense.

[@matthewzito6130]

I often think that the shift toward two-handed weapons was largely in response to improvements in armor (across all classes) which made one-handed weapons progressively less effective.

[@matthewzito6130]

Also, late medieval knights did more of their fighting on foot, compared to earlier knights who mostly acted as heavy cavalry.

[@mikebos7909]

armour got better to beat the armour you needed heavier two-handed weapons. so the people that had the armour preferred to be able to beat a similar armoured enemy

[@BCSchmerker]

+scholagladiatoria *The shield in Scotland (GBR) evolved into a counteroffensive piece for the mélée during the Renaissance.* The Targe used in interclan wars, where neither side packed armor other than the occasional mail waistcoats and plate helmets, had a sharp one-third- to one-half-metre spike mounted at the center to complement strong-hand swords (both 1.3m longswords with two-hand hilts and later sub-1m basket-hilt swords) and shield-hand daggers such as the single-edged _durgh._ Elsewhere in Europe, the shield was found to be an encumbrance for the pikeman, who was saddled with a difficult-to-control long spear.

[@stormiewutzke4190]

So I'm a bit of a steel nerd. I read all the books on knights and swords in my little library growing up and caught all the myths. It gave me a real interest in all of that and while my cousin and I fenced with everything I could make long enough for me to actually get a bit of a style that while I don't think it would be great I do wonder how good it is, I didn't know even where to go to find more so I became a welder and a knife collector and eventually a knife maker. Now that I make knives I have wondered if there is anything that you could think of that modern ultra high performance powder metal or at least very high performance steel would make a real difference if it was used for blades combat. Have you ever gone down that rabbit hole?

[@NocKme]

what is the best type of steel

[@NevisYsbryd]

He has, and the answer is, not really. Monosteels have pretty much the best compromise of physical characteristics for as long and thin of a blade as arming and longswords of any known physical materials. After the minimum hardness is met, the primary concerns are resiliency and weight, and steel has basically the best durability across all of the key stress types while having an acceptable weight. While some type of steel alloy _might_ offer some advantage for certain types of swords, the difference would be pretty miniscule.

[@j.f.fisher5318]

I think your analysis is spot on. Obviously a mix of reasons, and different factors influencing each other and feeding back on each other.

[@eliane2743]

Thanks a lot for another very instructive video. Notably the considerations on social changes of the time and the impact on knights as a class. The description of knights inept charges for the sake of glory at Crécy and other battles remind me of a part in Victor Davis Hanson’s “Carnage and culture”, in which he depicts Japanese fighter pilots protecting their fleet at Midway all diving down as soon as the wave skimming US torpedo bombers had been spotted, eager to get kills for their individual records… enabling a decisive US victory when high flying US dive bombers appeared a few moments later.

[@hazzardalsohazzard2624]

I feel that the improvement of armour against missile weapons has been understated here. If your armour is good enough to stop projectiles without a shield, or useless with or without a shield, then it makes less sense to have one. Shields are a pain to carry around and harder to grapple with, although striking someone with the shield is still possible. It's always easier to have a hand free, taken off your polearm or two handed sword temporalily, than to grab while holding a shield. This is assuming you're holding a shield you can grab with in the first place.

[@joelthompson4854]

I thought it had to do with the age old question of should officers lead from the front or rear of the unit. If you are at the front, get your shield, but if you are at the back trying to maintain a large cohesive unit effectively ditch the shield. The ancient world also struggled with this idea of leading from the front and then the rear.

[@timarrowsmith9647]

I think peer influence was an important factor too. Wanting to differentiate yourself from the 'common' soldier. Also, wanting to keep up with the latest trend and technology. We know appearance was important. If the poleaxe was the most advanced, high status product on the market, that required the most skill to wield, they'd have all wanted one. It'd have been like the iPhone 12 of it's day.

[@peterklein8355]

I always figured the changes go hand in hand. Armor gets better- need more powerful offensive weapon which means something two handed. Also as armor gets better, polearms are the only effective weapon for those less equipped. Bottom line- there was greater benefit to wielding a 2 handed weapon than keeping a shield in melee combat

[@some_sewing_nerd]

I think, another reason might be, that more and more common soldiers wore some form of armor and you can deal much more damage with a two handed weapon against armored opponents. So maybe they had to rely on their increased protectiveness of their armor to counter the increased protectiveness of their opponents.

[@danielkeding3071]

Matt, I think that your final idea regarding knights trying in some way to fall back on what they perceived were the glory days of chivalry was most interesting. We see the same cultural idea of past glory coming to surface at the end of the shogunate in Japan with the resurgence of the samurai code. One can never underestimate the ego of the male beast. Keep up the great work.

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

It goes all the way back to antiquity at least, with Roman emperor trying to emulate Alexander the Great, who was himself inspired by Homer's Iliad. This calls to mind a famous passage from Karl Marx: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living."

[@angryhistoryguy5657]

Timely reminder that when Alexander got to Troy, he and his boyfriend ran around the walls cosplaying Achilles and Patroclus.

[@jorenbosmans8065]

Sooo maybe a wild theory with some assumptions that might be wrong, but bare with me. A downside of shields is that it takes away a lot of your vision. Heavily armored knights had a terrible vision due to their Helmets only having a small open space to prevent weak spots. I would suggest that one of the reasons that knights didn't use a shield anymore, was because it would completly block their vision. Having dropped the shield we come into Matt's reasoning that you might as Well use a two Handed weapon for all the reasons mentioned here. Would be Fun to test this by having an experienced sword and shield fighter try to fight in armor of that time. Any toughts?

[@MisdirectedSasha]

A shield might obstruct your vision a little bit, but if you're already wearing a visit, the shield is the least of your worries. On the other hand, the shield is a big heavy object strapped to one of your arms. It's a pain to carry around. If you aren't wearing much armour then it's worth it, but if you have a 50 or 60lb harness on already that protects you pretty well on its own, you might be tempted to do without the shield.

[@jorenbosmans8065]

@@MisdirectedSasha didn't take weight into account. I agree that a shield is worth having when you are not very armored. The weight argument is in line with my vision argument, namely that wearing the armour makes the shield more a liability than An Asset. At least that was my tought.

[@aesopstortoise]

When knights were on the battlefield giving orders, did they have to lift their visors up, could they shout through them, or did they use arm gestures?

[@amar2470]

I wanna know too.

[@airnt]

with a sallet you can just lift your head and shout. Armets are terrible for commanding out of. (do you want a wrapper or not?) trumpets are widely used.... as shouting at 1000 riders tends to go rather unnoticed. tehre si even some trumpet calles specifically described (though very vague on melody) also just 'follow the leader' is done in massive daisy chains using physical contact to know where to go executing an attack. so you know to be a nose length behind the guy to your right, your horse bent around his. the trumpet sounds so you are riding forward, then the main guys just aim the whole formation who are all just following the formations movment ans pushing it along. this way wheels in wedge form are easy and a large body of cavalry can be aimed rather precisely onto an enemy body of men (cav or inf) I sometimes even use the outside of my leg or even spur to move the next persons' horse in the formation so the whole goes the right way- Once fighting starts you don't hear trumpets at all... like at all... in helmets like this. arm signals or signals with sword in hand for added visibility seem to be used, there is some depictions that look like that, but your field of vision is limited, so unless you were already looking, you cannot see it unless he rides ahead of the line. This was commonly done in Napoleonic warfare, not so much in medieval. wedge formations do help with this, because the few men right around you will hear you, the rest will see you (ahead of them) Also horses pushing on each other (mostly sideways) is widely used to get good wheels going. Having said that, straight line abreast charges were difinitely also done, andalso two lines in line abreast. Again you just form up on the line and keep the line that some designated main person keeps... (usually marked by the banner) (as in... guy on the right in gilt armour has a banner behind him (square one) and that is what i line up on and just follow his every move.)

[@aesopstortoise]

@@airnt Thank you, that was really helpful.

[@enginnonidentifie]

You can even find sources showing shields seeing use from Western Europe from the 1st quarter (and possibly first half) of the 17th century. Painters known for battle scenes like Snayers, for example, sometimes depict their use - though certainly in a more limited capacity to be sure.

[@Justice-ian]

Great video as always, and it all made sense to me except the polearm-infantry point. If my opponent's weapon may penetrate my armor, but almost certainly not a shield AND armor; and he's NOT wearing equivalent armor, it seems very much in my interest to have something to parry his weapon while leaving my other arm free to hit him in the same tempo, even if my weapon wouldn't be the best against full plate.

[@jadenephrite]

Regarding 29:09 Superherores, Captain America uses a shield made of the virtually indestructible metal Vibranium. Police use shields made of ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene such as Spectra or Dyneema or from aramid such as Kevlar.

[@jamessimmons8242]

Tactics on the battle field probably had abit to do with it too. I remember reading an article some time ago about how the knight/ man at arms operated on the field.the basic gist of it was the fully armoured knight operated in unison with more lightly armoured retainers who basically formed up around him. Similar to how infantry operate with tanks. I'd imagine the need for a shield on the battlefield would be some what lessened if you have full armour and ten plus men watching your back and fending of errant blows etc from out of your field of vision

[@WhatIfBrigade]

I think the unit cohesion point is especially important because men-at-arms/knights would have been the best trained and it would be odd for them to have a weapon set completely different from the rank and file. Later this makes more sense because there are more professional soldiers, but in period knights would be as much a coach as commander.

[@alexanerose4820]

My guess is it would be redundant. The extra protection would be nice though but most knights didn't need that much protection

[@dinodob4430]

That helmet you wore is very cool. I wore something similar once at a museum. I was surprised at how heavy it was.

[@larkturner7136]

Illustrations from the battle of battle of Wenzenbach in 1504 show them in use by the bohemian infantry. I personally think a well trained formation of infantry utilizing some sort of pavise and spear would have worked in the late middle ages in a combined arms scenario with archers, cavalry and various polearms.

[@louiebergendal6409]

Knights felt insecure, and thus started using big freudian weapons. My favourite theory so far :D

[@jamesbparkin740]

"My longsword is bigger than your bollock-dagger"?

[@jonc8074]

14th Knights were obsessed with being 'chaste' and always saying 'm'lady' and hating on muslims. Also tactical 11th century cosplay. THEY WERE THE ORIGINAL NECKBEARD INCELS

[@ErikMikkelsen1]

@@jonc8074 Toxic Chivalry.

[@caioabramo2443]

The shield, more than any other single item, was THE symbol of the entire knightly class; indeed to be a member of the nobility was synonymous with having a "shield" of arms since time immemorial. It seems unlikely there would have been such a change in ethos to render this item less honourable or unknightly.

[@davidi6976]

Little bit confusing how the second half of the video contradict directly the first half several times. I know it's important to keep nuance, but building a video following a "well no but actually yes" path isn't the best way to do so imho.

[@craigbigbee6395]

You don't know Matt very well do you.....

[@davidi6976]

​@@craigbigbee6395 It's been several years I watch pretty much every single video he put on ytube. So yes, I think I know a little bit what his channel is about.

[@curtisbailey78]

Hey Matt. One question this video brought to mind for me is if there's any historical records about what was done as far as repairing plate armor and even weapons during the Medieval era. Surely a dent or divot or chip was not enough for someone at that time to throw away an otherwise acceptable (and expensive) piece of kit. What do we know about repair and repair procedures from that time? Would love to see a video about this.

