I wasn't sure whether to put this one here, or in a Battleday thread, but I suppose it's not a Battleday-specific issue. So - if you are building a Scots army for Bannockburn, are you giving the spear/pike men shields, or not?
At least one English account of the battle - see below - refers to shields. But the regulations that King Robert set out a few years later, in 1318, required aketon, helmet, sword and spear - but no shield. Ian Heath's reconstruction (https://warfarewest.x10host.com/WRG/Middle_Ages_1-25-Scottish_Foot_Soldier-14thC.htm) shows a shield, and the Blue Moon figures that I'm planning to use come with separate shields, so I have a choice.
I am inclined to suspect that the absence of the shield in King Robert's statute means that it was not considered an essential part of the spearman's equipment, even if some men chose to provide themselves with one.
The English source, Trokelowe, does mention an impenetrable formation of close-set shields, though the main weapon he associates with it is the axe, not the spear: Ex parte eorum omnes pedites erant : viri quidem electi, animosi valde, securibus praeacutis cseterisque armis bellicis decenter communiti, conserta ante se ^scutorum spissitudine, cuneum impenetrabilem statuerunt. The way I'm rationalising all of this, I think, takes account of the statement in several sources that all the Scots army fought dismounted. I assume that the better-armed men in the Scots ranks would form at the front ranks - perhaps these are the viri electi, picked men - and that these would include men who in other circumstances would fight mounted - including knights and men-at-arms - and that these men would possess shields, whereas the lesser men behind them might not.
In short, I'm planning to give shields to my front rank figures - who in the DBMM context will mostly be Pikes (Ordinary) as dismounted men-at-arms - but not to the rest of the spearmen behind them. Does this sound sensible to everyone, or have I missed anything obvious?
Would the 'masses' behind therefore be Pikes (inferior)? If so, it sounds like an effective way of differentiating the stiffened front from the less well equipped later ranks.
This probably falls into the category of what is available to individuals rather than strict adherence to dress code and, let's face it, it is only England who have their kit stolen.
In any event, under DBMM does not troop classification depend more upon overall fighting characteristics rather than minutiae of equipment? Of course, the answers one receives to this question might be strongly influenced by the nationality or politics of the respondent.
:P
Yes, the classification as (O) or (I) is more dependent on quality than equipment. But giving the (O) shields is a handy way of making the difference obvious, and seems historically justifiable by the line of thought given above.
Shieldless seems sensible as it's not yet an army facing the machine gun armed longbowmen.
Wondering about the knights in the front rank. We know there were 500 horse under Keith. I saw this comment in the wiki on the battle
Although the Scottish cavalry is sometimes described as light cavalry, this appears to be a misinterpretation of Barbour's statement that these were men-at-arms on lighter horses than those of their English counterparts
I think that is one of the areas that might come out in various takes on the game 8)
"We know there were 500 horse under Keith. I saw this comment in the wiki on the battle" - actually, we don't. IIRC, these horse aren't mentioned in any of the strictly contemporary sources, but only crop up in Barbour writing about sixty years after the battle. The "all dismounted" bit appears in several sources.
I've not got round to the contemporary sources yet. It depends on how far down the Bannockburn rabbit hole I decide to venture :)
Quote from: Duncan Head on Jun 13, 2026, 08:36 PMDoes this sound sensible to everyone, or have I missed anything obvious?
Sounds sensible to me Duncan.
There is a Scots version of the 1285 Statute of Winchester. It has much the same requirements as Bruce's 1318 statute, some form of body armour, an iron cap, sword and dagger; no mention of shields.
Earliest I could find shields being called for was by James I in 1424, repeated again in 1429.