Tell me of examples of using 15th century shields
Stop making threads about contemporary bullshit
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
also kino digits
Did 15th century heavy cavalry use shields? Most dismounted men-at-arms abandoned their shields in 15th century.
>Tell me of examples of using 15th century shields
This actually used to be a major autism trigger for me because I desperately wanted to find cases of this for a pretty stupid reason a decade or so back.
In the west, barely, and only at the very start of the century. They disappear from pictoral evidence almost entirely by the time Italian-style sallets roll around in the 1420s.
Pavises were used extensively by infantry in central Europe, famously the Hussites. There's also a evidence for the continued use of hand shields by light infantry in Italy and Spain. Balkan cavalry kept using shields well into the 16th or even 17th centuries, and Poles initially adopted them for their Hussars too. But mounted men-at-arms seem to have almost entirely discarded shields by the 1420s, and since mid 1400s field armies in France and England generally consisted of men-at-arms and archers, shields were barely extant on these battlefields beyond pavises. What is the most strange IMO, is that neither English (in the wars of the roses) nor French militia infantry seem to have adopted shields when facing massed archers - even though most of them certainly did not have full plate armor.
So what about the French mounted knights at Agincourt? What about the English heavy cavalry for post-agincourt through wars of the roses? Did Richard III have a shield?
>So what about the French mounted knights at Agincourt?
Some of them may have had shields. The 1410s are still in that hounskull/coat of plates era and you see shields with equipment like that. But probably not all or even most of them.
>English heavy cavalry
Rare, they usually fought on foot. But in the mid 1400s you hardly ever see depictions of shields and what examples there are seem to be for tournament use.
The illustrator certainly thinks so. I don't know, maybe he's going off some particular account. It would certainly be atypical for the era.
Is this actually a thing? I had no idea. Did soldiers really just stop using shields?
Why do they all look so sleepy and bored?
If you have plate armour, a shield is not much use, except against crossbows. It was a much better option to bring a poleaxe or halberd, something that could hurt the other soldier, also wearing plate aemour.
Yes I understand that. But I'm asking about situations where it was. Most particular heavy cavalry. There is artwork depicting both in 15th century. I can't seem to get an answer about heavy knights.
>There is artwork depicting both in 15th century.
Shields are rare in period artwork. They're also rare in modern reconstructions that are any good because those are based on period artwork.
But if they had tournament shields in the joust, why not in the frontal charge? I don't mean shields that were meant to be targeted like late German tournaments, but did they not have actual shields in the joust to deflect lances or blows on impact? Even if English and even French were dismounting, they still had elite heavy cavalry with limited use.
Don't ask me. Ask them. All I know is that the evidence is against it. I used to think much the same as you.
We can speculate here all day, but the sources say what they say.
>Even if English and even French were dismounting, they still had elite heavy cavalry with limited use.
Also, this is wrong. The elite heavy cavalry was dismounting to fight. This is not controversial or disputed, but very explicitly stated many times over. They could fight mounted and did on occasion, but for most field battles the fully armored men-at-arms left their horses behind and fought on foot. Furthermore, English armies were generally ENTIRELY composed of armored men at arms and longbowmen, though by the 1400s majy of the MAA simply didn't have proper cavalry horses, just riding ones. All the archers were often mounted on such too for the march. Real life is not a fucking total war game you underageb&
English armies in France, that is. The ones they raised for fighting each other back at home contained large numbers of militia from towns and levies among the free peasantry or retainers of landed gentry.
This is wrong, there were elite mounted cavalry even in wars of the roses, just not many and not many charges.
No you fucking retard. The "elite mounted cavalry" were fighting on foot. Typically both sides kept a reserve of so called "scourriers", who were just dudes staying on horseback so they could pursue the enemy after they broke, but these were no different from any other soldier and anything but "heavy" cavalry.
There were light cavalry but also heavy cavalry in reserve. Richard III was on horseback with his cavalry. What I mean by elite cavalry are men outfitted specifically for a charge. They would have a string of horses specific for the task, as most knights these days did not have such expensive destriers. They also would probably have armor modified on their left side for increased protection.
This seems to show round shields being used when assaulting castles
(It's meant to be the siege of Constantinople, but the source is a french chronicle from the 1470s)
Another one from the artist showing the Siege of Pontoise (1441), now with tall pavise-style shields.
It's interesting how few of them have any leg protection in this
Don't trust manuscripts for things like that. It's better to go by munition catalogues or ordinances and what they had available by numbers.
While it's certainly a fair to point out that it's just an artist's representation, the artist was certainly capable (and fond of) depicting leg armor, armored skirts and such. In light of his other pieces, even in the same book, it's hard to imagine it was just an oversight or laziness.
That's what I'm saying. Artwork is pretty damned accurate.
It's not that he's incapable of depicting such things, but the fact that the artist wasn't a witness is the problem. He could have easily gotten reference from a specific group of men near by and drawn them in their garrisoned uniform appearance. If i took a similar approach to other works of art that are associated with an yearly munitions catalogue, the sheer inaccuracy would become easily apparent.
thank god, LULZ is still vaguely capable of discussing history