I would really appreciate some clarification on shields and their different shapes and sizes.

Why did the size of the shield seem to decrease over time? I understand that the decrease in size correlates to the increase effectiveness of plate armor. But I would assume that a larger would still provide added protection against missile and hand held weapons over a smaller type (i.e. Kite over heater shield). The Romans had very effective armor with the Lorica Segmentata, but still utilized a very large shield. While the Vikings used a much smaller round shield with less effective armor, which based on my readings seem to be much more succeptiable to breakage as well. It also perplexes me that in the late medieval and renaissance periods the buckler seemed to be the shield of choice for many types of soldiers (pikeman and archers) who usually didn't wear heavy armor.

Is it because larger shields reduce your ability to strike an opponent and with better armor an individual could focus more on offense?
Is it an endurance \ weight factor?
Is it a weapon \ shield effectiveness combination thing?
Are smaller shields used more for offense (i.e. smash the face and head)?
Is it an issue of cost?

It just seems that an individual would look for every advantage on the battlefield and I would imagine that a larger shield would provide that.

Thanks for the info.

As far as pikemen... It really doesn't make sense for somebody who has to use both hands to control their weapon to carry around a huge shield especially when you consider they are fighting within a pike block, and the archers are going to try to stay out of the way and fire their bows, that of course is what they are there for.

Large shields did exist in later periods. There were dueling shields that were quite large. I don't however know if they were used much in battle. I don't expect they would be of much use against the muskets of the late 16th century on anyway.

I just have a few experiences with shields, but I try to be constructive. By the way the viking shields were not as much smaller than the romans, moreover as far as I know the roman mounted troops wore oval shields in the nearly same size as the celts or vikings.

About viking shields, here is a very good essay with a lot of parameter:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chrisandpeter/shield/shield.html
As you see most of the shields are nearly have a diameter about 1 metre.

An add to the size change with time. There were (nearly maybe) in every era real small shields and pretty big ones.

Just a few for examlpe ancient times:
Big: Romans, usually the Celts (from roman statues, finds, in a lot of shapes and sizes), Germans (roman coins from about A.D. 100, in lots of shapes).
Little: Picts (especially little ones, with square shapes in the size of a bucler) and some Celts (roman imagery),

Or in the 1500's:
Big: pavase (finds, still existing items) shields.
Little: square target (italian 16th century), buckler (from I.33 and earlier times).

Of course there were always favourites of the period, as you sad.

I know I've seen Italian infantry shields in 15th century artwork, large ovals, as well as others but I can't find the pics. I thought it worth mentioning though.

:eek: Doh! I forgot pavises....

Pavises: http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2711&start=0

or just go to SPOTLIGHT TOPICS and select it there.

At what point did spearmen (of the two handed variety such as pikemen) stop using shoulder slung shields? Does this correspond to the introduction of firearms?

Thanks for the info, there is some excellent readings there.

I am gathering that the size of the shield depends on a soldier's position and duty in a battle formation. Which makes complete sense.

I guess the other aspect that I am unclear on is in regards to hand to hand combat. Why are there so many training manuals and books on sword and buckler styles and tactics? Wouldn't a larger shield be more useful in hand to hand combat?

Thanks.

I think that is because large shields were something of a battlefield item, (Guess: If you were fighting in a shield wall you would have to be trained in number anyway) where as a buckler is quite handy hanging from the hip, ready to be called into action to defend ones life. It makes more sense to carry something small around for defence since you aren't likely to get into a fight everyday. Would you wear a flack vest everyday?

My guess is that better leg armour is the explanation of diminishing shield size.
The legs are quite exposed to draw cuts or feints, but few direct, full force blows.
A mail skirt, or even gambeson, would give enough protection to make such attacks futile and risky. Lowering your weapon to strike at the legs is an invitation to be wacked in the head.

So if a larger shield was used to protect the legs before the advent of better leg armor. And then when leg armor increased in effectiveness a smaller shield was employed. This would imply that a smaller shield provides an increase to offensive capabilities during hand to hand combat. Is this logic correct? If so why?

I would say that it does not increase offensive capability as it reduces encumbrance.

The same increase in armour also promoted a change from the one handed spear to the two handed spear or polearm as the primary weapon on the battlefield. As such, shelds that where carried into battle would serve secondary or back up purposes. They would not be formed up into a shield wall, as they would be of old.

There have been some very good ideas here as to why shield sizes changed. Some work well for specific cases, but in the bigger picture, shield size varied greatly for all different kinds of reasons. The celtic iberians had both the typical sized celtic long shield as well as a smaller round that was more used on horse back. You have the anglo saxon round shield get progressively larger over the course of the Migration era and then into the Viking age. We don't know exactly one reason why, but I would guess that at least one reason was a change in fighting style. In general earlier on you had a more open and active "formation" or style of fighting where as later in the period you have more compact styles with things like shield walls being used. So for any given change with things like shield shape or size you will have many factors such as armour, weapons, fighting style, battlefield tactics, and even things like beliefs all affecting to a greater of less degrees how and why things change.

It kind of goes back to the sword and armour relationship over time. At any given time period you have several factors influencing each, and sometimes you can figure them out, other time it isn't so clear. Rarely though does one reason apply over the thousands of years and vast localities we deal with in our studies.

