"Scots Common Army Pikemen– Did they have shields?" Topic

We are working away on the Thistle & Rose figures and are now onto the Scots. We have 6 poses of Schiltron Pike figures both with and without shields (and an additional 3 poses kneeling.) In looking through the available art work from the Osprey's for Bannockburn, Otterburn, etc. and in looking at some other lines like the Claymore Casting Scot Pikemen dated 1388, it appears that from say 1290 on that the pikemen did not have shields. I have a lovely 54mm figure by Del Prato, which also does not have a shield.

I hate to make decisions based on my inspection of artwork vs. real history, but the only thing I can find in this early Scots research period is the requirements for the common army pikemen equipment and it does not include a shield.

Opinions, guesses and historical references welcome.

Bill Hupp
Thistle & Rose Miniatures

I suppose it depends on what you call a 'shield'. A small buckler seems likely to have been common (though probably not universal) somewhat later. They seem to be carried by many unarmoured foot in armies across Europe so presumably came in useful. They were carried by 100YW archers too.

The lack of mention of shield is also the case with the roughly contemporary English assize – while the required arms and other gear of various levels of wealth are given, no mention is made of a shield. It may be that they did not have one – including some who are required to have better armour than a harburgeon.

This either means that a shield wasn't carried or that at that time everyone who needed to carried a shield so it didn't need to be prescribed.

Any idea when you will be releasing stuff? I really have enough Hussites but would be tempted by more going by what is on the Facebook page.

On balance probably better to do without – as you say, shields do not figure in the relevant legislation – same applies to England in the same period. Stick with helemet, armoured gloves and a haubergeon and you won't go wrong. Also army lists for medieval Scots are generally not very sound anyway…heavy infantry, men-at-arms and archers are all you need. A good rule of thumb is nit to get any figures called 'medieval Scots'…they tend to be rooted in Braveheart and are therefore totally inappropriate. As far as we can tell from both record and narrative evidence Scottish archers, MAA and spearmen looked just like their counterparts in England. If you want to mail me – thathistorybloke@outlook.com – I can send you some stuff you might find useful.

Also…the Claymore pikemen are just dandy for 1300-ish. The jacks may (or may not) have become a little shorter, but A) who really knows B) who really cares and C) can you tell the difference when you're looking down on them across a tale top?

The good news is that the T&R figures were scultped BEFORE Braveheart and anyway the sculptor was way too precise at recreating the right stuff from the sources to be influenced. Our Scots look like (and could be used) for other pikemen of the time.

Since this is a post retirement project, I'm afraid the history part of it has gotten in front of the production part. Shooting for the end of the year for full production of all the lines.

Pictures of the Scots figures should be up on the Facebook page in a week or two.

bloke, Thanks. I will send you an email.

Bill

I did most of mine without shields in 28mm, in 15mm it just depended upon the mfg, but I leave them off where I can. I occasionally but a "targe" on the back or hanging from the hip of a figure who is wielding a spear, but not in their hand.

Allen

Looking forward to seeing them Bill.

I painted a Scots army using T&R mini many years ago, also before Braveheart, and all the spearmen came with shields, so I painted them. If you look on them as spearmen rather than the later pikemen of the Flodden period, then the shields are not as far fetched.

DeRuyter,

When I asked Jamie, he said people preferred shields on them, but the original casts were without sheilds but came with detached shields. The earlier Pre-Feudal Scots may be better with shields. The question for me is when to switch over. It may not have been at the time of that the army list switches over.

Thanks for all the input.

I will likely do without shields for the Swiss Common Army and put the detached shields in so pepole have the option of none, some or all shields.

On to painting up an army for the website.

Bill

I'm going with small round shields throughout the period. Having round targs right through the renaissance is hardly an innovation. Shields continued to be used everywhere else. Why would they disappear in the British Isles? Just because they don't get assize mention is not a good enough reason to assume their disappearance. The above reasoning, that they were common as dirt, therefore not mentioned, is what I believe.

Small shields seem a reasonable choice too. Our shields are on the larger side, but we have smaller detached shields too.

Looks like the reeanctors for what it is worth, don't all have them and the ones that have them are only about one foot wide, so small in 15mm.

But shields do stop being used by Pike armed troops by some point around 1400. from what I understood (and see when I look at images for Swiss Pikemen on the internet.) And billmen didn't have them, although knights had guys to help them with equipment changes. So as usual, much easier to build an army for one specifc campaign than to cover 250 years.

What's a manufacturer to do? :-)

Bill

Many years ago, late 70's I believe, Yaquinto Publishing (Heritage's printing arm) put out a small Osprey-like book on Flodden with some really nice illustrations. Heritage Models then had an exclusive range sculpted based on the book and marketed as Heritage Medievals.

The sculptor (and the book's artist) did the rear rank pikeman with a small targe strapped to his forearm. Heritage did the front rank figures as heavily-armored (as nobles) and even offered pavises for them. I worked for Heritage at the time and did a fairly large Scottish army with the figures. They looked great, but I was never real sure about the authenticity.

I have had the Almark version of the Flodden book since the mid 70s, haven't seen the Yaquinto version. I stumbled on the figures in 1976 sold by Heritage then as Fantasy figures for a very short time before the historical range was released as such. I instantly recognized the illustrations from that favoured book in the poses of the figures and cleared the shop out. Some of the pikes still march on my tabletop now and again.

