Lockdown Longbow - Do shields stop arrows?
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 07. 2020
- The lockdown longbow trials continue with SHIELDS!
Ever wondered if a shield will protect you from arrows from an English Longbow? Well you are in the right place. I accurately made a reproduction 15thC shield, fitted the back with maille and a pork joint and shoot a variety of arrows at it and look at what happens.
If you would like to support my work on this channel you can always buy my fantastic reproduction medieval weaponry available here todcutler.com
Shield was constructed from 15mm thick poplar planks, butt glued, faced with bonded linen canvas front and rear and scraped all over with gesso and the painted. Arm pad was two layers of linen canvas and four layers of a heavy wool cloth.
Or have a look at my merch here teespring.com/stores/todswork...
Shields available from todsworkshop.com/collections/...
Arrows by Will Sherman at www.medievalarrows.co.uk
Shield definitely isn't proof against heavy war arrows - but if we assume that shield was over center of mass, then *without* it, every single one of those arrows is a mortal wound. With it some of them are serious arm injuries, some are minor, and some might have caused minor injury elsewhere, such as chest or shoulder, though any armor in those other locations would likely prevent them from being significant.
From the standpoint of a commander sending my forces across the field, I can easily see a single soldier taking several shots into a shield before they suffer an injury severe enough to disable them. They might take a bad one right off and go down, but from what we see here it's pretty unlikely. And every shot that one soldier manages to suffer without falling is one OTHER soldier who hasn't been shot at all. So in terms of reducing total casualties suffered from bow fire, I think its fairly safe to suggest that a company holding shields might well take 1/3 or fewer casualties vs the company without when facing massed bow fire, simply because it will often take 3 or more shots to actually stop one soldier, rather than just 1. So shields remain one of the most crucial defenses against arrows, even if they aren't *proof* against them.
I would say that is a pretty perfectly stated short essay on the subject - good stuff and thanks
Came to the comments to say this (though not anywhere near as well as you)
@Sench would be interesting to see if there were ways of holding the shield or distancing it a bit from the hand, maybe extra padding around the those areas or to fasten the shield in such a way the arm wouldn't be in the places an archer would expect. But yeah, it obscures the target and offeres an area where most of it would have nothing to wound, and if you are expecting the shield to not stop arrows then odds are soldiers with shields would armor the forearm extra.
@@Hanekem well usually you have some padded clothing/gamberson under your mail/whatever armor you wear so there is some extra buffer there (maybe even enough to negate some of the more minor hits ^^)
Like in WW2 Tank warfare angling might have significant effect on the penetration of the arrows. Maybe Tod could do another test with the shield angled like a soldier would hold it trying to deflect arrows.
"The fight's over, you can drop the shield now."
"No I can't..."
That's what I was thinking. How can he get his arm off the shield? Ouch..
lol
now we know why people say the shield becomes a part of you when fighting...
"That is the spirit, soldier!"
"No Sir, I literally can't."
@@tilmanr.3299 Id say by cuting the Arrow and then jank it out of the sheild stil in his arm. The rest is Buchers work.
"Are you safe behind your shield?"
Safer than without.
Sure, exept now the shield is nailed to your arm, and if you held it close to your face likely to your temple aswell 🙂
Yes, because you hold the shield close to your face so you can get an arrow in your face. LOL
(Some risked their arm to save their lives.)
And if it is nailed to the arm, you can still swing a sword.
So, it's still safer with shield than without.
@@thehappyvulcan Yeah, I like the testing he's done but the conclusion is all wrong. No, you're not safe. However, you are much safer. You immediately have to discount any arrow that missed the arm area since nobody holds a shield against their body. Those look bad but they're irrelevant since they missed. The only ones that count are a) the ones that went through the arm b) the ones that didn't hit the shield.
@@RylanStorm
Yes, it's like a suit against radioactivity.
You are not "safe" but it is safer.
If shields were completely meaningless, they would never have been in use.
Hold it down lower and you can claim that you used to be an adventurer. Until..
i love how this guy is both absolutely excited about what he's doing and at the same time is all about business. No clowning around, no comic relief, just straight to the point. That's what a professional who loves what he's doing looks like. Immediately subscribed. Cheers.
Just goes to show you that truth is much stranger than fiction, and these experiments one archer and one shield a battle do not make however, it gives us a better idea on how these battles actually went down.
"Hardened in Wine and Salt"
That's a killer album name, maybe pirate metal or something
Pirate Metal needs to exist.
@@edwardlazell3157 it does exist. there is a band called Alestorm that is all about pirates.
There is also punk pirates. There is the Punk Pirates Parade at Whitby or used to be. You have not seen anything till you have seen thousands of trollied punks bouncing up and down singing "Nellie the elephant" when "The Toy Dolls" are on stage.
@@dogdygod64 was listening to no grave but the sea at work today 🤘
My new weird industrial punk band Knight Clubbing and our first album: Hardened in Wine and Salt. In stores near You soon!
I have been loving how much glee Tod has had throughout this whole series.
Its like he's stepped up his content to another level! He actually smiled a few times!! More please
His enthusiasm is amazing to watch.
This is his best stuff i think. Easy to enjoy that kinda carnage. It hurts waiting for the rest of the series.
you would be gleeful to if your favorite hobby was also your job!
This is the exact comment that I was going to make
Doctor emerges from the operating room to address a desperate family. "I'm sorry, it's a pork shot." Mom breaks down in tears.
I imagine the shield is much more effective in less optimal shooting conditions. I mean the distance is quite short and the angle almost a solid 90 degrees.
@Darren Harper i was thinking the same thing. If shields didnt work, people wouldnt have used them. We see this concept when firearms evolved. Nothing against todd, but he has become sort of a cult like others. His videos are entertaining, so people develop a cult around him and take his content as facts. Some even turn it to gospel.
Couple also that he is using a compound crossbow, which we cant really compare its pull strength to a longbow. Just like shields and armors evolve so do weapons become more strong to penetrate that defense, which in turn makes armor evolve and advance once again in a vicious circle, that is until you get weapons that make armor obsolete. There was a time when certain armor was bulky enough to resist the penetration of flintlock gunpowder weapons, so its not that difficult to think of shields protecting people from arrows and bows.
Long story short: Armor and shields worked, otherwise no one would have bothered wearing them. Archers and their weapons worked and evolved, or no one had employed such units.
@@BestMods168 The shield did work though, it stopped a bunch of arrow scoming right for your face mate
@@bipolarmadness5075 The video doesn't show the shield doesn't work. It shows it definitely works (stops arrows from hitting your face and chest). Yeah your arm can get fucked up behind it - but I'd think that's pretty obvious, even with melee hits your arm can be broken and such. And it's for these types of good shots you'd need a shield for. If an arrow is so slow that it can't even stick through wood anymore it's not going to penetrate your mail/gabeson either
@@bipolarmadness5075 He calibrated the crossbow to shoot with the same speed as a longbow. He did this as he can't shoot a medieval crossbow due to the high draw weight and to ensure comparable conditions.
Wow, the penetration was way higher than I was expecting, although this is replicating a very powerful bow, would have certainly made an incentive for the medieval archer to be able to shoot them.
I wonder how well a 100lb bow would go, as well as a 70lb, about as low as the warbow category allows.
Man, this raises so many interesting things to consider, like how prevalent it might have been to hold the shield further away from the body, as the shield did technically stop the arrows, just with some scary penetration still. Makes me like boss shields even more, lol. Also, that shield was on the thicker side, anglo/viking style round shields were usually way thinner, so we should expect the penetration to be even higher.
awesome stuff.
HI Shad,
Yeah, I am finding these tests really interesting too. They are not in anyway scientifically rigorous, but they are indicative and to have some good solid information is so useful. More to come with different materials, so watch this space!
The biggest problem with those tests is the short distance they were done at.
@@Ally5141 Perhaps, though I suspect that an infantryman would have to get to an even shorter distance to use his weapons against the archer...
@@robmarlow2641 I suspect archer would be out of there long before enemy infantry would close the distance that much.
@@Ally5141 Agreed, if they were unsupported an orderly withdrawal would be their best bet. If they were screened by infantry on sloping ground (the kind of terrain any commander worth his salt would choose to defend) then this range would be ideal for them shooting at advancing enemy infantry trying to close with their own line. As with all these types of tests context is important and they are only attempting to simulate one particular situation. I'd love to see more done with a variety of different ranges.
These tests really make you think about how utterly terrifying the battlefield would have been.
You want to see what an SLR and 7.62x51 does then!
@@LOFIGSD Most people really underestimate the level of injury caused by high velocity bullets. The temporary expansion cavity basically gets turned into mush due to the extremely high gforces it undergoes. Rifle wounds are absolutely gruesome.
And still is.
The problem is with bullets, you rarely pitch 20,000 men against each other in a field, fighting on one plot of grass. Modern warfare is terrifying for its own reasons but i still cant grasp how horrific a medieval battlr must have been
And then you gotta think about the "medics" at that time... Arrow to the arm? Could saw it off and burn the wound, could piss on it, could make you eat some random herbs I found, what the hell do I know? It's probably gonna be infected and end up killing you anyways... But that was God's plan tho... So yaknow.. pray a bit or something idk...
The real fun is trying to get the shield off after it's been stapled to your arm with an arrow.
Center grip shields for the win. Just imagining a strapped shield being stapled on you with an arrow or two is making me stressed
"Hold him down til he's completely sober of rage."
@@fonias55 Arrow stapled to hand.... nasty
@@JonatasAdoM just use one with a metal boss
Why remove it? 😂
There was the point in arrow vs. Armor evolution that plate harness protected better than shields. Freed up both hands for more...impactful weapons. I love to see it in action thanks to Tod:)
Okay, before watching the test, here is a prediction: a good shield+armour ought to stop arrows from a longbow. We may get some damage to the shield, but the pork behind it should be untouched. Now, to see if I'm right :D
EDIT: Ouch!
I thought exactly the same thing and was quite surprised!
I think if we add around a hundred yards to the equation, that'd be the case, but at close range like this you're going to be hard pressed to stop those missiles.
We are talking longbows here. Cream of the cream. These powers were designed to penetrate plate armor in essence. Still amount of damage was surprising.
I thought it would easily go through the shield but probably not penetrate the mail since it lost a lot of energy to the shield. Well, if you're lucky they won't hit your arm, and if they do you probably won't die (except maybe from an infection).
ya that was a bit of a jaw dropper :)
Are shields perfect? No. Would I want a shield? Yes.
Also, now to invent the lockdown lance launcher.
Medieval Instant Lance-a-lot.
Put this logic in front of an antivaxer please
Isn't that a motorcycle? 😜
Actually, if you had a fine set of full plate armor, you might not want the shield that much.
@@ScottKenny1978 I was going to say you could rig a small stand in the back of a pickup. As long as the speedometer is accurate and the pavement is level you should be able to get consistent results.
[edit] Also, here's a fair point: every one of those arrows that gets caught by the shield _isn't_ hitting your torso. Even if it totally wrecks your left arm doing it, you're not trying to pull the arrows out of your liver, so that's a success in my books.
About the battle of Carrhae when the Romans fought the Parthians, Plutarch and Cassius Dio wrote:
"And when Publius urged them to charge the enemy's mail-clad horsemen, they showed him that their hands were riveted to their shields and their feet nailed through and through to the ground, so that they were helpless either for flight or for self-defence."
A lot of flowery language. The interesting part is heavy infantry marching away from the fight for days without the enemy horse archers being able to force a deceisive battle. The massive defeat came when morale had plummeted to unit cohesion breaking so the Parthians could charge detached or fleeing units.
This does not mean that sapping said morale was not important but the mechanics of unit cohesion and fighting was far more complex when an infantry based army can withdraw from a fight against cavalry and arguably the Parthians needed their heavy horse for the final attacks.
Ancient bow tech has nothing on english war bow tech. B.C fire arms were fairly weak and, even with basic armor, wasnt highly destructive like games and movies make it look.
love the quote tho
@@BrandonCRFC Muskets WERE highly destructive, the heck you on about? They didn't pierce into the body like an arrow, their destruction was much more sinister, they shattered the bone.
@@lurac5710 muskets were very very long after b.c firearms (in this case javs, slings, and bows). firearms don't just mean guns. firearms mean projectiles fired from your arm.
I can’t quite place why but there’s something extremely satisfying watching medieval period arrows being loaded and shot out of a modern crossbow. Beautiful stuff.
Center boss shields just started to sound way more compelling when facing projectiles.
EDIT: Clarifying my thoughts as there were many good comments and I don't want to split this answering each of them on their own.
My thought process behind this was that with a center gripped shield you would have the ability to extend it (not have it against your arm) even if that is not how you would usually fight with it.
You would not be shot at when you were in a melee with the enemy anyway (at least I wouldn't risk hitting my own men in the back).
Even if (and I think when) the boss would not be able to withstand the arrow you would only have your fist right behind the shield instead of your forearm (smaller target).
Being shot at, you would extend the shield and hope that
a) your grip is strong enough that the arrows don't rotate the shield so that the next on can hit you
b) when the arrows would penetrate the shield they would either get stuck or slow down enough so they would not penetrate your armour
c) you would not get hit in the boss as that is what your hand is behind and it is a rather small target.
Are any of these true? I don't know and honestly I don't have any experience fighting with a center boss shield.
It is quite possible that the first hit on the shield would rotate it enough that you would get hit right afterwards.
Or that the arrow would just go through and hit you anyways.
With any bad luck you would get shot right through the boss and that would be bye bye hand.
If you could extend the shield and hold it strongly enough you would still have arrows poking through your shield and hinder your ability to fight but well that would hinder you less than an arrow through your chest.
As for historical overlap (center grip vs specifically English longbow) I simply did not consider this at all as this was more of an interesting idea than a historical consideration.
I was thinking mostly viking/saxon/migration era round shields but as mentioned in the comments Roman Scutum are also center gripped.
