Printable View
Which shield is better? and why? For Heavy Infantry against the average medieval army.
Edited in the what for
------------------
"samishika wa nai shitte irukara saigo wa itsumo hitori to"
"I'm not lonely Because I know I'll be Alone at the end"
email me at: Luftwaffle@mad.scientist.com
[This message has been edited by spmetla (edited 09-25-2002).]
Depends on the use and the tactical situation... there is no single this or that - if you are a rider, it would be ludicrus to try and carry a tower shield. If you want to take cover against raining arrows, the biggie is appropriate.
My friend and I used to hang out at SCA events checking out their equipment. We found the Norman-style kite shield to be excellent. It provided good coverage, and it was easy to manipulate the long, pointed lower end.
I'm personally not a fan of large shields, like tower shields. But, like Rosacrux said, under a hail of arrows, you want the most coverage you can get. If your soldiers form shield walls, it would be a good choice, too.
You can't beat a buckler for hand-to-hand combat.
------------------
http://members.cox.net/ramen/icon09.gif
Knowing the Tao saves you thousands of dollars in psychiatric bills and credit card debt.
So the Tower shield would really just be better for those tight formations? Guess it would be much less useful in less proffesional armies(lack of cohesion=lack of protection).
Guess the Kite shield is better overall, and better for use in less professional armies.
Probaly explains why the Romans switched to Kite shields, easier to use and their armies were become less professional.
------------------
"samishika wa nai shitte irukara saigo wa itsumo hitori to"
"I'm not lonely Because I know I'll be Alone at the end"
email me at: Luftwaffle@mad.scientist.com
Quote Originally posted by spmetla:
Probaly explains why the Romans switched to Kite shields, easier to use and their armies were become less professional.
[/QUOTE]
Or it could just be that they were moving away from rigid formations. That is speculation on my part, not based on evidence.
Tower shields were quite unwieldly. They would be the best solution against heavy missile fire, and would be good in tight formation...but they do not offer the mobility or visibility required for a good dueling shield...or for fighting in loose formation.
(Once again, my post just basically points to the preceeding one by Tach and says "Yeah, what he said" http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif )
Jaguara
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
Edit:fixed smilies
[This message has been edited by Jaguara (edited 09-27-2002).]
Jaguara and I probably have the same birthday.
------------------
http://members.cox.net/ramen/icon09.gif
Knowing the Tao saves you thousands of dollars in psychiatric bills and credit card debt.
Quote Originally posted by spmetla:
Guess the Kite shield is better overall, and better for use in less professional armies.
Probaly explains why the Romans switched to Kite shields, easier to use and their armies were become less professional.
[/QUOTE]
Except the Romans did no such thing!!
They changed from a roughly rectangular curved Scuta (the classic one) about 1st C AD to a flat oval one by the 5th.
Some Byzantine infantry used kite shield 500 years later, but many retained either large circular curved Scuta (the Skutatoi oddly enough!) or small buckler like shields for psiloi.
Kite shields weer useful for cavalry because they protected teh leg on the "off" side. In France the cavalry dismounted to fight fairly often and no doubt used their normal shields - I imagine the infantry simply copied them!
Thanks for the info.
Didn't really know what the romans switched to so i assumed kite shield. Oh well, live and learn.
------------------
"samishika wa nai shitte irukara saigo wa itsumo hitori to"
"I'm not lonely Because I know I'll be Alone at the end"
email me at: Luftwaffle@mad.scientist.com
Good one for archiving.