In any form of medieval media I've watched aiming for realism, I've never seen a metal shield, let alone heard mention of one. Are they a late medieval/early renaissance thing? Or were they all just wood and leather with a possible thin metal lining?
>>806929
Later shields had metal lining on the outside. I really don't know why they didn't make metal shields. curios too if anyone knows, because surely if metallurgy can make armor it could make thin enough shields
>>806984
My guess was that they would be too heavy for something that has to be moved quickly and accurately, and it would be a waste of metal that could be used for plate armor, that's why I was wondering if they were real or just a product of fantasy
>>806995
true and besides the cost wood has some give and metal does not, so that could be an issue. I do know some people like Rome or afrika had like golden and jewel encrusted shields but not for war use, more of a wealth thing really. When you say fantasy are you counting plate shields? because those were def a thing
>>806984
It would be very heavy to carry such a thing. A thin long sword would weigh around 2-3kg on average. Maybe 5kg on rare cases. A big shield made of metal would be heavy as fuck.
>>806984
>because surely if metallurgy can make armor it could make thin enough shields
>surely
I'm no metallurgist but I don't think that's true. A metal shield would basically be a slab of metal thick enough to stop an oncoming blow from a presumably metal or otherwise weapon. That means it would have to have a certain thickness; a certain amount of metal would have to be diverted from other productive acts to produce a heavy dumb object only marginally more effective (if at all), but several times heavier and more expensive.
Meanwhile, with a thin metal lining, you can have the basic protection that metal can offer you but you won't be wasting your metal and manpower (in the production process and on the battlefield) on that heavy, marginally more effective slab of dumb metal. Mobility would be heavily limited by a heavy metal slab serving as a shield, so you'd have less time to get it up when someone came to hit you in the face with a sword than you would with a lighter shield with a bit of metal on it.
Never forget the difference between the worlds that came before and after the industrial revolution.
>>806929
most shields were made out of wood with either a metal rim or a thin metal cover and they were mostly to cover yourself from arrows and spears, not in man to man combat
Round metal shields (made from steel) were widely used in Islamic India, especially under the Mughals.
>>807033
Was just about to post this.
>>807298
Should also add that these were derived from Persian shields, which were also metal. Same goes for the Ottomans I think.
![English_-_Gun_Shield_-_Walters_511414[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/MRzVrYV.jpg "English_-_Gun_Shield_-_Walters_511414[1].jpg")
Shield with a gun in it made for Henry VIII
Supposedly was not used because it was too heavy.
Officers in pike formations from the same time period would carry bulletproof shields.
>>806929
Yes rotellas and bucklers could be all metal. All metal shields weren't used for various reasons. Practicality, cost, weight, yada yada
>>807015
Even swords on the heavy side were usually only about 2kg actually. I don't think I've heard of anyone but the scots having anything heavier.
>>807713
That looks a bit like a lantern shield.
>>806929
The biggest ""Metal"" shields I know would be the "Aspis" and the Ancient Chinese "Pai."
But these were wooden shields with metal facings.
>>806929
They existed, but rarely. Shields are heavy enough when they're wood.
>>806929
I own a round full metal shield and admittedly it's pretty heavy, no idea if it's historically accurate but it does a great job
However given the weight alone, it would only be small shields and it's used not so much to block, but to deflect as well as for assault
Also if I'm not mistaken , greek shields were bronze, but don't quote me on that
>>807968
i'm aware of bucklers, but were there any regular-sized metal shields, like kite shields?
>>806984
Pretty easy to explain actually. Making relatively thin metal armour was possible because of the shape of the armour. If you just had flat slabs they would have to be a lot thicker. Instead you had curved metal sheets that deflected attacks as much as they absorbed them.
A shield has to absorb a lot more impact. If it were curved like a cuirass was, you would end up deflecting attacks into your face. So you got to make it more flat, and therefore a lot thicker. Thin metal over wood works best, because it's solid, and hard to stab through, he wood reinforcing the metal from being able to be punctured.
medieval? no.
small buckler types from the renaissance, classical greek bronze ones, Indian, and a few 16th c european parade ones? yes.
>>806929
Metal bucklers were pretty common.
>>807015
M8 even a montante is lesser than five kilos.