For any level of historical accuracy shields should of course be tested against their historically accurate projectile weapons.
Personally I simply don't know if any center gripped shields were used in battle during the time of the English longbow but I presume that someone else does.
Considering the boss was made from iron, it would not stop such an arrow. Different time frame with the longbow, though.
@@umartdagnir It's not just about the material. The shape as well as the extra distance the arrow would have to penetrate are also important factors. Perhaps it would be worth testing.
@@umartdagnir Depends how thick the iron is. Also, evidence suggests that, medieval arrowheads and armour, were iron or low carbon steel that wouldn't be much different from iron.
@@umartdagnir its not about penetrating material, a rounded shape would help the deflect the arrow out of the path. The effective thickness of a piece of iron can be increase up to double simply by hitting under or over 90 degrees. The further from 90 degree you are the more chance you have of a deflection.
If you look back at the test on plate, the plate was rounded and the arrows were having a hard time bitting into the steel to even make a dent.
A iron dome would be more then be enough to protect you hand
Eetu Ropelinen maybe your hand might be more protected, but the majority of centerboss shields were much thinner so they could be held in one hand without the advantage of being braced along the forearm. So the whole point is moot. A quarter inch tapering to an eighth inch shield will not stop that kind of force.
Could waxing had originally been intended as a metal preservative? A way to stop the arrow from rusting in storage? And then later on found out that it actually assisted in penetration? I love your videos.
I believe that's the thinking, yes.
It's water repellent properties would've been obvious, as would water's rusting effects on iron and steel
I think that may have been the intended use. I also feel that even if they didn't realize it penetrates better, they probably did see that arrows prepared with wax were more effective - same reason - different observation.
It's been done for hundreds of years for firearms for storage so I almost guarantee they did it for arrows as well.
Rusty arrows with sharpened edges? Deadly even if you love from being shot.
Could be. But I assume they knew already that lube reduces friction. And the idea that friction is involved in penetration is also not that unusual
The thing I appreciate is that you show as many variables as you can and what you have accounted for. Giving what kind of wood and what is holding up the shield lets people interpret this information better.
Im so happy people and channels like you and yours exist, thanks for being !!
Let's be honest the impact is insanely scary just by looking at it. Being on the other side must have been truly terrifying and showcases why well-drilled experienced soldiers were such a valuable military asset. Takes nerves and balls of steel to stand against archers shooting war bows on mass.
When you're in a formation of billmen : *chuckles* I'm in danger
either balls of steel or steel plate armor
en masse
@Hector Lewis so you either need a big sack of money or a big sack of gargantuan testicles.
I cant remember where I read it but one historical commentator (of the Battle of Agincourt) calculated that if there were 6000 longbow men (there might have been as many as 7500) then at the peak there could have been 1200+ arrows a second firing at a gap (the pinch point on the battlefield) less than 50 meters wide. That's 24 arrows per second coming at each person in the front line or possibly more. If the pinch point was narrower (likely it was as there has been some erosion since) say 40 meters that's 30+ arrows per second. The phrase "stuff that" springs to mind.
Yes, that's how my shield in Bannerlord looks after a fight, too.
unless there's 18 javelins stuck in it, you weren't battling right
Haha I was literally just thinking this, sometimes that's how my body looks as well!
If you're lucky enough not to take a javelin to the face in the opening 30 secs of the battle
Same
Twohand guy: what is this shhiield you speak of?
Thanks for bringing us great quality videos Tod!
Tod, could you do a trial imitating Roman Shields and Parthian composite bows, like the ones at the Battle of Carrhae?
"That was way too high." I think the hypothetical knight that just had your arrow punch through his shield and into his face strongly agrees.
no. the arrow had no force left after penetrating the shield. that's why none of them actually stuck into the target behind. shield functioning as intended.
The hypothetical knight would've been fine with his most likely closed helmet. The soldier would most certainly agree with his probably open helmet and the force of the impact and the point close to his face.
@@stoicshield Shields were more prominently used by knights before plate armour was a thing, or not? So if the knight was carrying a shield (so if the battle takes place before the 15th century) the chances for him wearing "only" chain mail and gambeson and some open-faced helmet are not that low.
@@chrismath149 it's a question of how far back we go, of course. But closed helmets were around before plate armour. iirc the Maciejowski bible is one of the examples of early pot helmets around 1250 or so. It's not guaranteed, of course, but I think if they could've afford one, they'd bought one.
@@chrismath149 From what I understand, full plate generally made a shield unnecessary, as the armor was extremely difficult to penetrate. Regular soldiers would probably prefer a kite shield for the extra body coverage, but knights in full plate, if they used a shield at all, would generally prefer a heater shield. Heater shields were much smaller, but much thicker, and were specifically designed to counter some of the nastier polearms that actually _could_ crack open plate armor like a can opener.
I think Shad did a video on naked barbarians, and his conclusion was that the shield and helmet were the most important pieces of armor. Being otherwise naked meant better ventilation and sweat evaporation, allowing a naked barbarian to fight for much longer without getting exhausted. Between the helmet and shield, you can still protect yourself pretty well, so that just goes to show how important a shield is for anyone not in full plate.
"you are a human porcupine but hey the shield and heraldry are intact"
The glass half full I guess (?
Well, an arrow penetrating 3 inches isn't a worry (except for where it punctures the arm). If someone shot me 10 times with a war bow at 10 paces, I would be pretty happy to walk away with only that much damage.
Said the Imperial Guard quartermaster, while recovering the lost gear of the 105th battalion, after they got ambushed by Dark Eldar.
It probably beats a torso full of arrows and sucking chest wound, all things considered. Those tend to slow one down a bit.
Also, the guy behind you is intact as well. Without the shield, it could have been more than one casualty, possibly even from one arrow.
Soldier: Why is a shield called an "Arm"ament?
Arrow: "Here let me show you.."
Just imagine the pain if your holding your shield to block an arrow and it penetrates right trough your arm.
at least you won't drop it.
I prefer not to😳
Better your arm than your stomach
Crassus' legionnaires faced this very thing when they tried to fight the Parthians. They were drawn by trap out into open desert and ambushed by horse riders who fired into their formations. The record presents stories of this this thing happening because the bows were of a strength they had never before seen and many romans ended up with arms and even chests stapled by the arrows penetrations.
@@shkotayd9749 I though Romans shield had center grip. And in late they even had plated armor. But sure, if they shooted from close distance (from a horse) than it could be devastating.
God, could you imagine being behind the shield when that top one came bursting through? That alone would have been nerve-racking
Make you blink!
@New Tunes For Old Logos
Later than medieval too, it was pretty much Napoleon's go-to tactic too with his massed columns.
@Mystic Booka
It is. I tried it myself with a friend, but with a bow and arrows and a shield. It is a quite terryifing feeling. The most terryfing thing is, if don't see the arrows coming and just wait for them to hit your shield - you wait for the impact, it just takes seconds, but it feels forever.
czcams.com/video/O0g-hP5dFzo/video.html
I started fighting with medieval weapons in 1990, so here's some practical perspective:
When a shield strapped this way is held properly, the shield would rest against your entire left arm (for a right handed person). Your left shoulder would be turned toward the enemy, minimizing your profile when viewed head-on. You could lift the shield away from your body (forward) for brief periods, but that would be very taxing to your shoulder and back, and at melee range would leave you very vulnerable to being hooked and dragged off balance and out of formation.