[@t3hd0n]

my first thought about the "they were less effective against shields" or whatever argument is that even if it wasn't true, that might have still been the "conventional wisdom" and how trends change even if wasn't the most optimum change

[@t3hd0n]

also, the fact they were still in use during the time in question doesn't change the fact they fell out of use *eventually*. we didn't have handheld shields in WW1 or whatever. saying "there were still shields during the mary rose period when there were guns" could be distracting from the fact that guns were the eventual reason they fell out of use but not immediately. that might be a question/discussion for people who focus on a later time period and not 14th-17th century

[@thislostendevour]

You briefly mentioned 'fighting in the Scottish style' at the battle of Crecy. Could you do a future video where you discuss certain fighting styles? Cheers.

[@berkulese]

Ok, what happened there [at Crecy] was the English army set up in a fairly narrow space between cavalry-proof terrain, and used blocks of mainly pikemen\spearmen (supported by archers) to create a wall in front of the French cavalry that they were repeatedly repulsed by with heavy losses. He calls it the Scottish style because this is a tactic that the English knights learned in the Scottish campaigns of the previous century, and took it for themselves (this also partially explains why the English knights usually fought on foot, they were very good at anti-cavalry tactics in a world where everyone else relied on the heavy horse) Hope this explains it

[@temperededge]

Perhaps an increased awareness of the importance of grappling is also a factor? As I understand it, one area in which shields become more of a hinderance than a help is when opponents come to literal grips. A shield ties up one arm (usually a hand as well) and, if it's a strapped shield, provides an excellent lever for an opponent to manipulate to his advantage. The ubiquity of the rondel dagger seems indicative of how much knights expect to come into grappling range. Perhaps that same awareness contributed to some knights discarding their shields just in case someone were to suddenly grab them mid-fight.

[@AndrewTheFrank]

This is likely the case because by this time few to nobody was using boss gripped shields, and the period before it seems that strapped shields were the spice of life. Might be why the leather grips became popular. can be ditched easily.

[@Ajmes]

Awesome video. Really touched upon a diverse array of topics within the context of the main intent of the video. A lot of good stuff here.

[@TheLoyalOfficer]

I have wanted to have this answered for YEARS! Thank you! FINALLY!

[@corrugatedcavalier5266]

Great video! I really appreciate all of the manuscript pictures, and that Paduan Bible Picture Book is one of the first things that came to mind of shields being used at the beginning of the 15th century. Probably because I mostly look up late 14th/early 15th century Italy stuff in my harness research :)

[@sassyviking6003]

Knights by definition were primarily cavalry. Chivalry, at lease the root of the word, was literally the French word for horsemanship. Also proper warhorses were very expensive to breed, own, and maintain. This is why the feudal system of knights came to be. You could levy peasants with spears and such for the bulk of your army, but you maintained an elite core of fighters whom were of a privileged class that could afford to just train all the time in their everyday life, and those were the ones you entrusted with the expensive investment of horses. Thus branching from this you invested in better armor and weapons for such people because like training a proper horse, it was expensive and time consuming to train a warrior worthy of that horse. So proper equipment protected both investments, the horse, and the knight atop it. For that reason the default combat role of a knight would be on horseback. At which point they would use a lance. Yes there were duels, and tournaments, and in sieges, if a siege came to actual combat, or if your horse was killed you would need to fight on foot. But these were not the primary role of a knight. For this reason it is silly to say that knights didn't use shields, because even if they never used them when unhorsed, they almost certainly would on horseback since a couched lance can be controlled 1 handed and there is no reason not to have a shield in the other hand. For this reason I would say they probably used shields more often than not, even if they started to use them less.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

This is guy is english so his vids are anglo centric. English knights of that period fought mostly as heavy infantry with polearms, not as heavy lancers. The reason they didn't use shields was the same as why a halberdier didn't use one. They needed both arms to operate the weapon.

