Why people used round shields instead of going straight to kite shields...

Why people used round shields instead of going straight to kite shields? Lmao people in the middle ages were fucking retarded why it took them so long to figure out you should protect your legs as well?

A round shield is easier to make and structurally sound.

So you can use the bottom tip to strike people.

>making a longer shield was too hard for medieval apes

lmao truly muh ancestors were people worth venerating

circular shield looks cooler

because the primary advantage of the kite shield is on horseback, offering an extension of the round shield down to cover the exposed leg.

It does this at the expense of radius, meaning that it protects the user's upper body less than a round shield, while also being less mobile and harder to manoeuvre with.

As such it only came into use with the widespread use of cavalry forces on horseback armed with early lance in the 11th century. Warfare prior to that dare was principally on foot, with only small numbers of skirmishers on horseback, even among the Germans and Danes - horseback warfare was not practised at all among the saxons or scandinavians.

As such, it is not the case the kite shield was not adopted because they were "fucking retarded" as you put it, but because you would be fucking retarded to use a shield of that shape before the adoption of cavalry. Widespread cavalry use had to be adopted, prior to the adoption of the shield form.

because saxons and scandiniggers were only people to live in medieval Europe right?

weight. Also a smaller shield is less of a hindrance
>LMAO people were so fucking retarded, they actually moved away from their screen

I see you managed to have the blinkers on and miss my comment noting that the germanic regions, the danes, (and by inference, that covers everything from modern poland, to bohemia.)

more importantly, I didnt go into the finer details of langobardic arms and the difference between the native french and the normans, because strangely enough, a 50,000 word essay covering the subject in detail is probably a waste of my time for the sort of idiot trying to write shitty bait about "muh medieval, hurr retards!".

>Poland
>Bohemia
>Danes

yeah don't forget Danes were also fucking founders of Rome and Babylon

Are you calling Varg a liar?

>be Varg
>MUH HERITAGE
>gonna burn the fucking churches which were a part of norwegian cultural heritage

Christianity isn't a religion, it's a mental disease that happens to be contagious.

dude, you don't really understand how single grip shields were used back then, do you?

>2,000 years of keeping the White Man down

Yes but that's besides the point. The buildings themselves were rather pretty.

>Varg
>Sane

>yea man it's the JEWS who don't want you worshipping YHWH
>go back to your ancient ethnic religions and the JEWS win, it's what they want

He never said that retard

Sage in all fields

>tribalism and THOR not universalism and YESHUA :-DDDD

>horseback warfare was not practised at all among the saxons or scandinavians.
untrue. warring culture of early-medieval swedes was almost completely based on horses. the reason they weren't used that much on viking raids was simply logistics. dozens of horses on a longboat is not a good idea at all.

no

>because the primary advantage of the kite shield is on horseback, offering an extension of the round shield down to cover the exposed leg.
Except it was adopted wholesale by people who did not fight on horseback, and even issued to infantrymen in the eastern roman empire at state expense.


You're full of shit.

>but because you would be fucking retarded to use a shield of that shape before the adoption of cavalry.
Yes, covering an extra line of attack is retarded.

>It does this at the expense of radius, meaning that it protects the user's upper body less than a round shield,
You very clearly do not understand how shields were actually used.