Why did musketmen NOT use shields? #shorts

[ryanlorenzo]

Just slap some rims on that wall and you got yourself a proto war wagon my guy.

[JohnnyWolfblood]

Basically, whenever you ask why people in history didn't do "blank", the answer is almost always "They thought of it, they just couldn't afford it.".

[tedhubertcrusio]

Japanese, Ottomans, Cossacks and Czechs: *laughs in war wagons, tate shields, portable gambions and gulyay-gorods*

[SpottedHares]

I would argue they eventually did settle on a shield design, one that is still used today. The trench. A static earth work shield that can be constructed anywhere you find sufficient dirt.

[Treblaine]

There was one practical way to shield yourself from bullets was to dig a hole and use the ground as a shield. In the US Civil War digging in to trenches became extremely common and it became exceptionally hard to assault positions where the enemy was dug in.

Even when you don't have much time, digging a shallow hole and piling up the earth in front of you can give you enough cover to at least kneel behind.

[RichyArg]

The 2nd approach was also used in eastern europe and north america.
The Hussites used war wagons as sort-of mobile shooting positions
And several groups within the Rus' Spehere used makeshift wooden fortifications that could be moved slowly during the age of the Arquebus, as well as later cossacks using their own take on the war wagon.
And in north america the Haudenosaunee and Wendat also mase use of mobile fortifications to besiege pallisade towns

[enoughrope]

Europeans settled on wagon forts. Basically turning their logistics into their mobile shield. This continued with examples of it well into the 1800's.

[redtsun]

Better solution would have been to employ shielded units to the front of the formation with long, durable metal shields that would be placed at an angle. The men behind them could then use the shields as musket rests to improve their aim, and since the shields were angled, any projectiles which hit them would likely be deflected.
Not sure exactly how effective this would be, but I feel like it would work well enough for line warfare. The shields themselves would be really heavy so the main burden would be on the men in the front of the formation. It would also make it difficult to fire by rank, but would allow soldiers to safely reload from behind the shieldwall.

[micahmurphy]

At the very least, I imagine the psychological effect of having a small wall, effective or not, would have been massive. Like in the old CoD games, players were complaining that the Thompson was too powerful, when it actually had the same stats as the MP40. It was actually because the Thompson had a meatier sound, leading the players wielding it to believe it was stronger and giving them more confidence to rush the enemy, and having the opposite effect on the German team. Even if a small sheet of wood or leather did f-all, I'd still like to think that It would give the troops a feeling of bravery in the face of a firing line

[cyruslupercal]

Why didn't they have soldiers who only carried a metal pavese shield? Yes, it's heavy but it is the only thing they carry and myabe a side arm.

[FunnCubes]

The best tactic was: get to the battlefield 2 weeks early and trench the fuck out of it.
That and better guns is how the great war became so stuck.

[Madaoke]

Usually these battle were not formed in such clean lines, they did take cover and fired when they could, most of the time not portrayed like in the movies.

[danlorett]

Simple: because moving faster and shooting more are better than maybe stopping a shot with your shield. Remember: cannons and cavalry ALSO exist, and your big heavy pavise doesn't help at ALL vs those.

[bobsmith]

I was going to mention the Bohemians and their war wagons, but it appears that half the comment section beat me to it. 😂

[theprofessorkeen]

Funny enough, during the battle of New Orleans, We found out that cotton bales worked very well to stop bullets and could be picked up and moved better than the bamboo walls.

[LDHulll]

Standing in line was probably terrifying, but ironically, you had a better chance of living since most casualties came when you were routed.

[NotlostMoon]

Even besides the weight, a proper shield takes up a lot of space, and since guns tend to require two hands, not a great combo. Especially since it needs to be quite a strong (and therefore heavy) shield to stop guns, which kept getting better.

[Ryan.]

I saw a fascinating talk by a guy on the Royal Armouries channel about English civil war armor.

At the start of the conflict the cavalry on both sides (who could afford it) bought musket proof plate armor, but stopping a musket ball takes fairly thick (heavy) steel, so you see them literally start shedding parts to reduce weight.

Kinda crazy that from about that time 1600's until well into the 20th century, with the advent of balistic plates, body armor wasn't standard issue on the battlefield.

(Think the Americans actually experimented in WW1 with Ned Kelly style armor but it never made it to the Western Front.)

[jacksonsinclair]

The Scottish Highlanders certainly tried using their Targes.

[Ryan-nayR]

I liked the Destroyermen book series for this. They would have a soldier with a copper clad, leather backed wooden shield run up and deploy it with a kickstand at a 45 degree angle. Wouldn't stop a cannon but it would stop muskets at range.