[@sassyviking6003]

@@majungasaurusaaaa well yes, if they were infantry then no shield makes sense. Mind dropping ke a source for that though? The whole point of a knight in feudal society was to ensure you had a people who were well trained, equiped, and taken care of to entrust a warhorse to them as such horses were incredibly expensive to buy and maintain. The word chivalry even originates from the french word meaning horsemanship.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

@@sassyviking6003 Source: William F. Floyd, Jr. "For their part, the English knights and men-at-arms had fought on foot throughout the Hundred Years’ War, and this preference for fighting dis- mounted continued into the Wars of the Roses. Indeed, the English proved that the most effec- tive way to do battle was with dismounted infantry supported by archers". They're referred to as "dismounted", meaning they do have war and transportation horses and could switch to mounted combat should the situation demand it.

[@D1vu5]

Personally I immediately thought of the reason that I would personally make the switch if I was a knight with access to good enough armour. It’s the same reason being very skilled at any physical activity is additive, the feeling of being able to move faster and better than your opponent is intoxicating.

[@WildBillCox13]

Fascinating content. A comment, if you don't mind. There are times when a commander uses a specific (or personal) weapon, in defiance of the general issue for his unit. You've discussed similar situations, yourself, in your video on Japanese swords of the 20th century. A commander of pikes would have a sword as the badge of his office, at the very least. Same with a commander of muskets. Off topic: how well d'you think gaucho style bolos would've done on the medieval battlefield?

[@impressiveprogressive7343]

Reasonable, if you are using a longer weapon then it takes both hands to control it properly making the shield useless basically just a burden at that point. Also with wider combat ranges one can simply step back from incoming blow rather absorb that shock on a shield. I have always preferred 2 handed weapons but I am very fond of the hammers, maces anf flails too. Not so much the shield though, taking a beating on the shield is just as excruciating as taking the beating on the armor, after a while your arm gets tired, beaten and even broken. Better to apply the Asian martial art way of thinking, best way to not get hit, is don't be there.

[@frost8077]

I love the battlefield context to put the equipment into perspective of the surrounding enviornment.

[@johnssmith4005]

Why were Slashing / Stabbing Weapons way more predominant than Blunt Weapons when Blunt Weapons were effective against more types of Armors than Slashing / Stabbing Weapons ?

[@sbot8158]

My guess would be that they take usually far less materials but otherwise idk lol.

[@Angel24Marin]

Slashing weapons are better for defense (closer center of mass to your hand so it's more nimble) when you are lightly armoured. Easier to hurt lightly armoured foes but also able to deal with someone armored opponents.

[@DieNibelungenliad]

blunt weapons were common but they arent protrayed as much in movies except for the villain who always holdz a scary spiked flail

[@NevisYsbryd]

It is far easier to inflict debilitating injuries with cutting implements than bludgeoning relative to size, weight, ease of carry, reach, and so on. Blunt weapons are also not necessarily superior against armor. Heavy-hitting spikes (such as on a pollaxe) are a far more reliable means of inflicting incapacitating wounds than a bludgeon-they do entail the risk of getting stuck, though, and are liable to achieve less on a glancing blow. Furthermore, nearly all armor had vulnerabilities that could be exploited through a properly-placed blade or point. As for swords, because swords are jack-of-all-trades sidearms, that can do most jobs well enough, and are about as good at parrying as convenient sidearms could be. Hammers and maces are shorter (by necessity, due to their weight distribution) and significantly slower to recover from any motion, making them comparatively poor defensive implements, and vastly inferior to swords in most contexts where one is facing someone with lighter or no dedicated armor.

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

@@NevisYsbryd Pollaxes sources show a lot of hitting with the hammer rather than the beak, so I'm not sure about that part. It's something I've been thinking about for a while, & seen many long debates. Swung blows with beaks do appear here & there in period sources, but striking with the hammer or blade seems to have been more common. It may have been a tradeoff between the reliability of walloping someone with a hammer or blade likely to stick & impart force versus the chance of actually punching through a plate with the beak with the risk of it glancing off & not hitting as hard.

[@larsbkurin1740]

Very interesting thoughts that show the need to have broad knowledge and access to original sources. Something that interests me is "the magic 30 kg" in fighting weight, it seems that there is a natural maximum weight for a soldier from the Bronze Age to Afghanistan. Have no idea what a knight wore on the battlefield but guess he had to choose a compromise to last more than a few minutes.

[@knutzzl]

On horseback you still need to control the horse (yes you can do it handsfree BUT) your left hand is in the perfect place to hold both the rains and a shield.

It is the law of diminishing returns, if you are well protected already adding a shield does not give a lot added protection. Instead it is more useful to invest in attacking.

[@MisdirectedSasha]

Also shields add weight and encumbrance that you probably don't want to carry around if you don't have to.

[@thezieg]

The three-ply bullhide leather adarga (shield) of the Soldados de Cuera are everywhere in the Spanish colonies (both Asia and the New World) until the late 18th century!!

[@ericgeil1856]

Also, I think another important reason was that the two-handed weapons came to be more reliable than earlier versions. Earlier ones might break due to poor craftmanship compare to the later version with improving technologies of forging.

[@duelist1954]

Excellent development of the thesis. The ending Gave me something to think about.

[@stormiewutzke4190]

Oh. I did like this one a lot. Maybe you covered it in the past but I don't know that I have really heard much about those deadly knightly tournaments that you mentioned. Somehow I kinda thought that trying to kill each other in a tournament was more of a Hollywood thing. I enjoy these types of videos you do where we learn about how culture shapes aspects of warfare along with technology and tactics. I think it's something we lose track of when we view things from a modern view. Perhaps in the future when people view us they will not understand why things such as MAD were effective and view it through their tactical lense. A video I would very much love is one you could do with Audible as a sponsor. While I love to read I don't have much time and focus much of my history reading through audio. A "reading" list of good audio history would be awesome. Growing up I did all the old stuff and over the past several years I have worked out a lot of at least the American parts of the industrial revolution and world wars. It would be great to start filling in much of the European history going back and to understand a bit more of how all of that works and lead us to modern life. There are a few channels that I follow but yours is my first as I like your taste. I hope you are thinking about writing a book and if you do it would be great if it was audio but I would get it either way. I know you republished that manual that I still need to get but I would very much enjoy a long format look at some of your research. Cheers

[@peteazouz6072]

Matt - Just a moment to say thank you, have thrown some $$ on patreon for you as I'm a big fan of your videos, please keep making them as I find them interesting and to be honest I watch them more than the TV channels that I pay for over here in the USA on my cable subscription, please keep it up as they are awesome.

[@joshuawalker301]

Damn that sallet is a piece of art.

[@CalidrisJZ]

A slightly different region and context, but shields remained in use in eastern Poland/Ukraine well into the 17th century due to the influence of Tartars.

[@LiqnLag]

You need to hog tie Todd into crafting a proper pole ax for you to brandish around when lecturing about this sort of stuff....with a properly distanced camera =)

[@horaciogonzalez4284]

Having really high quality gauntlets really helps. It's natural to use your hands and forearms to defend against a strike. Additionally having that hand that can be free allows you to try to control an opponent's weapon or shield.

[@roberthood7321]

Thank you! You're expertise is appreciated. I understand about getting paid via advertisements. Keep up the good work. Cheers!

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

Years ago down Labyrinth (underground LARP Venue) a couple of members of the White Company came down in full plate, they showed us how the left shoulder and left arm plates were bigger and beefier, and so they could face the opponent with their left facing stance, curl their arm and boom, a shield of sorts. So not so much disappeared, more kind of changed.

[@andersgjersoe4852]

Very interesting, particularly your last point …. the role of knights and their “super hero” image.

[@dalemoses2443]

Your third point about soldiers matching their troops is countered by the claim that regular soldiers were still using shields. Seems more likely that armor got good enough that the one hander + shield lost to the two hander both in an individual sense and in a group sense.

[@pablotesticules]

Great mention to Jacques de Lalaing! Badass knight. Great video too!

[@TechnoMinarchist]

I mean, when you're wearing a shield why bother with carrying one?

[@NevisYsbryd]

It also may have been an effort to cement their legitimacy as aristocracy, as 'better' than the commoners. Given the increase in influence and social bargaining power of the lower classes and the rise of mercenaries during that period and the declining importance of elite cavalry (and the decline of the feudal model, both economically and socially) and increasing centralization of power in the monarch or comparable figures (as opposed to more diffused among local aristocracy as was it was previously), the alleged justification for the knights' position, as leaders, military elites, and the wiser and more learned administrators of land who controlled and taxed the commoners, was crumbling away. I wager their fixation on military achievement was, in addition to an identity crisis (and the narcissism that frequently accompanies a life of privilege, especially when coupled with being raised with the narrative that one is better in some regards than the commoners), was an effort to maintain their perceived legitimacy and therefore their social, economic, political, and military status and the accompanying rights and entitlements.

[@NevisYsbryd]

@@F1ghteR41 Oh, certainly. Competition between the central figure and the elites as a group is a nigh (or indeed) universal facet of society. Once the knights became obsolete (and their overlords had access to more effective _and_ convenient alternatives), they became a liability and unnecessary competition for centralized power. They were justifying themselves just as much to the other aristocracy as to the commoners.

[@5Dworld]

The reach argument makes a lot of sense. Running around with a shield and arming sword is a bit out of place when everyone else is wielding a polearm. But why didnt more people use polearms earlier in history?

[@DieNibelungenliad]

My guess is that infantry extensively used polearms while cavalry preferred swords

[@Vlad_Tepes_III]

@@DieNibelungenliad Cavalry also used polearms. What did you think the war lance was?

[@Vlad_Tepes_III]

They did use polearms earlier in history, though nothing as elaborate as a pollaxe or halberd. The typical soldier wielded a spear and a shield, with a sword hung at his side, meant to be drawn and used when his spear broke or when the formation devolved into disorganized melee.

[@NevisYsbryd]

While they did, for you question as to why they did not rely predominantly on _two-handed_ polearms such as pikes, they sometimes did (the Macedonians used what were essentially pike blocks). Fundamentally, though, because that left them vulnerable to other military tactics, unit types, and/or weaponry, especially missiles and cavalry. Slings, arrows, and the like have a major reach advantage over polearms unless you can mitigate that with cover, positioning, and/or armor. Similarly, after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and the subsequent decline in logistical capability of training and fielding large numbers of well-trained men-at-arms, elite cavalry came to dominate for a long time-pretty much until the Swiss pikemen and similar mercenary groups began providing well-trained infantry that was capable of competing on more equal footing with elite cavalry. It takes a lot of discipline and experience to keep a pike block functioning compared to a spear-and-shield formation, especially when faced with things like missiles or more mobile cavalry. The advances in armor probably helped with that as well, mitigating the problem posed especially by missiles for a lack of shields.

[@DieNibelungenliad]

@@Vlad_Tepes_III yes they did.

[@_GOD_HAND_]

Short answer: tactics. Shields are used for protecting men in an infantry battle line (shield wall). In the 14th century, the qualifications for knighthood grew stricter and their equipment got more expensive, while professional men-at-arms from the lower classes became better armed. Thus full-fledged knights evolved from mainline infantrymen to elite skirmishers fighting for individual glory.

