Talk:Schiltron

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. Also, I've merged in the Shiltron entry. JJL 18:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub/Merge

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: WPMILHIST Assessment

message: 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)
thread_title: Citations, queries and crowns

message: What was the reason for the move? Did I miss a discussion? JJL (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Confused me as well, but obviously it's the spelling used as the OED headword. --Thrissel (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merger

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Continental parallels

message: 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)
thread_title: Geometry of Schiltrons at Bannockburn

message: 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)
thread_title:  Illustration badly needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Agreed.  24.180.33.181 (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change title to Schiltron/Shiltron