Having seen in a previous video the effectiveness of layering the mail over the gambeson material, I would have hoped to see that combination behind the shield, but we can only evaluate what we witnessed. It's all good.
So, looking at the arrows that penetrated the furthest (+/- 9" or 22cm), for a right handed person, if that hit on the left half of the shield, there would a good chance for penetration into the body--2-3 inches/5-8 cm likely, and possibly more if it hit in line with the upper arm. It is safe to say that if these arrows were to hit directly above the shoulder, they would have gone 3-4 inches/8-10 cm into the neck. Assuming you are wearing the same mail armor on the rest of your body, however, you could expect the same or very similar results as we saw from the arrows that struck the simulated arm, so 2-3 inches.
If the arrow hit the right half of the shield anywhere other than where the forearm and hand are, you would likely not be injured even by 9"/22 cm of penetration. However, having a sharp metal point or twelve sticking that far through your shield would have been really annoying and would make maneuvering very difficult and dangerous given the lack of ANSI approved safety goggles.
At close range (fairly flat trajectory distances), however, trained archers would have been targeting openings and weak points--sniping, not lobbing. Yes, they could punch through the shield if they had to--and I think Tod does a great job of proving that the shield is really just concealment, not cover, at these distances--but why not get a clean shot? Much like when hunting, you *could* shoot through the leafy branches and hope you hit your prey, or you could let your prey move out of concealment and be sure of your shot. There would be plentiful and constant opportunities provided by an opposing shield wall or other mass formation. And let's not forget we are talking about experts who trained from very young ages to become exceptionally skilled--I doubt there are even a few dozen people alive today with the same level of training and skill with a bow as the average English longbow man.
At long range, volley firing would have filled the sky with arrows, and sheer numbers would have taken the place of pinpoint accuracy. As has been noted many times already, there just isn't any way to protect everything, and so the best hope for defeating massed archers is simply to close the distance. So who's up for a quarter mile sprint in full armor and war shield? Should be a nice little warm up.
EDIT: I am well aware that the effective range of the longbow is less that 1/4 mile (current theories propose about 350 yards). These last two lines are what is known as "humor", or more specifically "gallows humor". NCOs are infamous for these kinds of pep talks. :)
Thanks John,
Some very good and insightful points made here - really appreciate it
Wonderfully written. Especially at the end gives a good idea of the hell foot soldiers may have gone through when confronted with archers. The conundrum with archers, is that with a good commander who can defend them, they really are the base ground of the army. Long distances they can send very disheartening volumes of arrows constantly coming down, and when close range, as you stated, can give very accurate shots, especially if the archers are properly stationed upon a hill just over looking a fight, with a row of foot soldiers to protect them at the base. Due to the much slower speeds and movements, even at 20-30 yards or even 50 up a hill from a battle, I'd wager archers who have as you said been trained since a child to use those bows, would be exceptionally lethal with accurate shots.
@@tods_workshop I'm guessing much of this is fairly apparent to you. There just seems to be a lot of misconceptions in the comments.
From my experience, you don't need to do a quarter mile sprint. You just need to sprint the last 30-50m, at longer ranges I would suspect the shield to successfully stop arrows, or at least slow them down enough so the maille stops them. The penetration of the shield itself wasn't really new to me, I made basically the identical observation a couple of years ago when I shot arrows at the scraps I had from making a shield.
I would say the range at which you could actually reliably hit small weakpoints is relatively low, but you can definitely focus on a specific person (that guy with the open helmet and without a shield) at distances from probably 70m in, maybe even further.
I read once an account of the Battle of Carrhae, were the Parthians slaughtered the Romans under Crassus.
Their Arrows also went through the roman Shields.
Apparently after that debacle the Romans used several layers of Silk over the front of their Shields in that Region to stop the Parthia Arrows from the devastating penetration.
I wouldn't be surprised, if this story is factually true, that wealthy Knights in the Middle Ages did the same to their Shields.
Might be worth a try to find out if it actually works and is not just a myth.
I do wonder how a Pavise style shield would fare against the Warbows. For that matter I wonder if they are made using the same process as compared to the shield shown here.
Very amusing testing regardless! Keep the content rolling out.
One of the best channels on CZcams.. Great work Tod.. :)
"That's a pork hit."
That could make a quality comedic catchphrase.
If you Google it, it probably comes up with something filthy
@@tods_workshop doesn't everything?
@@tods_workshop ruke 34 basically
With all the pork chops, I'm still searching for the Paul Harrel reference in the comments :P ... "Hi we are out on the range today so bare with the swooshing of arrows in the background"
@@tods_workshop How many Urban Dictionary entries do you tthink you are responsible for?
Impressive penetration but this is at EXTREMELY close range. If - at this range - you have infantry coming at you, your archers will probably rather drop everything and run or at least draw swords, this is only a few paces from the enemy cutting you to pieces and even if you penetrate their shields, only the first rows of men are greatly threatened and the rest will gladly make you pay.
I have no idea how additional distance would change the results but I guess most incoming shots were actually from much further away and potentially a lot more arched than in this test.
SCA group fights have shown archers can effectively engage targets in melee with little risk to friendly troops at about 40 to 50 feet. Usally across several ranks of fighters. Nothing is a perfect simulation but it indicates arrows were used at a variety of ranges during a battle.
Also found most people run faster with a bow than with shield. Those bastards are hard to catch with only a couple yards of lead.
That was my immediate thought as well, this seems far too close for typical longbow combat. I have to imagine at longer ranges accuracy and penetration both would suffer. I suppose you might see some shots at this range during a siege, but that's not exactly what they were known for.
Still, it's an interesting test which does showcase the lethal potential these arrows had under ideal conditions.
@@FShani At agincourt, it was said that the english longsbows were used at very close range so maybe not unprecedented, though obviously less than ideal.. Archers would have protected their position with pointed stakes sticking into the ground, so it isn't as simple as just charging them as you'd get bogged down in the defenses first.
@@Bob-sq1us that is where horses come in to run them down
Ah yes. The famous sworded archers.
"needle in the arm not going to stop you fighting" my dude I cry when I step on a lego.
Lego's is the cause of major Injury!!! An arrow is a flesh wound
...and legos rarely travel alone.
I got shot six times and charged, when you know showing you back is not an option, the lego wouldn't slow you down in a situation..
I cant walk or go to work for 2 weeks after crashing my toe into anything.
oh but you're still gonna fight when your life depends on it.
Great video, love your enthusianism!
Excellent heraldly on that shield.
I really enjoy these arrow / bolt head tests, from the textile tests with various heads, to the more recent maille tests, and now this. Valuable for establishing a baseline of experimental archaeology by which to compare other tests
The increased consistency of the crossbow just makes it even better.