Shane

Larger shields are better defensively and immeasurably better offensively due to their increased weight and particularly reach. Why use a smaller shield? Because 90% of your shield use, even on a battlefield is carrying the wretched thing. Off the battlefield 100% of your shield use is carrying it. Throughout much of the middle ages civilians could carry bucklers for personal defence, but carrying a shield would have been viewed like someone today walking through town in ballistic body armour. Similarly, infantry who used swords as secondary weapons, pikemen and archers etc, would often carry a buckler as it could be attached to the belt without much encumbrance, unlike a shield. Shields are better, but they're also heavier and harder to carry around for large periods of time and are totally inappropriate in many situations.

Travis, you would benefit by reading my work on historical shield use, papers on large shield use in Spada and Spada II and my book (with Paul Wagner), medieval sword and shield, covering the sword and buckler system of manuscript I.33. There is also an errata and additions paper on I.33 in Spada II. All books are published by Chivalry Bookshelf

Cheers
[/url]

Thanks for the posts guys I am finding this extremely interesting. Sorry for the delay in posting, I had to go away for work for a couple of days.

I guess after reading your responses everything is starting to make better sense, but I am still unclear on the offensive capabilities of the shield. I think I am like most uninformed people that think that a shield is strictly a parrying tool or at most pushing your opponent back or off balance. Stephan and Shane could you please ellaborate on your points about a larger shield being immeasurably better offensively, and about the factor of fighting style?

Quote:

immeasurably better offensively due to their increased weight and particularly reach.

and

Quote:

many factors such as armour, weapons, fighting style

Thanks.

P.S. Stephen I think I will pick up your book, it looks like what I am looking for. I appreciate the heads up.

I don't really know anything about the use of a large shield. I've not read the spada article nor have I ever done anything with one myself; however, I can see how a large shield could easily be described as "immeasurably better offensively". It is larger and protects you better so you could press an advantage with more security. It weighs more and would be better for battering an opponent. I suspect you could use it to grapple with your opponent as well. It gives you a lot of options and a better defence.

A picture is hopefully worth a thousand words. The attached picture, from my paper in Spada II shows me attacking my opponent's shield, controlling it while simultaneously preventing him from hitting me. If you make this sort of attack, you can just as easily target the head. Essentially you have a ten pound knuckleduster that extends your reach by a foot and a half.

If you try this sort of bind or strike with a buckler, your opponent should ignore it completely, striking your buckler arm above the buckler (which normally only extends to mid forearm) or just about anywhere else. In sword and shield combat, the shield is the primary weapon, while in sword and buckler combat the sword is. The buckler is only used offensively after a bind with the sword.

Cheers
Stephen

---

 Attachment: 48.47 KB

Stephen;

Just wondering how your technique with the Buckler would change if you were armoured, specifically fully armoured arms.

Could you not extend your Buckler arm to a greater degree without risk of having it cut off opening up possible moves.

With full arm armour and Gauntlets would you even bother with a Buckler ? Would you use your left arm much in the way as a shield assuming you you were not armed with a twohanded weapon.

Maybe the answers would go a long way to explain shields becoming smaller or not being used at all when armour coverage passes some critical minimum.

One of the basic assumptions of every sword and buckler system that I've studied is that you must cover the exposed sword arm/hand with the buckler or it will be cut off by your opponent. Obviously, if you have arm-harness this changes dramatically. However, I wouldn't dramatically change the offensive use of my buckler. A move like the one I illustrated would be a very bad false time with something as small as a buckler and would allow your opponent to simply step back and belt you. I would still use my buckler primarily to trap the opposing sword, allowing me to attack with my sword.

And if someone was wearing full harness I'd probably ditch the sword and buckler and get a longsword or even something meatier.

Cheers

Stephen,

I think I see the offensive benefits of a larger shield. I guess I was thinking that a lighter more nimble shield could more easily bind or bash an opponent's body or weapon. I did not factor that a buckler attack would open you up defensively for the loss of your arm. Thanks I appreciate the info.

Travis wrote: " I did not factor that a buckler attack would open you up defensively for the loss of your arm. Thanks I appreciate the info."

That, I think could be the loss of either arm: From what Stephen replied to my question about having full arm armour I think he wrote with the sword arm in mind and that the buckler protects the sword arm and that overextending the sword arm beyond the buckler would get the sword arm cut off.

When I asked my question I had more in mind that one could risk extending the buckler arm more than one would normally risk if the buckler arm was also fully armoured when using the buckler aggressively as a weapon. ( The smaller size of the Buckler does mean that even if overextended the amount of rearch won't match that of a larger shield and the overextending could become an over committed move putting one out of balance ??? )

It may be true with either arm that when armoured one could extend a technique more without risking the the arm, but would this be an advantage ? Or would one still used the buckler as if the arms were fully vulnerable ?

Now if one is wearing full arm armour and the opponent isn't, still using sword and buckler would seem a good idea and one could go at it with an enthusiasm that would be bad technically without the extra protection.

I agree that against others similarly armoured one should choose a polearm or a longsword at the very least if one had the choice. But sometimes you have to use what you have with you.

In any case I hope that these are reasonable and useful questions since my practical knowledge is small to non-existent so I am only approaching this using my imagination.

( Note: In some ways when we get the chance to exchange with experts like Stephen it's a bit like we had a chance to have a conversation with Einstein about what we think about relativity and our own little theories about it, without any of the math. :eek: :lol: )