Medieval Shield walls have become a favorite
of today’s moviemakers. But if you take a closer look, it’s clear that the historical
shield wall has little to do with the heroic, spectacular, and often acrobatic mess we see in
films  In reality, fighting in a shield wall was unspectacular brutal soldiering. However, in
film, battles are an occasion for a hero to prove himself. Such scenes are climactic and popular
media is often much more interested in good drama than in historical authenticity. Nevertheless,
the medieval shield wall is a controversial topic not only among history buffs but also among
historians. Still, there are some things that can be said about the historical shield wall with a
fair degree of certainty - and thus some aspects of pop media depictions can be identified as
myths. In this video, we’re going to tackle four common misconceptions about medieval shield walls.
As military history fans, we’re happy to announce that this video is sponsored by War thunder.
War Thunder offers a highly immersive combat experience with every vehicle incredibly detailed
and modeled down to their individual components. All of that comes in 4k resolution with an
authentic sound design to immersive yourself in. For us, the vehicle damage model is
just astounding. It’s actually dynamic, so both the vehicle and the crew suffer actual
damage. In War Thunder you can play more than 2000 tanks, helicopters and ships in dynamic PVP
battles, which makes it the most comprehensive vehicle combat game on the market. All of these
vehicles are customizable; for example with camouflages or 3d decorators such as bushes
and equipment. From a historical perspective, it’s nice to see that their collection of
vehicles spans over 100 years of development, all the way from the 1920s to the present day. You
can play War Thunder on PC, Xbox Series X and S, PlayStation 5 or the previous console generation
right now. Get yourself a huge bonus containing 500,000 silver lions, three vehicles, a 50% EXP
booster, a 7 day premium account booster and much more by using the link in the description below!
Misconception 1: Raging Heroes A medieval battle was not a chaotic muddle of
men dodging and leaping, striking to the front and side, all intermingled with each other,
at least not in an open field battle. Anyone who would have fought like Uhtred of Bebbanburg
in The Last Kingdom would not have survived for long. Most fighters would certainly not have
had the skill and bravery to fight like that, but more importantly, foot soldiers had to
form a tight, cohesive formation in order to stand a chance on the battlefield. The
Anglo-Saxons defending Senlac Hill against the Normans at the Battle of Hastings in 1066,
for example, formed "an impenetrable body" by "covering themselves in front by the junction
of their shields.” According to the historian Clifford Rogers it is such close formations
that are referred to by the term "shield wall", but the term doesn't necessarily refer to a fixed
tactical formation. Depending on time and place, shield walls could look very differently. So could
their popularity, depending on the nature of the conflict. In case of surprise attacks and raids,
which was for example a core element of Viking warfare, it was less likely that a shield
wall was used than in an open field battle. But no matter where or when, if an army chose to
fight in a shield wall, the ultimate objective was to keep the formation, because what made it
effective in the first place was its cohesion. When the men stood shoulder to shoulder, they
were protected from three sides and could focus exclusively on what was happening in front of
them. While there are examples in which heavily armed fighters were put in front of the first row,
for example when a cavalry attack was expected, the mass of the fighters was always very
tightly formed. This is because a formation that broke up meant chaos and could have
fatal consequences, as Christine de Pizan, a French writer and philosopher who lived at the
turn of the 13th and 14th centuries explains. That's why it was imperative "to keep a formation
in line, and tight and cohesive like a wall." When they formed such a wall, the army
had the best chance to succeed and the individual the greatest chance to survive. If
the men further to the back moved up closely this gave the formation stability through
mass; if the men stood shoulder to shoulder, the front was closed and all fighters standing
there had the best possible protection. According to Jean de Bueil, a French admiral in
the Hundred Years War, known as the scourge of the English, infantrymen should be arrayed so
tightly that an apple thrown at the formation could not pass between their bodies. So,
fighting in a shield wall was all about keeping the own formation as tight as possible
while trying to disrupt the enemy's formation in order to create a weak spot which could then be
exploited. Usually, the formation was only broken up once the battle was over - either to flee
or to pursue the loser. There was definitely no room for a bunch of raging swashbucklers.
Misconception 2: Charging Shield Walls Movie makers and audiences love the epic
moment when one army charges another. In reality, this was not to be recommended.
Running into an intact shield wall, such as here in Vikings, was pointless and suicidal.
There would have been almost no chance of breaking through unless the enemy formation
already had a weak point. At the same time, running attackers would expose themselves because
they would have to break formation or at least loosen up to run. Jean de Bueil wrote: "[…] a
formation on foot should never march forward but should always hold steady and await its enemies on
foot. For, when they march, they cannot maintain their order. It takes only a bush to break them
up. A force which marches before another force is defeated, unless God grants it grace." So, not
only was it unwise to run into a shield wall, it was equally unwise to run as a shield wall. The
shield wall was, in essence, a defensive formation that functioned best when deployed statically.
Nevertheless, at least one of the two sides had, of course, to advance to make contact. While
doing so, the main concern was to minimize risks. For example, a formation could advance step
by step, keeping together as tight as possible, or alternatively break formation, run
forward, slow down just before making contact, then link back together and finally
confront the enemy in a closed line. The second option was probably also chosen by
the Norman heavy infantrymen who were the first to advance against the Anglo-Saxons at Hastings.
As the Anglo-Saxons had the high ground, however, the Normans had a twofold disadvantage: they had
to run uphill while the Anglo-Saxons could shoot at them from above. Under these circumstances,
they stood no chance. By the time they reached the enemy shield wall, their line had many gaps, and
they could no longer form a closed shield wall. So, any advance meant a significant
disadvantage, and was even likely to disrupt the ranks of a formation. Marching
forward slowly was a risk, running frontally into a shield wall was nonsense, if there
wasn’t a significant weak spot to exploit. Misconception 3: Archers
First, Hand to Hand Second In general, there are not enough missile weapons
in movie depictions of shield walls. Archers weren't the only ones who were shooting at the
enemy. In many movie-battles the archers hold back after an initial hail of arrows and make
way for charging infantry or cavalry in order to avoid hitting their own fighters. In reality,
an advancing medieval shield wall was incessantly pelted with projectiles. The men further to the
back who couldn’t participate in the fighting directly, did their best to throw spears, axes
and other projectiles, such as rocks, at their opponents. The Norman heavy infantry at Hastings
had to learn this as well, because while they were climbing up the slope the Anglo-Saxons were
throwing "[...] javelins and spears of all sorts, extremely lethal axes, and stones fixed to pieces
of wood. Under this deadly hail you might have thought that our men would be crushed." The use
of missile weapons is also nicely depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry, an embroidered cloth
depicting the Norman conquest of England. The tapestry shows various fighters throwing
spears and axes, and in the depiction of the Battle of Hastings, various men in the back rows
are holding several spears, waiting to throw them. Obviously, objects thrown by hand got
more effective when thrown downhill, as at Hastings, because this gave them a higher
reach and more force. Usually, all thrown weapons were aimed at the face, because until the
13th century it remained mostly unprotected, and even after that the face was more thinly
armored than other parts of the body. A simple fist-sized stone could do great damage to a face,
let alone an axe thrown by a practiced hand. In fact, throwing weapons caused as much damage
in a fight between two shield walls as the swords, axes and spears in the front ranks. Movies like to
focus on swords, but spears, thrown or handheld, are reported to be one of, if not the most common
weapon used in shield walls by various sources. Historians also agree: the
effectiveness of thrown axes, spears and even stones should not be
underestimated - especially because they could achieve effortlessly what the men
in the front rows struggled to do with their spears in hand under great risk. Weapons
used as a projectile could open a gap in the enemy's line and thus create a weak spot.
As far as we're concerned, we couldn't find a single movie battle in which the use of
projectiles is properly depicted - feel free to point them out to us if you know any examples.
Misconception 4: Horses Plowing through Infantry Infantry had a hard time against well-armed and
well-trained horsemen charging them (Charge the King). According to Rogers: "[...] a single horse
might produce a sort of reversed turbulence-wake among the footmen, even knocking them down
in series, like a bowling ball into tenpins." If two or more horses broke through, the chaos
was even worse, and if a horseman even managed to get to the back of a formation, he could
attack them from their most vulnerable side. This would often lead to a complete breakup of
the formation. So, when foot soldiers ran at cavalry like the great Heathen army in Vikings,
they stood only little chance. However, infantry had possibilities to defend itself against such a
charge, even if they had no field fortifications or favorable terrain at their disposal.
One possibility was to throw missile weapons. This could be very effective, since there was always a
chance to distract or kill a charging horse, even a well-trained one, by hitting it with a spear or
stone. But this alone couldn’t possibly stop all horsemen. To deal with the rest, the infantry
had to react in time and correctly. Again, the precondition for success was that they would
stay in close formation and did not panic. The key to a successful defense against cavalry was to
amass a sufficient number of bodies tightly packed together that would almost form a solid mass.
This mass off men weighed more than the horse and could thus stop it. Still, the impact of a
charging horse would have been far from pleasant. In the best of cases, the horse was stopped in its
tracks and then crushed the men in the front rows, while according to Clifford Rogers its rider would
often be catapulted onto the enemy formation. For the men in the front, this defensive strategy
could be lethal, but it allowed the formation to remain intact and continue to fight, which gave
everyone else a much higher chance of survival. The effect of this could be greatly enhanced if
the men in the first rows rammed their spears into the ground or used field stakes so that the horse
would be impaled on impact. An early example for the successful use of pikes against cavalry is the
Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. There, "many horses were impaled, and many good men felled under
their hooves had no chance of getting up again." Still better yet were the chances when infantry
used long pikes. These could be anchored in the ground more firmly, and their length allowed
for more points to be placed in front of the first row. This was one of the main reasons
why infantry increasingly adopted long pikes. There is a whole bunch of other stuff that
could be addressed, but let's leave it at that for today. If you'd like to learn more about what
fighting in the medieval shield wall looked like, we recommend you look at our bibliography
and the reading list in the description. Thanks again to War Thunder for sponsoring this
video. Don’t forget to make use of the large free bonus pack by using our link in the description
below! And consider supporting us on Patreon.
