het verschil tussen full-plate en schild gebruik
The knight (the one clad in plate armour) didn't use a shield. No need, because the armour would be enough protection. Because he had the arm free, he could use a hand-and-a-half sword.
Earlier knights did use shields, combined with mail.
There are also bucklers (small fist shields) but they were mainly popular because they were easy to carry. They were popular for a long time though: from the age of mail into the age of plate. 'CORRECTION'
Bucklers were even used in the 16th century, they were effective against the swiss pikemen, it wasn't because they were easy to carry, it was because it has different functions then a bigger shield.
Given the evolution of arms and armour, it seems logical to assume that a knight in plate with a hand-and-a-half sword represents a step up from the knight in mail with a singlehanded sword and a shield.
the knight with mail wouldn't be enough protected to go without shield, the knight with full plate could use his arm as a shield for it was hard to penetrate armor.
alphamale, man, 45 jaar
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.
vorige
volgende