Wiki pretty much agreed with that True, but my understanding of middle age shields is they were by and large made out of wood not bronze and unit combat like the Greeks and Romans was a thing of the past. Then again Roman shields were wood but I'm guessing the curve helped.
Deflection, allways deflection -at least in the time periods that I'm conserned about. The only exception beeing "target shields" hung on knights, where the shield is meant to make the hitting lance, start sliding, so in a way, it's actually still about deflection, even if we're talking about passive deflection, where the left hand is busy steering the horse (together with the hips), and where the right hand is busy steering the lance/sword. -a bit like tank-crew, allways putting the spare tracks, chains, etc on the turret and front of the tank, to make it just that little bit harder for the penentrating shell to get a proper penentration.
As for the arrow, when used in massed volleys, you have to be very disiplined and focused to allways cover perfectly with your shield. One second of unattention = bang, dead. As for spears, well they are the main weapon in european medieval foot-soldery (at least before formations starts breaking up), so I guess if you get hit, it's going to be from a spear. Remember, a spear can hit diagonally, so you third enemy from your left and right are your true worries. We do in scandinavia, and I was at the battle of grunwald, where 70 archers shot volleys at us. It't interresting, you don't notice the incoming arrows, so your're completely dependent on using your shield properly, or having proper amor -we're obviously not taking penentration into account when using arrows, as Polar Bear and my self have allready mentioned, there are so many variables on the arrow vs-armor debate.
I'm not very keen on getting into the armor vs arrow debate, but I know many good arguments to bring arrows even if they cannot penentrate full plate armor. (They do take horses that wasn't armed at all in this time-period, they take out light infantery, they can get lucky and hit someone with an open vizier, or in a joint, etc, they stress people, they take out the enemy crossbowmen with their superior rof, etc, etc, etc. I love longbows, I just don't want people to dig in trenches stating either "arrows are übercool ultimate monsterpiercing thingies that of course kills fully plated knights at all ranges", or in the "arrows are impossible to use against fully plated super frenchie kniggets") just as henry wouldn't bring arrows if they weren't useful, people wouldn't bother with 25kg of armor if it wasn't useful. I did fight in the Grunwald re-enactment-fight this summer, 3 hours in armor in 42-46 degrees celsius. If it's that hot, I want to be pretty sure that that armor does some good (here's a picture: http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/ab271/Stolenbjorn/Mine sydde saker/Babarustning.jpg ). And remember that a 15th century knight isn't only about the plate. I wear textile-armor, then chainmail, then plate, then clothes when I'm properly dressed up (+ a shield). Still, it all comes down to the metallurgy. If my breastplate is made of softer iron than the bodkin, well then it's like german wolfram APDS rounds in WW2. If it's softer metal in the bodkin than in the plate, it's going to be like throwing plums at a brick wall.
You have to remember english longbowmen weren't a one trick pony. They had a variety roles one of which was as skimishers and light infantry. Longbow men carried a hand weapon for close combat and those guys were stupid strong. It's not re-interpretation but de-romantising the past. The Bear.
Stolenbjorn, Out of interest, do you keep that visor down during close combat? What field of view do you have with it?
With the vizer down, I see roughly 45* (22,5 to each side). In Norway, the sport-rules we use don't allow for using vizer because of limited depth-vision, not because you have narrow field of vision, for safety. The little I've fought with the vizer down, it's problems with heat (in poland it was over 40*C, so I only had the vizer down when in direct engagement with the enemy) -and problem with the depth-vision.
