Maybe it's an Evil knight?

But seriously, a lot of infuleces were brought back from the early crusades, why not round shields? Eastern in origin doesn't mean they were never used or made in europe.

I have been following some of the discussions on this site for about eight years and have noticed that some ancient art is revered as absolute gospel while others are dismissed as artistic license or fantasy. In my opening sentence I include all effigies , tapestries , wood carvings , stone carvings, paintings, bible manuscripts, etc.

I will admit openly that I have been berated by the moderator for some of my my posts in past because they were deemed too harsh or straight forward. Long ago I thought that this site was about personal opinion as long as it was civilized but I have good reason to think other wise now.

Why are some depictions in ancient art used as absolute and accurate models for modern reconstruction?

Why are others in some cases of a similar period dismissed as fantasy?

How can we possibly conclude that all the arms and Armour in the world that have been lost forever looked just like the pieces that survive?

Do some of you believe that long ago it was unacceptable to be armed with a round shield instead of a whatever shape was "historically accurate" for that age?

If you dismiss certain depictions of history at will are you not re righting it in your own opinion?

Adam: As a historian you can never know things for certain. However, you can find out what is likely based on the sources you have on hand.

Let us take the example at hand. We have quite a lot of sources on arms and armament in the high middle ages. Many of them are very similar. This would lead us to belive that this was the acepted image of a warrior looked. Mail armour, kite or heater shield, coif and helmet (Pointed, cervilere, kettlehat or one of the various varieties of great helm)

Then we have some anomalies, which show people in other equipment. This is remarkable, since most high medevial sources are very uniform.
Now, we have to look at what we know and try to figure out why these warriors are drawn diferently. Most commonly, they turn out to be depictions of some kind of heathen, and thus are distinguished by diferent equipment.
However, the artists have no direct experience with heathens, so they start out with the familiar figure, and add cliche features. Round shield, pointed helmet. In the late middle ages it becomes known that the heathens use single edged swords, prompting western artists to start depicting them with (often oversized) european falchions.

So it's not that the depictions are wrong. They are accurate depictions of how the drawer imagined a contemporary heathen. They are just not showing a western european knight.

In the depictions of contemporary events and actual persons, however, you do not generally see these items. Which is why the picture José-Manuel poste was so interesting.

It should also be noted that the uniformity of the sources is especially noticable in the high middle ages. In the late middle ages, you see a lot more variation in equipment, Including shields.

I have to say I share the misgivings of Adam Smith. Indeed, many of us use artistic expression to reinforce our ideas when both match; and, at the same time, we reject it, as fanciful, they do not fit into our paradigm. We drag this paradox.

We have to recognize that the realities we want to reenact are much more complex than we can ever know. But I think we should not turn this topic into a discussion of the validity of the art forms, as sources of inspiration (is a theme too broad, and does not respect the wishes of the creator of this thread). I think we should try to learn about an issue at a time, now on the shields.

So, back to topic: I put a picture of a twelfth-century fresco from a Spanish chapel (San Baudelio de Berlanga, Soria) in which is depicted an old man with a spear and an adarga. I can not say that, in this case, represents someone evil, but we're seeing the short arms of a Castilian peasant when called to war ("apellido", "fonsado"…). No horse, no armour, no helmet or sword, only a shield and a spear.

[ Linked Image ]
Regards

NB.: I know very little about nothing; I test my limited knowledge in this forum exposing my ideas; I also speak very bad English. I have to thank other members so they learn from their contributions.

Hmm, looks to me more like the depiction of a Saint. Don't know which ones are shown with spear and shield... could be a roman martyr?

Thomas

Iberia has a interesting mix of weapons and styles which differ from northwestern Europe.
It is posible that such round shields where in use there.
As far as I can see, the shield has no boss, so it would have to be a strapped shield.

I am not that familiar with the Iberian sources, though, so it is hard to say how this compares to the others.

theres one effigyy that shows a roundshield, i have a drawing of it
in my christopher gravett book.
it says 'stothards drawing of an unusual effigy from the great malvern priory, worcestershire. the pickaxe and circular shield may denote a champion in trial by battle but equally may suggest a mkan kitted for lighter work on the welsh borders,. doesnt say what year its dated to but its in the section on the knight of the 13th century. so i assume its dated to that century.