Stop making threads about contemporary bullshit

Tell me of examples of using 15th century shields

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    huh?
    also kino digits

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Did 15th century heavy cavalry use shields? Most dismounted men-at-arms abandoned their shields in 15th century.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          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?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >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.
            >Richard III
            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.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Is this actually a thing? I had no idea. Did soldiers really just stop using shields?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yes

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Why do they all look so sleepy and bored?

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >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.
          >Richard III
          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.

          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.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >why not
            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.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >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 fricking total war game you underageb&

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >English armies
            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.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            This is wrong, there were elite mounted cavalry even in wars of the roses, just not many and not many charges.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            No you fricking moron. 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.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            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.

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    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)

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Another one from the artist showing the Siege of Pontoise (1441), now with tall pavise-style shields.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        It's interesting how few of them have any leg protection in this

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            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.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            That's what I'm saying. Artwork is pretty damned accurate.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            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.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    thank god, IQfy is still vaguely capable of discussing history

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *