Hello,
This recent thread on the pavise made me curious about the troops shown with pavises, (like the picture that Nathan provided).
I am more generally curious about any late Medieval or Early Renaissance sword and shield troops. The simple view is that plate armour supplanted shields and arming swords, but that is clearly only part of the story.
I am most curious about the panoply of equipment being carried, nationality, and how they were used.
Thanks.
The Spanish army employed Rodellas, or sword and buckler men, who carried a rollea, a large steel shield (I wouldn't call it a buckler) and a short sword. Their job was to get into pike formations and mess them up.
M.
M.
| M. Eversberg II wrote: |
| The Spanish army employed Rodellas, or sword and buckler men, who carried a rollea, a large steel shield (I wouldn't call it a buckler) and a short sword. Their job was to get into pike formations and mess them up. |
They were called rodeleros, actually. Rodela was the name of their shields. And, technically speaking, they were light infantry who seldom had more armor than a cuirass and a light helmet/morion, and often less. This was why they still saw a need for relatively large shields.
Tactically, they were not used as simple "pike-breakers" since Swiss pikemen tended to trample them underfoot in a frontal encounter. Most of the competent Spanish/Imperial commanders used them for laying ambushes or launching small-unit attacks in broken terrain, which would have forced the pike formations to break up and rendered them vulnerable to attacks by men with shorter weapons. It is also worth noting that many pike formations at this time had a "crust" of armored men protecting the lightly-armored or unarmored men in the center. The broken terrain allowed the rodeleros to get straight into the vulnerable center without having to break their way through the armored bulwark on the outside.
In many cases the Spanish used military engineering to create the broken terrain that the rodeleros needed; one good example is the field fortifications in the Battle of Cerignola.
If we're allowed to speak of the 14th and 15th centuries as well, then we also see the sword-and-buckler combination (not the rodeleros' sword-and-target) being preferred by dismounted men-at-arms when assaulting or defending fortified positions. Part of the reason for this is that a man-at-arms conducting an escalade over an exposed ladder would have been able to hold his buckler above his head to protect himself from relatively light missiles.
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
|
If we're allowed to speak of the 14th and 15th centuries as well, then we also see the sword-and-buckler combination (not the rodeleros' sword-and-target) being preferred by dismounted men-at-arms when assaulting or defending fortified positions. Part of the reason for this is that a man-at-arms conducting an escalade over an exposed ladder would have been able to hold his buckler above his head to protect himself from relatively light missiles. |
I welcome 14th and 15th century info as I'm looking for late Medieval as well as early Renaissance.
So by men-at-arms are we talking about soldiers in full plate harness?
Are we sure that bucklers were used since a buckler isn't really big enough for that purpose - for instance I'm almost 20 inches wide, and so would need a 20" shield to adequately protect me from above and not a 12 or 14" buckler.
Thanks.
The combination of a sword and target was not unique to Spain; such soldiers were also part of English armies in the first part of the 16th century. They were known as "whifflers" and could be deployed around the edges of a pike column as flank guards. (Gervase Phillips, The Anglo-Scots Wars)
The sword used with the large round or oval target was not a "short sword" by the modern use of the term. If you look at Marozzo where he discusses the use of sword and shield, the weapon illustrated is a standard arming sword/single-hand sword of the day. This is comparable to George Silver, who does discuss the use of sword and target, and whose idea of a short sword was upwards of 40 inches long.
The sword used with the large round or oval target was not a "short sword" by the modern use of the term. If you look at Marozzo where he discusses the use of sword and shield, the weapon illustrated is a standard arming sword/single-hand sword of the day. This is comparable to George Silver, who does discuss the use of sword and target, and whose idea of a short sword was upwards of 40 inches long.
Lafayette: I misspelled the name of the shield on accident, though I never did say they entered direct combat with anyone.
M.
M.
| Steven H wrote: |
| So by men-at-arms are we talking about soldiers in full plate harness?
Are we sure that bucklers were used since a buckler isn't really big enough for that purpose - for instance I'm almost 20 inches wide, and so would need a 20" shield to adequately protect me from above and not a 12 or 14" buckler. |
Well, reasonably complete harnesses of mail and plate--not necessarily full harnesses of plate. But you get the idea.
As for the size and protection afforded by the buckler, I don't think it matters all that much since the protection is more psychological than physical. No shield will protect against a big rock or boiling water. And the buckler actually has a physical advantage in that you're holding it in the center--not the edges--so you can hold it straight up towards the assailant, whereas with a forearm-strapped shield you have to hunker down a bit in order to fit yourself within the the shield's protection.
armor is expensive, i would do whatever i could to avoid damage. Also just because the blow doesn’t crack through the armor doesn’t mean it wouldn’t hurt like hell. I can understand if some people would want the extra protection of a shield.
| Sean Belair wrote: |
| armor is expensive, i would do whatever i could to avoid damage. Also just because the blow doesn’t crack through the armor doesn’t mean it wouldn’t hurt like hell. I can understand if some people would want the extra protection of a shield. |
Purpose of the Mace 101 right there.
M.
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
| [
They were called rodeleros, actually. Rodela was the name of their shields. |
Does anyone have a photo or a sketch of such a shield?
| George Hill wrote: | ||
Does anyone have a photo or a sketch of such a shield? |
There are some depictions in Marozzo we are going to be scanning pretty soon...
J
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | ||
They were called rodeleros, actually. Rodela was the name of their shields. And, technically speaking, they were light infantry who seldom had more armor than a cuirass and a light helmet/morion, and often less. This was why they still saw a need for relatively large shields. Tactically, they were not used as simple "pike-breakers" since Swiss pikemen tended to trample them underfoot in a frontal encounter. Most of the competent Spanish/Imperial commanders used them for laying ambushes or launching small-unit attacks in broken terrain, which would have forced the pike formations to break up and rendered them vulnerable to attacks by men with shorter weapons. It is also worth noting that many pike formations at this time had a "crust" of armored men protecting the lightly-armored or unarmored men in the center. The broken terrain allowed the rodeleros to get straight into the vulnerable center without having to break their way through the armored bulwark on the outside. In many cases the Spanish used military engineering to create the broken terrain that the rodeleros needed; one good example is the field fortifications in the Battle of Cerignola. If we're allowed to speak of the 14th and 15th centuries as well, then we also see the sword-and-buckler combination (not the rodeleros' sword-and-target) being preferred by dismounted men-at-arms when assaulting or defending fortified positions. Part of the reason for this is that a man-at-arms conducting an escalade over an exposed ladder would have been able to hold his buckler above his head to protect himself from relatively light missiles. |
That really sounds familiar, very much like Roman tactics against the (pike-armed) Greco-Macedonian phalanx.
They were modeled after the Roman legions--at least partially so. One of their greatest and most obvious proponents was Machiavelli, who made no secret of the Neoclassical influences in the formation of these troops.
| George Hill wrote: | ||
Does anyone have a photo or a sketch of such a shield? |
Found this with a Google image search:
http://www.flg.es/HTML/Obras_2/Rodeladeacero_2623.htm
http://www.flg.es/HTML/Obras_2/Rodelalisa_2613.htm
http://www.flg.es/HTML/Obras_2/Rodeladeacero_2638.htm
Unfortunately I can't read Spanish.
Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum