trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Line infantry abandoned the use of shields during the 18th century
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
1 source for · 0 against
AS REPORTEDno primary record reached; this is what the reporting says

Reference sources indicate that by the early 18th century, heavy infantry relying on dense formations and shield walls were supplanted by line infantry armed with firearms and bayonets.

Evidence for · 1
cited by 0
cumbersome to be tactically useful. By the early 18th century, heavy infantry were replaced by line infantry armed with muskets and bayonets and wearing Heavy infantry consisted of heavily armed and armoured infantrymen who were trained to mount frontal assaults and/or anchor the defensive center of a battle line. This differentiated them from light infantry who were relatively mobile and lightly armoured skirmisher troops intended for screening, scouting, and other tactical roles unsuited to soldiers carrying heavier loads. Heavy infantry typical Heavy infantry consisted of heavily armed and armoured infantrymen who were trained to mount frontal assaults and/or anchor the defensive center of a battle line. This differentiated them from light infantry who were relatively mobile and lightly armoured skirmisher troops intended for screening, scouting, and other tactical roles unsuited to soldiers carrying heavier loads. Heavy infantry typically made use of dense battlefield formations, such as shield wall or phalanx, multiplying their effective weight of arms with force concentration. Heavy infantry were critical to many ancient armies, which first attested by the Sumerians in the Stele of the Vultures. It was also used by rival Assyrian and Persian Sparabara, then by Greek hoplites, Macedonian phalangites, and Roman legionaries. After the fall of Rome, heavy infantry declined in Europe but returned to dominance in the Late Middle Ages with Swiss pikemen and German Landsknechts. With the rise of firearms during early modern warfare, dense formations became increasingly infeasible, and heavy armours were either ineffective or too cumbersome to be tactically useful. By the early 18th century, heavy infantry were replaced by line infantry armed with muskets and bayonets and wearing little to no armour. In the military of ancient Rome, heavy infantry made up most of the Roman army. The heavy infantry of the pre-Marian Roman Republic included the hastati, principes, and triarii (although depending how the hastati were armed and armored, they could also be considered light infantry). The hastati, the youngest men in the line, were armed with a sword, or gladius, and two javelins, or pila. The pila were usually thrown at a charging enemy before they were engaged in hand-to-hand combat. Hastati were also equipped with a helmet, a shield and a bronze breast plate or coat of mail (if they could afford it). The principes were armed just like the hastati, but they were older, more experienced and, because they had more money, were more likely to own better-quality arms. The final type of heavy infantry were the triarii. They were armed and armored just like the principes except that instead of wielding a sword or…
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:supported:single_source:for=1+0p:against=0+0p | v55:sufficiency

Everything we examined (1)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. Heavy infantryreferenceno side taken
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt