Talk:Schiltron

Stub/Merge

It seems like the page has become extensive enough to allow the removal of the "stub" marking. At the very least, it already contains more information than any other article about schiltrons that I've seen in general encyclopedias. Lay 12:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, I've merged in the Shiltron entry. JJL 18:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

I put the word here, because I'm not sure enough to edit the page proper... but given Scottish history, and the fact the word dates back at least to 1.000 AD, would the "shield" part not be more likely to come from the Norse than from the Saxon or English? (granted, the word sounds alike in all languages concerned). --Svartalf 18:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You're such a square

I rewrote this:

" In fact, the traditional use of the schiltron resulted in a crushing defeat for the Scots at Falkirk (1298)."

to this:

"Bruce's new tactic was a response to a crushing defeat for the Scots at Falkirk (1298), when the traditional use of the schiltron failed in the face of English (actually Welsh) archers."

and this:

"Tactically, schiltrons are the forebears of the Napoleonic age's infantry squares, in which infantry regiments fought at the Battle of Waterloo when attacked by Ney's French cavalry."

to this:

"Tactically, schiltrons are the descendants of the tercios of the 16h Century and forebears of the Napoleonic infantry squares, which both used pikemen to defend against cavalry."

---

Napoleonic squares were intended as static defensive formations; schiltoms were frequently - even usually - used in the attack - Bannockburn/Myton/Culblean etc.

I base this in part on the Spanish square page, & in part on Dupuy, Evolution of Weapons & Warfare. Technically, the tercio can be called a development of the original Babylonian phalanx (commonly credited to Macedon). Trekphiler 01:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC) (BTW, the Spencer-Churchill is technically correct.)

The schiltron can't be a development of the 16th Terrico given that er're discussing it's 13/14th century use!

Verbrugge(‘The Art of Warfare in Western Europe During The Middle Ages’) outlines a family of European terms relating to scara ‘a troop of picked, strong or courageous warriors’ -

scaren, scharen, schieri, echielles

The relationship of schiltron to this group is worth exploring.

JF42 (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Assessment

Is this term used widely in general discussions of historical tactics? Or is it specifically applied only to the Scottish case? If the latter, this should be made more obvious in the introduction. e.g "Schiltron is a Scottish term for...." LordAmeth 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There are examples of it used of English troops by Scots and one English use which describes the English as using a Scottish formation, so you are may correct.Monstrelet (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have dedleted 'short-bow', as in 'short bow archery - there is no evidence to suggest that Scottish archers used a different bow to theri counterparts in England; if they had done we can be fairly confident that contemporary writers would have mentioned it; also, Englsih records of the day make no distinction between Scottish and Englsih archers serving in Plantaganet garrisons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.16.18 (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations, queries and crowns

I believe that this is shaping into a nice piece. It does need a bit of citation work though. I've placed citation requests as follows

Picts - is there any description of Picts using a schiltrom, given the word appears to originate several hundred years after the end of the Pictish kingdom? Picts certainly fought with long spears and their tactic may be influential but need to clarify and cite because this is potentially contentious

Welsh - the battles listed involved spear armed formations but need to cite them specifically described as schiltroms.

Coutrai - needs a citation for the use of stakes at part of formations - most descriptions don't have this, so need a specific source

On a general point, does the article need some contextualising with other European practice at the time. For example, how does it link to Flemish practice? Are the Scots isolated here or are they well aware of and learning from the European experience? We know they had trade and diplomatic links with Germany,Flanders and Scandinavia, as well as France. One specific might be the use of circular formations - rare but comparable to Scandinavian and Flemish practice when facing cavalry. Monstrelet (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Move?

What was the reason for the move? Did I miss a discussion? JJL (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Confused me as well, but obviously it's the spelling used as the OED headword. --Thrissel (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger

I've been unable to find the original rationale for the proposed merger. The target article of the merger appears to be an abandoned project from 2008. It never proceeded beyond a structure and an opening paragraph and would need a lot of work to make it viable. Even if it was worked up, the intent expressed in the opening paragraph is to cover the use of close order infantry formations through history, so a detailed discussion of the schiltron would be inappropriate. This article could in the future be merged into an article on medieval infantry tactics, though no such article seems to exist at the moment. I would reiterate my point above that with the inclusion of more European context and some tighter referencing, this is a valuable stand alone article. Monstrelet (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There's no point in merging into a stub which wasn't edited for more than a year, and whose scope would presumably be too wide to contain but a very brief mention of the subject. --Thrissel (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the merger tag, as no one has spoken in support for most of a year (or indeed spoken for it at all).--SabreBD (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Continental parallels