The next video will answer the question; "Will a a shield protect Tod from his wife when he explains what happened to their dinner." :D
Tod was merely tenderizing the pork leg and piercing it to hold cloves of garlic.
That is my story and I'm sticking with it.
@@daveh3997 Now you've gone and made me want some slow roasted pork, thanks.
@@Taolan8472 And that is exactly what it became....
Already peppered and assaulted. Just saving time.
During these Corona times a "Lockdown Longbow" becomes a new meaning. LOL
Ahahahha
Ooph! Just the impact on the shield looks stunning.
Well, I'll take 20-30 cm into shield over 20-30 cm into my head any day
Too true
>Well, I'll take 20-30 cm into shield over 20-30 cm into my head any day
Sucking head wounds DO tend to crimp ones style...
Even the likely damage to your arm is preferable to damaging the stuff behind it
I suspect that 20-30 cm into that shield would translate to rather a lot more penetration in your head, but I guess in that case you're not going to care much about the difference anyway.
I like giving penetration to the head.
I think you should try something with using an angle? Like you said they were not taking dead blows like holywood. Maybe arrows come with an angle, shields would be really strong against them.
(I want Tod to see this please like. Ty)
there's a reason tanks have slanted armor, and I think this would give the same effect here.
Worth testing, definitly - but also, in a 'shieldwall', how extended / slanted can you hold the shield before you're just giving an opening to the archers on your right?
It occurred to me that if the sheild were presented at a 45 degree angle to oncomming arrows then instead of half an inch of poplar for the arrows to penetrate, there'd be a whole inch.
@@Pibydd .707 inches.
@@Sareth94 Indeed, sloped armour increases the thickness of material required to go through so it would certainly help. And of course range effects this as the arrows would be coming down at an angle so inherently putting a "slope" on the shield.
@@Sareth94 Part of the benefit to a shield wall is the overlap you gain from each shield. so even if you only had a 5-10 degree slant if the arrow penetrated at all there is still another shield (sometimes) that it would have to penetrate. It's even more effective with center gripped shields as the second line of soldiers can extend their shields to help protect the front row. Bonus of second row, is you also have your mate as a meat shield in front of you.
It is a really good experiment, thank you very much. Just there are some minor details that may change the result.
1- The arrows most probably hit the shield with some angle and that will reduce the damage. Here it hits 90 degrees which maximizes it.
2- The bowmen would fire furder away and that will also reduce the damage.
3- I don't think medieval crossbows are that well-engineered like the one in the video.
Lol he is talking about longbows, not crossbows 😂 His crossbow has the same power of a medieval longbow.
incinerator950 most modern bows have a far lower draw weight than a warbow. Modern bows are made for competition or hunting, not to go through armour and shields.
@@feanedhell and the point is that better materials and construction method reduces the need for draw weight, in the same way that a 1943 17pdr gun is more effective than a 32pdr from the previous century.
User Name that’s not how bows work. The draw weight is the amount of force that is going to be applied to the arrow. New technology has allowed us to increase the power of a bow while making it easier on the archer, such as compound bows, but the draw weight is still the metric used for the power of a bow. A 120 pound bow today has the same amount of force as a 120 bow 400 years ago. And today, olympic archers pull around 50 to 60 pounds. We certainly can create bows that have equivalent force, we just don’t tend to.
@@l.j.eriksson5459 why talk shit when you have no idea what you're talking about. The need for draw weight hasn't been reduced by an meaningful margin. I'd like you to provide a source for your wild claims.
I think it's nuts you have so few subscribers. Subscribed today after enjoying every one of your videos I watched recently.
Tod's wife "Have you seen the pork roast I was going to do for diner?"
It's still good! Might find a ring or two in it, but extra iron isn't going to hurt your diet!
Tod: “It's over here, I've tenderized it for you.”
@@cynthiatremblay8373 wife:"So you bought the hammer?"
Tod:"No,but I got this crossbow"
"Do you mean my comrade?"
Idea for easy on-the-fly measuring penetration: Draw a tape measure scale on the shaft of the arrows.
good idea, could just mark every 10 or 5cm along the arrows with a marker
@
Dragon's Advocate
What kind of sorcery is this? You sir a genius of the highest order.
2 Feb 2021 COVID feed insertion refugee here. I was searching for Skyrim and this channel appeared in my feed. Happy coincidence as this is great content! Best Regards and thanks for the great video!
I feel like the distance is a bit off? If they're that close you might want to start running.
Exactly at that range enemy would be charging even if you get the chance to loose an arrow and hit you target perfectly there is alwasy the next guy. That is not a realistic range
If they're that close, you're dead. A horse will close that gap in a couple of seconds.
@@ForgottenKnight1 That's my point. You should have started running before that obviously.
Yes. Running right at them, screaming your head off.
This whole series has really illustrated just how devastating the long bow would have been to face. Awesome stuff Tod!
Really interesting test! But I would like a repetition with the shield at a slight angle (like 5, 10 and 15 degrees) since I’d not expect the arrows to go through then
Well but the dangling mounting is extremly favorable to the shield. Then i would want an artificial arm holding it instead of it just hanging there. Also, in combat you have 100rets of archers in front of you its hard to angle to the archer shooting at you. Eaven with 20 arrows glancing off the shield the "worst case archer" might come and ruin your day, since at closer distance he might also look for the guy with the least/worst angled shield from the 5 to shoot at that are in front of him.
I like your vids they are very informative and realistic.
Thank you , Tod .
"Will you be safe?" No. But you'd be *safer* than without a shield. A broken arm is much better than an arrow to the chest. That 22cm/9" is the shot most likely to impact the body behind the shield. And the shield protects a much greater surface area even if it does leave the arm exposed. Having a shield is still better than not having one.
I'm sure Tod agrees. But it is good proof that unless your shield was made of metal, you were still very likely to get serious injuries.
@@TheGrumbliestPuppy ya, I tend to see that way. no protection is perfect. Even plate mail has weak points. also consider there is training on how to use a shield that will increase the safety margin to. I am sure they would not be static at that angle.
Alternatively, you just spend more on getting a better shield. Angling could also help, but I would go for a more expensive shield.
@@strongback6550 metal or thicker wood was developed so some smart warrior had that idea.
This might explain why the boss usually were made of metal and had the shape it did. A lucky shot would otherwise make you lose both hand and shield.
for all the "why doesn't he just use a longbow?" b/c they are 175lb pulls, and that shit is hard AF.
I suspect it's because of consistency. Even a champion archer can't use the same force every single time.
I can totally agree i shot a 55lb recurve and after 40 arrows it gets really tired.
Sorry for My Bad English
during lockdown he doesn't have access to Joe Gibbs.
@@aventurero4260 If you're really tired after shooting 40 arrows, you're over-bowed. Ideally, you want to be using a bow that you're comfortable shooting at least 100 arrows, one after the other, without getting fatigued. Otherwise, you risk developing bad form, which negatively affects your accuracy and can put you at risk of injury.
lol 60lb recurve bows are too heavy for most people to shoot accurately. Even super experienced archers use 50lb bows. I used to have a 110lb horse bow. Was painful to shoot and a nightmare to string.
Hello Tod, just wanted to say I love to see your vedios and to see your dedication. After I lost my girlfriend to cancer last year my world and I'm broken... But I have found every vedio you make to be a joy and also a place to go to find peace.
Kind regards from Denmark
Peter
Would be interesting to see at a longer range, and also if holding the shield at an angle would make a difference
"I used to be an adventurer like you, Then I took an arrow to the pork."
anything but an arrow to the pork!
@Masemeno Nasaku do tell
@Masemeno Nasaku No idea at all
I remember reading up on how the first Crusaders would walk through loads of raining arrows and have them stuck in their mail because of the range/power of the bows weren't designed for armor penetration.
What i would love to see is 10 archers armed with Early Crusade Saracen bows peppering a suit and shield of the Crusader knight variant to show what it was like to be a Crusader walking through literal raining arrows. The arrows sticking out of the armor would probably weight 50+ pounds.
From reading about it, the wealthier knights were mostly the ones this was true for. The bulk of the crusades was peasantry, and they were butchered.
Didn't expect to see you here :P
@@EvoLozGaming Sup, yeah i like medieval history and history recreations, Tods Workshop is great for that.
Kinda how i fell inlove with Mount & Blade, which lead to Conquerors blades. I'm not touching Bannerlord for atleast another year where most of its problems are fixed so i can enjoy it without scorning it.
@@TheGrumbliestPuppy not from what i have read, atleast not in the first crusade. i distinctly remember a source describing the peasant infantry and how the saracen arrows got stuck in their gambesons
There are many of references to this in the first, second, and third crusades, both on the Frankish and Saracen sides. Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, William of Tyre, Odo of Deuil, as well as Bahā’ al-Dīn Ibn Shaddād and ‘Imād ad-Din al-Kātib al-Isfahānī all describe numerous arrows being stuck in the armor of Franks. This all depends on context, especially the different weapons technologies clashing during this unusual event.
"The enemy army was already in formation with the infantry surrounding it
like a wall, wearing solid iron corslets and full-length well-made chain mail,
so that arrows were falling on them with no effect. I saw various individuals
amongst the Franks with ten arrows fixed in their back, pressing on in this
fashion quite unconcerned." -Shaddād, describing the battle of Arsuf, 1191
Great Video Mr Tod !
I was recommended this by youtube and you have a new Follower :)
"Oak and iron, guard me well, else I'm dead and doomed to hell."
I am liking this series, and you should not need to keep justify using your lockdown bow... same speed. Thanks
Or continue to justify but only for exact 10 seconds each time. So it would be easily skipped)
Remember that many for many people this is the first time they would have seen one of the videos in the series so it is kinda necessary to explain the validity each video
I would love to see a revisit of this test already: angle the shield as if the soldier would hold it out in front of him (just like you would cover you swordhand with it during a strike. Maybe even with a sillhuette behind to see not just how the angle would affect the penetration of the arrows, but also how much of a target the body behind would be under those circumstances.
A mannequin and spot that the arrows won't get lost as they deflect would be ideal.
@@shawn6860 Deflecting increases the chance of the arrows breaking, drastically. Short Bodkins in special tend to deflect quit easily on smooth surfaces, if hit at an angle.
So better do this after the other, safer tests are done.
I was wondering about that myself... if you hold your arm at a 45 degree or 60 degree angle? It means sacrificing coverage but... it might work!
There is an issue of archers hitting you with crossfire. Works against one, not vs a line
Its always a trade off between protection, cost and weight. It's possible to make a conical shield and point it right at your target but it'd be much heavier and may re-direct it to your allies standing near you.
Interesting to see and I imagine fun to do. Thanks heaps.
Tod needs to carry on now and tell how to cook that pork medieval style with all the lovely trimmings...my mouth is watering 😋😋😋🤣
These results are horrifying for the poorer men at arms with mismash of shields, mail and part plate. Just one in your arm is gonna impact your fighting spirit!
Especially since at the time there were no anesthetics or antibiotics, and surgery was done by barbers; a wound often meant a slow, agonizing death.
@@TheGrumbliestPuppy actually, medieval people where pretty decent at basic ideas of wound treatment.
Now, wounds to the chest cavity and stomach were the main problem.
@@nikitab.6600 That internal bleeding is a problem...
@@TheGrumbliestPuppy Yeah you might just as well tick the "sepsis" box and pray God back in the day. Although, there are many archeological human rests that shows professional soldiers from the 15th century that survived truly horrendous wounds you wouldn't bet one buck on surviving one with modern means, and received several others in later battles. They had a fair bit of luck, no doubt, but I think late medieval surgeons knew their stuff very well.
"These results are horrifying "
exactly the opposite. many people here obviously have no clue what they are looking at. you are looking at someone who very likely came out of that battle alive.
It's nice to see that you are shielding during the lockdown.
6:47 That trickle of blood from the pork joint really drives the point home.
I think I'm out of puns now.
Great video!
I love how much you're obviously enjoying this project.
I do believe this is exactly why the Romans and the Vikings had a Metal boss in the middle of their shields, behind which the actual handle was located. They would also keep their shields away from their bodies whilst attempting to block arrows. Heater shields seem somehow less appealing now.
Very interesting stuff. Makes me interested to see how shields from other time periods and cultures stand up, especially the hoplon. Much thicker and potentially sheathed in metal but held against the body.
Great video.
That did a lot more damage than I was expecting.
Great stuff, looking forward to more.
The wax probably started with storage, to avoid the metal or the wood evwn getting damp and rott/rust. Then at some point someone realized they worked better that way
A beeswax and linseed oil finish is the way I settled on for waterproofing my wooden arrows so they don't get warped when I'm out shooting and I wind up getting caught in a rain storm, which in England is something that can happen to you a lot. I wouldn't be at all surprised if medieval archers and fletchers didn't do something similar to preserve their arrows as well.
An additional bonus this kind of finish gives is it makes the arrow shaft much smoother, which reduces aerodynamic drag and enables the arrow to retain more of its velocity over distance than it otherwise would. It doesn't make a noticeable difference at short ranges, but over medium and longer ranges, it does make a noticeable difference.
You'd think tallow might be used more because of the sheer amount of wax needed for war bows.
Theres actually historic evidence that archers did wax there arrowheads before fighting certain type of armors. In the above he uses a thin gambeson type armor, for those kinds of armors its proven that they waxed it cause it allows for deeper penetration of the arrowhead against gambeson
@@jameslawrie3807 Remember that the archers or wagon trains and pack animals would have needed to transport the arrows for days or weeks to the battle site. Being a soldier myself I cannot imagine that rotting fat would be good for the quivers and barrels used to hold them and it would likely have drawn pests, vermin and insects which could have caused damage to the arrows and in particular the fletching.
There is a super thesis on the Tower Inventories and it lists amongst other military items bows and the equipment to store and transport.
etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/3919/1/Thom_Richardson_thesis_final.pdf
It even has a entry of workmen being paid to repair and straighten out arrows.
"Because probably anybody who owns a shield is going to have some kind of armour on their arms." - all the vikings in history collectively nod enthusiastically while dying a little on the inside.
IMO a 90cm boss grip round shield would perform better at keeping you alive and uninjured in these test conditions. Would be interested to see how it would hold up.
@@cloven3768 I believe Jorge Sprave did a test on a replica Viking shield.
They also wouldn't have been shot with long bows
@@cloven3768 A viking shield with a boss has a few advantages over this heater shield:
a) It's bigger, and protects more of the body
b) Round shields are gripped with one hand, rather than being strapped to the arm like a heater shield. If you hold it out straight, the arm is not in contact with the shield, making it harder for arrows to hit the defender if the penetrate the shield.
c) The hand is protected behind an iron or steel boss, which is more likely to deflect an arrow. This gives great protection to the hand, and since the hand is the only body part in contact with the shield, it gives great overall protection to the defender.
d) There's an angry viking under that shield.
Awezome video! (a couple of angled shots would be amazing)
This is the best evidence for center-held shields that I've seen. Holding one in the style of this particular shield seems crazy.
That's an excellent point! I honestly didn't consider that; this is why it's so cool to communicate with other people into this.
Building on your observation, it would seem that the arm-strap configuration would have been more suitable to warding off melee blows, though Roland Warzecha's experimentation shows that center-grip shields are *QUITE* potent in the melee role. Perhaps the arm-strap was more specialized to the mounted role than I previously believed? Interesting stuff!
I imagine many worked like the Roman ("Byzantine") method called a Khiasma grip, where the two straps were large enough to be grabbed as one center grip, but also still could be used as two separate straps like a Rotella.
This simulates longbows, which werent common anywhere besides England, and they would nowhere near normally shoot at this suicidal distance.
Other bows and crossbows wouldn't be able to go through
If I was being shot at with arrows, I'd definitely prefer that shield to no shield.
Especially if I was part of a formation, and thus unlikely to be getting directly aimed at.
I'd go full plate any day of the week.
Yeah, I was answering Tod during the video "maybe not safe behind it, but much better than nothing"
Even full plate (if you are one of the few wealthy ones) is better with a shield like this, than without
@@adifferentangle7064 if you could afford plate. Heck chain mail may be a bit expensive depending on who you were in the front of an army charging archers
@@adifferentangle7064 Maybe just a gambeson, no need to look too important when the projectiles are flying..
@ET Hardcorgamer except most people could not afford plate, it was like buying a main battle tank today, so you would probably have chainmail unless you were a knight or noble
This is why most types of shields had a buckle, and were held with your hand, not strapped to you arm. This type of shield is intended for horsemen who need to hold the reins with one hand and weapon with the other, this way they still have some protection.
Horsemen do not need to hold the reins, they control the horse with legs and voice commands. Well, mostly.
Anyway, what you see in modern joustings is wrong. Real knights just spent way more time training their horses. Hobbyists vs. pro.
This shield is for hand to hand combat but also used by horeseman too and knight had to hold reins because you cant tell a horse where to otherwise but while they were on full charge horse was trained to go on a straight line no matter what
@ You steer with legs not reins when fighting. Knights trained to fight with both hands in use. The hand on reins is modern technique, like firing from the left of the bow.
@@ribbitgoesthedoglastnamehe4681 If you are trying make small moves to side when charging yes you can use you legs but when in full stop or slow moving if you want to make sharp turns you need reins and also while full on charge if you need to make real turn you need reins to
@ How do wild horses turn, buddy? They go straight until they hit a wall or a cliff, right?
Is that what you are saying? They dont got a rider to pull their head so they hit a tree, right?
it certainly allows to reconsider the usefulness of the metal piece imbeded in some round shields. I heard it was mainly decorative, now i wonder if it was to protect the hand from that kind of injuries. As a shield maker, I would certainly fix a steel band in the middle to protect the wielding arm...
I would love to see different bows from history face off against different shields from the same tide period
agreed in particular I would like to see centergrip shield as there would be a whole lot less "pork" to hit for those
ye that would be a very interesting
@Caramel Johnson Yeah that is pretty much what my expectation would be, specially since due to the shape of the boss its much more likely to glance off the boss and just hit where the wood of the rest of the shield is overlapping with the steel of the boss, and at more of an angle, and even if hitting the shield the shield would bounce slightly differently, and more due to the difference in how it is held, so even if hitting the wood part of the shield I don't think the arrows would go as far through as those that missed the pork in this one (Assuming ofc that Tod manages to secure the shields in ways that simulate these differences properly)
I wonder if soldiers would have put a metal plate where their arm holds the shield for just such a reason. Similar to how chopper pilots sat on metal plates in Vietnam?
I mean, does a vambrace count? Seems like probably the 3rd or 4th place you'd put plate.
Before plate was common they did not to our knowledge
@@ryankolick4117 The Scutum (roman shield) had a metal bulk in the middle to deflect spears and all sorts of missiles. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scutum_(shield)#/media/File:Pilensalve.jpg
That is why I would prefer a viking shield. At least with it you can hold out your shield and you has a metal boss to protect your hand. It would be cool to see that sield as well.
Seems like dead weight to me. Putting more armor on your arm seems like a better idea.
quarantine is making me watch some new and interesting things. i'm not complaining.
i subbed to this channel within the first 30 seconds of the video
Great fun, friend Tod! I'm a life long archer of 45 years now and highly accurate with recurve bows. Even with decades of experience and thousands of arrows loosed, I am still no match for those heavy English war bows. Great call with using the "lock down longbow" for these fun challenges. The long arrows are more accurate when loosed from a full draw. However, you are dead on right about the speed of the arrow in flight. Thank you for sharing your fun with us Tod. Adventure on my friend, Phat
I wanted to see a shot of you sitting next to your grill cookin that pork for an end shot. haha
I have visions of a longbowman turning to a quiver `caddy` and saying "I`ll have a no 9 short bodkin please Caddy."
A comparison of a composite recurve bow and an English war bow would be nice - I’d love to see how they both fare against Roman style shields (which are more a kind of plywood)?
I am sure someone else has already mentioned it but I would love to see this done with the shield at an angle and see how that changes penetration
And at different distances, the distance in the video would be very uncommon to extremely rare, in actual battles, at that distance longbowmen would have already fallen back to their lines otherwise they would be charged
I imagined a longbow shot from that close probably would break through a shield- would be there be a marked difference from farther away? Whatever the average distance a longbowman would shooting at enemies from?
yes, to what extent i don't know
It would drop off, but probably not a lot as arrows are (relatively) heavy compared to bullets. At distance you’re probably firing in a higher arc which adds some gravity drop to the equation. It would probably be less...but then you might then also be covering your head...which would be worse.
he discussed that with toby capwell in a prior video.
precise killshots startet around 50 meters, beyond that harassing fire was used to goad the enemy into lethal range
Arrows lose velocity as they fly the closer they are the more energy they have.
Mo energy=mo deadly.
So this experiment is a best case scenario for the Archer and the footman's worst day ever.
