Are Historians WRONG about NORMAN CAVALRY SHIELDS?

I have long argued that 'Norman' kite shields, as shown on Bayeux Tapestry, were more infantry than cavalry shields, but is THIS the final proof?

▼3 extra EXCLUSIVE videos each month on PATREON, which make this channel possible:

▼Facebook & Twitter updates, info, memes and fun:

▼Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:

▼Matt Easton's website & Pinterest:

▼Easton Antique Arms - antique swords for sale:

[emmanueleustache]

Of course we want a video about shield straps ! What a strange question to ask

[ModernKnight]

In my experience the tail part doesn't cause issues with controlling the horse at all, especially if you're sufficiently skilled at riding. The tail does smash onto your knee though, even through maille, and after an hour or so at Senlac field (reenactment!), really causes big bruising.

[domstafford]

Really nice video, but at 12:54 there's an important counter-argument - all the cavalry are holding their shields horizontally, except for the front-most, who's leaning forward in the saddle, and has his shield vertically and in front of him. This suggests that while they may have ridden with the shields horizontally, for exactly the reasons you argue, they may have brought them round when reaching melee, so the bottom would protect their legs (which are otherwise at a very easy height for an infantryman to cut)

[flash]

Well, we know from recounts of the battle at Hastings that Norman knights dismounted and fought on foot with the same gear they had with them when needed or when their horses were injured. Their wargear needed to ba able to be used on foot. On horseback they were fast so they had some protection from that alone, arrows and thrown weapons were a danger when approaching enemy formations so they propably approached shieldside somewhat diagonally if moving slow and when closer charged a formation and then retreating being pursued downhill then turning and killing the ones chasing them out of formation. In the charge spears were a danger and heavvy axes killing horses I would think the point of the shield held like that also protected the horse and rider when wheeled about and retreating down hill just a tad bit harder to strike them in the back when they did that move if they turned to wheelabout clockwise. I would think they were propably well trained horsemen and on fast horses more agile than later knights using heavvier horses and more protection.

[АнтонОрлов-яъ]

I was arguing that kite shields were initially infantry shields for years!

Byzantine chronicler Leo the Deacon writes about medieval Rus' warriors of the second half of the 10th century: "their shields are strong and reach their legs for greater safety" and "the Tauro-Scythians (=Rus') left the city and lined up on the plain, protected by chain mail and shields that reached to their very feet". Those warriors were predominantly/mostly infantrymen who fought on foot (although there are some descriptions of Rus' horsemen during this period of time as well). And their "long shields" seem to be either kite shields or maybe some sort of proto-kite oblong shields.

But I think that kite shield also had some uses in cavalry as well. At least Ioannos Kinnamos stated in his "Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenos" that, before the reforms of Manuel I Komnenos in the middle of the 12th century most of Byzantine cavalrymen used round shields, and Manuel’s reforms included the adoption (or readoption?) of longer kite shields reaching the feet of the horseman. So there were some reasons for cavalrymen to use kite shields instead of round shields.

[martytu]

All of a sudden, the adoptation of heater shield starts to make sense. If knights are increasingly becoming mounted shock troops and less time dismounted, a teardrop shield is just going to get in the way.

[claireclark]

Counterpoint: for a mounted, armored fighter matched against spearmen or other lance/spear armed cavalry, the single most vulnerable target is the unarmored HORSE. That long shield held in the manner depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry might not cover the leg of the rider, but it's doing a pretty spectacular job of covering the rider's torso and the lines to the more exposed flank of the mount.

[rararnanan]

The cavalry not only hold the shield pointing backwards, they also hold it much higher than how Mat demonstrated - in the tapestry it looks like the cavalry are leaning the shield over the shoulder. Maybe it was more stabilizing to hold the shield agaist the left shoulder while riding. Another guess is that holding the shield close to the body, high, and horizontally gives you much more coverage to the back, so your entire left side is covered against arrows in a wide arch almost 180 degrees.

[mrman]

Until youtube suggested this channel to me one day, I had no idea how fascinating medieval weapons and armour are.

[randalthor]

Huh, I actually didn't realize people believed that kite shields were primarily cavalry shields. I've always thought they were meant to be used both on foot and on horseback, and that cavalry would often use them on foot when they fought dismounted. I don't think I've ever read or watched anything where they really talked about the kite shield as a cavalry shield vs. an infantry shield, though, I just made the assumption that they were meant to be used both mounted and on foot based on what I've seen on the Bayeux Tapestry. I never really gave it much thought beyond that.

[Mangowaffle]

It would be interesting to just recreate the situation on the tapestry. Sit on an actual horse with an accurate size and strapped shield and see how it feels to hold the shield as they are depicted. In my head it seems a rather unnatural position to have the shields tail painted back as they do, which tells me they were very intentionally doing it for a reason more important than comfort or even protection. Likely as Zach says, interference with inputs to the horse; and as Matt says, the better horseman beats the superior swordsman.

Anyway lovely video Matt, good to see the spears and swords are coming in nicely in your garden!

[tamsinp]

Given that cavalry would normally be in close formation, the riders' legs would be protected to some extent by the horses on either side, reducing the need for a shield to extend down to protect them.

[maxfan]

Back in the 1980s I went to an event run by a medieval re-enactment guy here in Australia. He described how he and a friend dressed up in their Norman rig, including kite shields, for some jousting. His opponent knocked him off his horse, so he took up a stance on foot. He said he braced himself behind the shield with the shield's point hard in the ground. His friend charged at him, then got his horse to rear up and come down on the shield with its forelegs...which knocked the guy flat.

Which was a cool story when he told it, and which still seems reasonable to me - that the point at the bottom of the shield could be shoved into the ground for support, at least at the moment of receiving a mounted charge.

Having said all that, in the first land battle fought by the First Crusade, at Dorylaeum, in 1097, Bohemond's contingent of Norman knights fought on fought while waiting for the remaining Crusader contingents to arrive.

[jmlandels]

The orientation of the strapping makes a huge difference when using a kite shield on horseback. Horizontal strapping (ie, with the forearm vertical) lets you support the tail with your elbow which stops it from wobbling, and allows you to tuck it out of the way when not in use (as depicted in the tapestry).

When fighting in melee on horseback, your most vulnerable spot is the 7-8 o'clock position, ie, the left rear quarter. If you get an opponent coming up behind you on that side, you're pretty much toast. A shield tail on that side is a HUGE protection if you can hold it horizontally and protect your back. Bonus: you can actually use the tail as '3rd leg', like a dressage whip, to ask the horse to swing its hindquarters away, affecting a turn on the forehand (which is an incredibly useful move when fighting with spear, especially against someone coming up behind you).

Against infantry, your most vulnerable spot is again on the left, and the tail of that kite can save your leg and your horse's flank to give you time to turn.

So the kite shield provides amazing protection, but has its downsides on horseback. Because it's bulky, its makes reining harder, and it's harder to turn your body to the right (not impossible, but harder). But remember, the Bayeux horses aren't armoured. Once barding became more common, the need to protect the horse was decreased, and of course plate harness for humans protected the rider better. The disadvantages of the kite shield outweighed its protective capabilities.

It's a useful protection for both cavalry and infantry. Of course it's designed to protect you on the horse and the ground, because when you're fighting from horseback, you never know when you might end up having to fight from the ground.

[MisterDoctorFunk]

I’m interested in the strap discussion. It seems a very specific detail and understanding how we know the “correct” strap arrangement would be very interesting to me.

[Levi.Porphyrogenitus]

I could see a rider holding the shield horizontally during maneuvers, but with the option to switch to a vertical hold in close combat.

[mnk]

I think the "dragoon"-idea is solid. You are cavalry when there's horses available and the tactical situation requires it if not you are infantry. Lugging two kits sucks so you bring one you can use for both roles.

[MisterKisk]

The earliest evidence of these shields comes from the David Casket, dated to 900, and a Byzantine illustration of the Iliad, which is dated to 900-1000. Both depictions are of infantry (or at least men on foot).

[nickmerry]

Interesting theory and very possibly right.
One consideration not mentioned though is that a cavalryman might lower the kite shield to protect his leg when engaging in melee or coming close to other combatants.

[BH-rxue]

makes sense. Also i suppose if the straps are horizontal, if youre trying to control the horse with its reins in your left hand, it'll naturally angle the shield like that in the first place because your arm will be pointing at the back of the horses head.