Thrissel thanks for the link on Courtrai. I can't find the mention of stakes in the text. I think it should be possible to say something on continental parallels citing Verbruggen and De Vries and King harald's Saga for the Scandinavian parallel from the account of Stamford Bridge. I'll see if I can put a paragraph together tomorrow. Monstrelet (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about the passage at the beginning of p 59: "They were armed with pikes shod with iron [...] Each man held his pike fixed in the ground before him, awaiting the attack." Thinking about it now, however, the way it's writen it might just have been a line, not a schiltron :-/. In fact, another citation I found now [1] at first seems to confirm this: "The formation they took up was described as [...] a very long and thick battle line"; OTOH it then says that "The men of Bruges made only one unit of their armed men by putting in front their crossbowmen and then alternately in the rear the rest of their men with spears and iron-tipped staffs [...] drawn up in thick, closed order [...] The formation, then, was like a phalanx." --Thrissel (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The sticking point for me is any reference to stakes and ropes - this is the implication in the article at the moment. I've read quite a bit on Courtrai and never seen a reference to this. Generally, though, I would agree that Flemish formations were pretty similar to the schiltron - they seem usually to have been deep lines and could be hollow circles. The shape they do have which doesn't seem to be refered to for schiltrons is "shield-shaped" i.e. triangular. Anyway, if I do write this paragraph on continental parallels, I'll put stuff in on Courtrai and probably remove the ambiguous reference above, as no-one seems to be able to substantiate it in that form.Monstrelet (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems stakes and ropes weren't employed at Courtrai, so what you propose is quite all right with me. A Happy New Year, btw! --Thrissel (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Geometry of Schiltrons at Bannockburn

The article classifies the schiltrons used at the battle of Bannockburn as both circular and rectilinear, which seems dubious to me. Having read Linklater's account of the battle I'm quite certain that the schiltrons at Bannockburn were actually circular. Does someone have a different reference claiming they were rectilinear or that both geometries were used? -- Timothykinney 16:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"There are, however, only two examples of the Scots adopting circular schiltron <> Other than these two examples , the Scots seem to have invariably deployed for battle in linear formations" Chris Brown "Bannockburn 1314" pp180-1. One of the two occasions was on the first day of Bannockburn, one at Falkirk. Most of the sources for Bannockburn don't describe the shape of the formations but they do make more sense as rectilinear formations. It's easier to hold a rectangular formation when advancing, than a circular one, for example.Monstrelet (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Illustration badly needed

Would some talented person who understands this formation please provide even a crude illustration? I'm one of those "you'll have to draw me a picture" kinda people, and since this formation seems to be defined by its shape, I think an illustration (or two - for each type) would be more informative than any description.

Thanks everyone for contributing to one of the finest assets the world has - Wikipedia, the greatest and most accessible collection of human knowledge! Dcs002 (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Change title to Schiltron/Shiltron

I think the two terms shiltron/schiltron are far more commonly used today than Sheltron. Either one of these should be the title of this page. Even looking at the talk page one can see that the spelling "sheltron" is almost never used. Master z0b (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I recall when it was originally changed and the defence was that Sheltron is the primary reference point in the OED. However, I'd agree with this on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME - I don't recall seeing references in text books on medieval warfare to sheltrons but to shiltrons/schiltrons, occassionally with the "n" substituted with "m".Monstrelet (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. 24.180.33.181 (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 6 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as consensus and no opposes. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 ^talk 04:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Sheltron → Schiltron – For starters, Schiltron seems to be the more common name by far. Witness this Google Ngram which indicates that "schiltron" is and has been far and way the more common term (with "schiltrom" coming in a distant second, and "sheltron" not making the chart). This Ngram is unassailable IMO and makes this an open-and-shut case, unless there's something wrong with my query or someone can show cause to believe that Google Ngrams are themselves not reliable.

And if you look above some people have complained about this over the years. Apparently some person years ago just unilaterally moved the article to "Sheltron", based on the OED (Oxford English Dictionary), which I can't access, but assuming that's true, who cares what one dictionary editor thinks? Our titles are based on most common usage (see WP:COMMONNAME), not what a few academics, even if they are distinguished academics, have idiosyncratically decided ought to be the the correct term to refer to this military formation.

Finally, if for some reason we decide not to move the article, we need to fix the article text, which uses "schiltron" throughout, and our text should match our titles. Herostratus (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Support - The article should reflect common usage. Sheltron claims its authority from the OED, I believe but I've never seen it used outside the title of this article.Monstrelet (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.