If the distance was let's say doubled I bet we would get different results and very possibly very different results.
But that's not really the point of the experiment.
I can say this as a side note. 50 yards is considered the absolute farthest you should shoot an animal from with modern bows and crossbows. Any farther it's just not considered ethical due to loss of energy and flight time. However I have seen with my own eyes a deer get shot and killed with modern compound bow at 97yards. Make of this what you will.
Look back at the videos from last year when he tested arrows against different types of armor. I think there's an explanation in those videos of why this range is chosen for testing. Also, those are fascinating tests too!
Wow, the force is impressive! I can’t recall a movie where arrows hitting shields actually managed to penetrate the shield, they always seem to go just about deep enough to not fall off.
Would love to see this in a side by side comparison to center grip shields! I wonder how the difference in grips and constructions would affect the way arrows worked.
I absolutely, thoroughly, deeply, love this series. This kind of gritty no nonsense testing and theorizing is one of a kind right now Tod. Keep up the good work and I can't wait for the next one.
The results of that test surprised me a lot to be honest, I thought the shield would fare better.
Not reinforced shield against a longbow at a distance of a spit? What did you expect?
You must know this is the power of arround 160-170 lbs. My oppinion is that only a very good dedicated archer could pull this in his best years. Probably most would draw arround 90-130 lbs
Crossbows are OP
I guess people started leaving off their shields in the 14th century (after they don breastplates) for a reason. A crossbowproof shield is just too Heavy
Though the Italians and Spanish did use all-metal shields (rotellas)
@@irfannurhadisatria2540 why are crossbows op? They were usefull in sieges mostly, couse of slow reload time. But i dont see them as op.
@@irfannurhadisatria2540 In Spain, that type of shield is called "rodela" (rodelas in plural)
Men who wielded a rodela were called rodeleros. They were usually put in units comprised entirely of other rodeleros. Their main weapon was a sword. They were used in a similar fashion to the Hipaspistas in Alexander the Great's army: flank the enemy and engage in closed quarters against men whose weapons put them at a disadvantage in close quarters. For the Spanish, that usually meant sending the rodeleros after enemy pikemen and halbards
“I’ve got two more M2s and I’m going for the pork joint” is pure medieval gangsta. Lol
Sorry, but the assumption here is that the archer will be aiming at your arm behind the shield. In actual combat, the chances of an arrow penetrating the shield over your arm is pretty slight, and if the arrow did strike your arm, that's a serious but not disabling injury.
The arrows that did not strike the arm area were stopped after penetrating what looked like 8 to 10 inches. If the shield bearer had been wearing a gambeson those arrows would never have reached skin. Mail over gambeson wouldn't have any problem.
dude i also think this is a bit of BS, i dont think the shield would be penetrated that easily, however, if an arroz penetrates your arm like that one did on the pork chop, its death, almost 100% death, but surely 100% death if u dont leave the battlefield immediately, u know when u get penetrated with an arroz u bleed, u imagine how much that shit would hurt, definitely a disabling injury.
@@thomaskunz3089 first, while an arrow wound to the arm could cause death by bleeding if unattended, the use of tourniquets to control bleeding goes back as far as Alexander the great. If an arrow penetrated the portion of them arm behind the shield, the damage would be limited to the lower arm. Certainly any soldier of the time would have known how to help a friend with such an injury. History is full of accounts of soldiers who, by necessity, had to continue fighting with an injury which prohibited the use of one arm. They bound the wound to stop bleeding and went on fighting until a pause in the action allowed them to seek aid from a medic. The main danger from such a wound would be from infection or shock. We know many survived such injuries from the many accounts of one armed veterans throughout history.
@@emmitstewart1921 dude anyway the guy would fkin scream in pain from his arm getting pierced, would have to take the shield out, blodd would be squirting from his arm, guy would very likely die man, at that time, big chaces he would die. just taking the shield off his arm and the arrow that was pierced would already have fked that guy up; now torniquet that and keep fighting? nah that guy was going home if he knew what was better.
@@thomaskunz3089 Yes, he would leave the field if he could. The trouble is that many times, he couldn't because he was in the middle of a battle, and the enemy was not going to stop coming just because he had hurt his arm. He had to keep fighting or the enemy would kill him. Yes he was in pain. Yes, he was suffering from shock, and shock was the major cause of death in less than mortal wounds. It wasn't until WWI that doctors discovered that more soldiers died from shock than from blood loss. The fact was, that unless he kept fighting as long as he could hold a spear or sword in his other hand, the enemy would be only too glad to end his pain forever. True heroism isn't always about glorious sacrifice. Sometimes it's about doing what you have under horrific conditions and somehow managing to come out alive. That kind of heroism is so common that medals are seldom given out for it.
@@thomaskunz3089 just a few things. First of all he may not even feel much pain due to the amount of adrenaline in his blood when he is charging into combat. The bloodloss wouldn't be that bad either since the arrows would be stuck in those wounds and would therefore slow the bleeding down a lot. Yes when he takes the shield off the bleeding will worsen, but you aren't taking your shield until after the battle. Yes sure if an artery was damaged he will most likely die, but the chances of that happening are really low.
I can’t remember the last time I was this excited to see the next installment in a series pop up like this. You keep on doing fantastic content Tod
Great! And it really shows how useful shields are: imagine just taking hits like this *without* the shield. Terrifying.
I suppose it's better than having those same arrows in your vital organs
@@TheBladeOfTheVoid Infinitely better. Painful limb and flesh wounds vs immediately mortal injuries.
I would much rather be in a doctor's tent shouting about my agonisingly painful arm wound than be writhing on the floor with a bodkin point lodged half an inch from my spleen.
T I S B U T A S C R A T C H 💪
Wow, I totally expected the shield to hold up a bit better than it did. Those English longbows are just beast.
I'd still prefer arrows going through my shield into my arm, then through my armor into my fleshy soft inside bits! :p
Your arm is only in part of the shield. Shields would still be good because you hold it front of your body. I would rather get an arrow into my arm than into my chest.
Looking at the footage, the arrows that didn't hit the arm only stopped when they hit the backstop. Now, maybe it did take away enough energy to stop it from piercing whatever other armor you have.
@@dragon-ld8gs They tried shooting a plate armor in a previous video and none of it got through, and that was with no shield. No way an arrow goes through a shield then your armor, now if you only got a Gambeson and chain mail then its possible, but I bet its not gonna be a killing blow or even that serious unless your super unlucky.
@@JoshDragRace0688 Yeah, after that shield, even some mail and/or gambeson would likely be enough to reduce that from a killing shot to a pretty big ouchie. Honestly, give me the shield regardless.
@@JoshDragRace0688 Though by the time of Agincourt (the period they were testing for the longbow vs armor) people who could afford full plate armor didn't usually have a shield like that (or use a shield at all). I'm interested if a pavise could take arrow fire, though.
@@gabem3251 considering the pavise was either spiked into the ground or held by separate specialist, its ability to stop arrows completely was probably less important, especially since they would be at longer ranges (and thus safer) when fighting non-crossbow archers...