I like(d) the Parthian shot borderer, mounted crossbowman particularly. But the demi-plate, pavise bearing pikemen were (are) very, very cool. I've never looked into the provenance, but it always seems odd to me when some object to specific details like the front rank pavises as made out of whole cloth. So until or unless the pavises are disproven, I am going with the Flodden pavises too.

"Billmen" had a targ and sword as backup. This would have been routine, if not ubiquitous.

I would strongly suggest the figures be made without shields but a range of small. medium and larger shields are sold separately which the purchaser can add 'to taste' – either on the left arm for use with the spear or slung across their back and kept out of the way until the spear is broken and the soldier has to fight with sword and shield/buckler.

Barry

Warspite for the win.

@ uglyfatbloke

Thank you!

Barry

Thanks to all for the input. And particular thanks to uglyfatblioke for his help on sources.

With 15mm it is uneconomical to sell seprate shields in anything less than packs of X (some large number that would biblically involve the number 7.) So we will include them for the Scots Common Army pack as seprate shields that can be added to taste. (On the Side please.). Pre-Fuedal Scots will have shields on.

Bill
Thistle & Rose Miniatures

Those looks really good…!

link

Armand

I would think that it would be common sense to at least carry a shield over your shoulder or on your back while wielding your pike. If they are indeed similarly equipped to the men at arms south of the tweed then they would have been smart enough to carry a shield of some sort. I would guess if in schiltrom formation they would throw them on the ground beside them or sling them over their back. Just my opinion.

Schiltrom just means a body of troops – no particular shape of formation – but throughout the medieval period the only reliable way to know if someone was an English soldier or a Scottish soldier was to ask them. I suspect you are quite right about carrying a shield of some sort.

Chris, it is interesting that only the Scots are associated with this terminology from what I have read. Writers of contemporary chronicles in other parts of Europe might call them pikes or pike rings but no where else do I see this name for them. It does tend to make us think that it is somehow something special, but I think you are right it is just another term for a formation of spearmen. I would tend to think though, that these formations might have a wide variety of training with some being quite static for fear of disorder if they moved and others being more able to be mobile and used as an offensive formation.

I apologize for hijacking this thread, but you gentlemen seem to know your Scots stuff. I asked this several months ago in the WotR forum but no one responded, so…

Do you have any information on the size and/or composition of the Scottish contingent that formed part of Margaret of Anjou's Lancastrian army in the 1460-61 campaign? I have read that it was led by Lord (later the Earl of) Douglas, and I know that Margaret spent Christmas 1460 in Scotland and was not present at Wakefield. But some of my sources have her leading the Scots south prior to Wakefield and then returning to Scotland, while others have them accompanying her only after the New Year.

Additionally, is there any record of what happened to them after 2nd St Albans? Did they return home, or did any of them stick around for Towton?

Thank you, and again I apologize for the thread-jack.

Rampantlion…..Its a Scots word with (IIRC) Scandinavian roots and it really just means a body of close-combat troops. It is used only once in accounts of Bannockburn – and to describe English troops. Offhand I can only recall one example of static schiltroms; Falkirk. Can't imagine why the Scots did not try that again…
The Falkirk example might be because of a lack of training, but it's more likely that Wallace hoped his position was too strong for Edward to risk an attack.

It's an interesting thought Chris. I think their mobility caught the English off guard at Bannockburn though (and possibly at Stirling Bridge, but I think that was just terrible leadership and tactics by the English).

Euemelus, sorry but my limited knowledge stops at about Bannockburn. There are plenty of experts on the later medieval Scots and hopefully one of them will chime in. Chris is also quite well read on it I think…Chris?

From 'A Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue'[DOST] (up to 1700)
<https://dsl.ac.uk/entry/dost/schiltrum>

S(c)hiltrum,, n. Also: schyl-, chil- and -thrum,; Childrome. [ME and e.m.E. sceld truma (c1205), scheltroun (c1325), shiltron (Piers Plowman), shildryme (1422), schiltron (1577–87), OE scyld truma f. scield a shield and truma a troop. The latest recorded use in OED is f. Holinshed, who appar. regarded it as a Scottish usage.]

Only of English troops: A close compact body of troops; a phalanx.

Barb. xii 431.
For all thar [supra The Inglishmen] bataillis samyn wer In a schilthrum [C. childrome, H. shiltrum], bot quhether it was Throw the gret stratnes of the place That thai war in to bid fechting Or that it was for abaysing I wate nocht;

Ib. 446.
Mony a brycht baner … Mycht in that gret schiltrum be sene;

Ib. xiii 175.
Scottis that thaim hard assa[yit] That than war in a schiltrum [1571 chiltrum] all;

Wynt. viii 1769.
The gentillis off Fyffe … All that schyltrum [W. All thai soldiouris] thai slw down;

Interesting stuff, thank you!

Just a quick reply (very busy)

Pikes were not used until Flodden 1513

As far as spearmen then they would have turned up to the Wapenshaw suitably armed and attired just as their "English" counterparts would have done.

The whole poor Scots in poorer equipment then the average "English" soldier has been massively over played IMHO.

so, shields? If they had them, they would certainly take them, especially later on when the "English" employed the Warbow in larger numbers and in a more organised fashion.

They weren't true pikes, I agree. The term seems to be used to describe spears that might have been a bit longer than that carried by the average spearman of the day. It gets the point across. True pikes come much later.

"It gets the point across."

Indeed.