[@RicardoMoralesMassin]

I just want to appreciate the quantity and quality of specialized information Matt gives us every week. Plus witty commentary! Honestly, all of swordtube is abundant with curated knowledge that I don't think I could get anywhere else. Cheers! ps: it's incredibly funny that knights could have that macho, alpha male mentality you see nowadays on social media. "Guys is protecting your life with a shield kinda fruity?" hahahaha

[@stephenleggett4243]

Unhelpful comment of the night: A lot of my Space Marines carry shields and they are from the 41st melenial, give or take.

[@LordInter]

but only used in certain circumstances 😊

[@stephenleggett4243]

@@LordInter they are Blood Angels, if they are not in those circumstances, then I am either in a lot of trouble, or everythig is going swimmingly.

[@Asher0208]

Loved your 0:48 relatively concise answer.

[@andrewlustfield6079]

This is really interesting--especially that last point. It seems there was a romance with the offense similar to the sensibilities that pervaded among war planners before world war one.

[@Kishandreth]

Pure conjecture after listening to your input: Knight's simply chose not to carry the shield themselves. If they are leading a unit of a bunch of blokes who have shields, then they can just stand behind their men. Having the 2 handed weapons allow them to quickly handle any threats to their men. It's a hammer and anvil style of attack. Their men have shields and can do a pretty good job of staying alive, the knight kills quickly and their armor keeps them alive. Once a few enemies are taken out of battle it snowballs into a victory as the number advantage takes hold. Even if their unit didn't have anyone who used a shield, I would find it likely that a page or man-at-arms of the knight would carry one for the knight. Just because we see depictions of knights without shields that doesn't mean they didn't own shields.

[@Wodan85]

how well can you block a halberd with a shield? I once had a real old halberd in my hand, this weapon is extremely powerful. Does blocking a halberd work better with another two-handed weapon?

[@NevisYsbryd]

Depends on the type of shield. For a lot of types, though, yes, blocking a halberd hit with a shield will hurt from the sheer impact, assuming it does not penetrate you through it.

[@samuelferrell9257]

Combined arms started to become more advanced as the ages progressed. Look at the Spanish Tercio as an example. One man with a polearm, one man with a crossbow or firearm, one man with sword and shield, someone to deal with any situation. Shields were important however as muskets aka two handed firearms became more prevalent huge numbers if soldiers with shields became less prevalent. Even in WW1 they tried using iron shields at one point to see if they could approach trenches and found that high caliber ammunition will just blow through the metal.

[@gm2407]

Shields serve a purpose dependent on what weapons system you are fighting with. The boss is the strongest part of the shield because it is iron/steel. It is to heavy to make a large shield from, so you have wood. Large shields are used as primary barriers between the combatant and the oponent. This means you are probably less armoured, but not completely and can hold off the shield away from you so any penetration does not penetrate the person behind. Alternately if you need both hands to weild your weapon then you want something smaller to intercept strikes or even something strapped to the arm. Solution buckler, it is just the boss and does the interception job. Kite, heater, rotilla are all strap shields so they are prone to penetration as there is no metal part, so there becomes a risk of being pinned to your shield. If your shield is fully metal it will offer better protection than wood. So the matter is when larger full metal shields appear.

[@93xxlolxx]

You might ad Italian export armors to Germany can also be added to the heavier asymetrical armor versions.

[@fsmoura]

ACKKSHUALLY, shields were in fact not any less prevalent, but you don't see them as much, because by then they were being carried on knights' _backs._ (cf. Shad, 2019, 'Your Weapon is Dumb!' Journal of Machicolations Studies, vol. 3 p. 197)

[@NevisYsbryd]

This is satire, right? Except shields were one of the few things that actually _were_ worn on the back with any significant frequency...

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

I'd guess concept of knights leading platoon of commoner infantry developed only after abandonment of armored cavalry with long lances. It took years to train someone in handling lance, shield and horse in same time and they were prime force to break enemy line. Artillery improvements changed that...

[@shawn6860]

Shields are used in law enforcement action today. In older times when the intent to capture as opposed to kill enemies makes sense. Medieval law enforcement or urban combat could use a shield in many ways.