| Author |
Message |
|
Dave Womble
Location: Laconia, NH USA Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 36
|
 Posted: Sun 25 Nov, 2007 4:09 pm Post subject: evolution of the kite shield |
 |
|
I brought this up on the Armourarchive forums, but it either got lost in subsequent posts, or no one cared to answer, so I thought I'd throw it out there for you folks.
What were some of the major influences that led to the kite shield gaining dominance over the center grip round shields of the Viking and earlier Migration periods? Why did it take so long for the kite to become prominent and well established?
My own thought is that the increasing role of cavalry in warfare had more to do with it than anything, but I'm sure its not so cut and dry as that.
Dave
"Violence might not be the answer, but it sure cuts down on the number of questions."
|
|
    |
 |
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Sun 25 Nov, 2007 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are at least a couple of related and recent posts.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11680
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=5240
An aspect of the issue that should not be overlooked is that the shield was evolving throughout the era of the "kite shield", as was armour. Armour coverage became more complete (extending further down legs and arms, more complete protection of the head) as did use of cavalry and other tactics during the displacement of earlier round shields. At some point the kite shields also became more curved. We can speculate a lot about it, but I suspect the "kite shield" was less static versus time than the earlier round shields and was evolving more rapidly as was armour.....
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Mon 26 Nov, 2007 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well. As far as I know the kite first shows up in byzantium in the 8th c. By the 10th c it is fairly common, and by the 11th almost universal in Europe.
The kite has a number of advantages over the large round shield. Bear in mind that the round shield in question where of the 85 cm+ variety.
Thus, a byzantine teardrop shield, at 90x60 cm, would cover the same area as the round. Actually, if you take the round shield, and remove all the material you really don't need, you are left with a kite.
A kite is easier to handle than a round shield of similar size, fits better in the shield wall, and is easier to transport.
On the down side, it is harder to make, and in some instances it's to narrow to defend against thrusts from the side.
I'd still prefer a kite to a round any day.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
  |
|
Hisham Gaballa
|
| Posted: Mon 26 Nov, 2007 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not just in Europe, but also in the Middle East. 
The Bab en-Nasr, one of Cairo's 11th century city gates, has kite shields carved on to it. (click on the thumbnails)
  
The Bab En-Nasr was built before the Crusades, so this cannot be attributed to Crusader influence either.
|
|
|
|
|
Robin Smith
|
| Posted: Mon 26 Nov, 2007 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would agree that the growth of cavalry warfare is a component of the kite shields development in so far as it relates to centergrip versus strapping. A strapped shield is a necessity for mounted fighting. You cannot use a centergrip and still control the reins. This coupled with the protection the kite gives to the leg makes it far more suitable for a horseman to fight with...
A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Womble
Location: Laconia, NH USA Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 36
|
| Posted: Mon 26 Nov, 2007 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting stuff.  I've fought with both a round and a kite, and I actually preferred the round. I don't seem to have the dexterity to keep a kite where it should be. I'm too busy making sure I have my leg covered and I get whacked in the shoulder or chest 
If the kite was around earlier than the 11th century, why is it attributed as "Norman" so much? It's almost synonymous with the word Norman.
"Violence might not be the answer, but it sure cuts down on the number of questions."
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Mon 26 Nov, 2007 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dave Womble wrote: | Interesting stuff. I've fought with both a round and a kite, and I actually preferred the round. I don't seem to have the dexterity to keep a kite where it should be. I'm too busy making sure I have my leg covered and I get whacked in the shoulder or chest
If the kite was around earlier than the 11th century, why is it attributed as "Norman" so much? It's almost synonymous with the word Norman. |
Plain and simple:
Bayoux tapestry.
It is the one iconic account of the Norman Conquest, and prominently featuring the kite shield, which is rarely seen in other "iconic" portrayals: the "iconic" viking has a round shield, the "iconic" knight or crusader a heater...
When fighting with a kite or heater, your stance should be a bit forward, rather than back. In this case, the legs watch themselves, and you can focus on defending the upper targets.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You 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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic
