Shields

As suggested, let's talk about shields! Or lack thereof! (I was going to talk a bit about this in one of my pending threads about Gisburne, but despite being the most notorious case, he's not the only one.)

Although RoS often tries hard to be historically accurate enough in some details, it's not exactly a documentary and many liberties are taken. Shields, or how rarely and poorly they're used, fits into the later category. I have no doubt the main reason for this is that shields drag combats, especially against archers, and in a show like RoS no one really wants to watch any minor skirmish last half the episode or risk the heroes hardly hitting with a shot because they keep getting blocked. So shields' efficiency varies depending on what better serves the plot, going from "not even there" to "a tiny bit of hindrance for our heroes to get their way". From what I remember, the big battle in Robin Hood and the Sorcerer II is probably where they're better used. They're taken into consideration, blocking incoming arrows and even being used in melee combat. After that, they seem to become less and less relevant. The Sheriff's men often go into the forest (where they know they'll be facing archers with a huge advantage point) without them, culminating in The Greatest Enemy, where de Rainault actually pushes man after man in front of him, knowing they barely stand a chance and consolidating his image of evil overlord who has no regards whatsoever for the well-being of his henchmen.

It makes sense Robin and the merries don't use them. They're cumbersome and whatever protection they might afford doesn't match up to what they can get from travelling light. Being primarily archers, shields are more of a hindrance to them than an advantage.

Not so for the soldiers and the most notorious case among them: Gisburne! Who never, ever, uses one! And that, of course, makes no sense whatsoever! As usual, I think the real reason is because he's a main character and that's to distinguish him from your average mook. In world it makes no sense at all, but trying hard it can either be interpreted as deriving from extreme over confidence or such an extremely poor education and training he didn't even get trained in using one.

On a personal note, I dabbed briefly in HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) and I'm hardly a standard for anything as I have very little strength even for a woman my size, but using a shield with a long sword is almost instinctive. Without it you either don't know what to do with the free hand or instinctively hold the sword with both hands. It a different stance from modern (starting late XVI century) styles where much lighter rapiers are used and the free hand is used for balance. With heavier swords, the weight of the shield actually makes the whole system more balanced and it's also used to push and do other manoeuvrers. At least, that's my limited experience. Because prop swords are made of aluminium or other very light materials, they don't actually cause that instinctive reaction to grab them with both hands or grab a shield.