scholagladiatoria I think most people who use the dislike button use it as a, "I don't necessarily LIKE this", rather than an active DISlike or disapproval.
scholagladiatoria And you didn't even use any math or formulas, just some numbers and a graph. I would for example be very interested in the correlation between the size of the shield and the height of the person buried.
This is Thrand! Great video on Anglo-Saxon shields but Scandinavian shields have a larger average size from what I have heard and read due to research archeologically and in accounts as well as depictions. Saxon shields are know form being notoriously small and less effective in many accounts. This is my theory why the Viking Warrior may have had an advantage against early Saxon opponents in many cases.From my studies Saxon shields can be small like bucklers and this makes it impossible to make a proper skjald borg or shield wall. The Vikings if the average shield diameter was larger in general would have an advantage in shield wall formations as well as in single combat. A buckler from my testing over the years can not stand well against a large round if used correctly and is highly disadvantaged. Many historians have tried explain the elusive difference to Viking age Scandinavian warriors and why the appeared to excel in combat when almost all people they fought had the same quality swords,armour and shields available. I believe the larger shield size and usage provides the elusive missing link to where this advantage came from for the Viking or early Germanic warrior combined partially with religious beliefs about combat and attitude towards war it self.
scholagladiatoria Thank you so much for the reply and meant no disrespect in any way love your channel and opinions and recommend it to every one in to our medieval and historical arms and armour. Just think it helps to have interaction between people who research the same subjects of interest. I believe it helps expand knowledge for all.
ThegnThrand scholagladiatoria What are your thoughts on the generic SCA & Armour Archive wisdom that a proper single combat shield of this type should have a width roughly equal to the distance of the points of the elbows when the hands are held fist to fist? For example, for me this would be about 74.5cm. I'm 6 ft tall and have a slight negative Ape Index.
Aspie Sean The size you have stated is far to small unless it was a lenticular type that size shield and would have to be used as one, meaning held directly out front and used to glance weapons in that manner. I use a 3' center grip round and my style does reflect any other SCA style when I fight there. It is used like a swing door, extra weapon or movable barrier with foot work and is far superior to the smaller round style that most of them use not knowing how to attack around a larger shield or use it. I believe to use my style properly the shield must reach your hip from the ground in diameter. People who think they understand center grip hate me when they realize they have no idea how to hit me and get hit in the process. Works great against pole weapons and two handed weapons as well as heaters and other forms of shields that are smaller. I have yet to find any one highly skilled in the large round so never have to much of challenge sword and shield. I will not most SCAers use the small rounds up close to their body and fight over it which gives almost no coverage. They like the smaller size based on their size to hit around the shield instead of manipulate it to attack when they want and were. Your attack with the large round is based directly on what your opponent does he tells you how to hit him with his actions and its attractiveness. Lord Wayland vs Lord Thrand 2 czcams.com/video/WKDQcyqeMqg/video.html Viking Sword and Shield: Open Ward Discussion Reply to Colin Richards czcams.com/video/hJQjvyxdnpo/video.html Viking Axe and Shield Techniques playlist czcams.com/video/A9FZjzfq5Fk/video.html Viking Shield Techniques czcams.com/video/kutX9FvjePI/video.html
ThegnThrand Would your insight work with a torn shoulder or help prevent one? As I mentioned in my vids I tore my shoulder at a West Kingdom tourney a few years ago & it's not fully healed.
This is especially interesting when considering the shield size guideline of being double the length of your forearm (wrist to elbow). From what I've looked at in regards to average forearm lengths for adult males, it seems to range between 23-30cm. Doubling those measurements, and it falls in line with the shield diameter ranges as seen in this book.
I love your opening, and the fact there is no sound for it. Allows me time to adjust sound before hand :) Also Thank you very much for what you do. I always eagerly await all your videos.
Hey Matt! Thanks for the heads up, this is a very useful video. I'm in a hungarian reenactment group and we do 6th century gepid/lombard and 10th century viking reenactment, but we tend to use some items for both periods, for example, the shields, which are around 80-90 cms in diameter, and while I found that it's good for, for example a shield wall, but it is quite heavy (at least mine) and I tire quickly just by holding it. So in the future I might make a bit smaller shield around 60-70 cms in diameter for this dark ages period (I think it's not a great stretch to use the Anglo-Saxon features for reenacting the same period Gepids and Lombards as I found that the material culture didn't really differ all that much from Britannia to the Carpathians),
I think that the main reason for shield being that size was ease of carry. Especially raiders need to move quickly, and they are not intended to fight heavy resistance, additionally they need to be able to carry their loot. When they where planning to fight wars in shield wall formation they probably made the really big shields because they were worth the inconvenience. But for most of the time smaller shields were good enough and a lot easier to carry around. So the average shields would have been a compromise.
Very interesting! Love all the numbers. You've proven your point well I think. When I first saw this video posted it said "posted 39 seconds ago" lol, and youtube still hadnt processed it beyond 140p. :P
Evirthewarrior Thankfully? Yes, lets have some utter nonsense instead. wouldn't want to use a system where all measurements can easily be converted and compared regardless of sizes. Lets use a quarter of some random dudes thumb as the standard and go from there.
Because its going so well for you, right? Oh wait your economy is screwed because you are several trillion dollars in debt, your police forces seem to kill random innocents every other day, the violent crimes are up there with the best of them, and your government is so corrupt it cant even agree with itself what to do or rather not do about it. Do tell how this is in any way relevant to your use of the imperial system - other than a general theme of some pretty dysfunctional systems.
Lord Victor Halgaard "your economy is screwed" It is still the strongest economy in the world. "your police forces seem to kill random innocents every other day" - hyperbole "your government is so corrupt" - while it is an issue, it isn't the end of the world and we are working to correct the problem, other countries are far worse off. "relevant to your use of the imperial system" It allowed us to be the most dominant force on the planet, in pretty much every way.
We have a lot of poplar here in Canada so you can get it in lengths & widths suitable for small projects. I carved, ironically, a viking sword for my son out of one of these pieces & was amazed at how feather light, tough & flexible it was. Also there are lines of grain running through it that are very cut resistant. I would say that poplar is definitely better than linden/basswood at resisting damage.
hey Matt, I am a huge fan of your videos and would love to see more videos on shields and armour. In the beginning you showed your Norman kite shield, do you think there might be a video in that one and its use? :) Cheers!
Matt, I'd always held ideas about early European combat until I opened my eyes & started to look at it through the eyes of people dedicated to finding out the truth rather than repeating the same old line as presented before.Now I must carry it over to shields as well. Guess you can teach an old dog new tricks after all.Thank-you for your instruction, Dante.
It would be interesting to compare this study with a similar one of late anglosaxon/Viking era shield sizes, and then pontificate on the reasons for these changes. Cheers!
Anyone who splits fire wood is going to understand why those woods were popular choices. No pun intended. Not only are they light but they are difficult to cleave which from what I understand was the most sought characteristic of a shield.
I like stats to. That's probably why I love RPGs so much. The closer the stats and mechanics are to real life dynamics and parameters the more fun I think they are.
I got an interesting Norwegian book named "Vikinger i krig" (Vikings in war) witten by Kim Hjardar and Vegard Vike which mentiones that viking shields in finds mostly measured from 80 to 95 centimeters, the wood tapered from 7 - 8 millimeters in the middle to 5 - 6 millimeters at the rim (obviously there would be layers of leather or cloth outside this), and quite often they was made from spruce or pine.
Much of what they write, while maybe making sense, we have NO sources for. NONE! It is not a piece of proper historical research. It is... guesswork. Their summary of Viking society's organisation is the best I have seen yet though. That we have more evidence for. They still cite no cources, but I wrote my Ma dissertation researching early medieval Danish society and power politics, so there I can tell they write based on the same sources I use. But when we get into warfare, I know the sources in existance, and they are too few to make any analysis and deduction. Hence Kim (nice guy though he is) starts guessing.
I always assumed was based on who made it and when. If you had to make your own then you'd make one that fit your style of fighting i.e. Vikings, dark age conscripts, tribal societies . Standardised shield size would be be more likely if the state equips you or expects you to fight in a certain way i.e. Greece and Rome. Another factor to consider is how old your equipment is. It may be a hand me down from a previous era. Technological disparity isn't a modern thing.
I feel historians and such tend to assume all peoples at a time were the same. But people have different tastes and preferences, and they always have.
Před 9 lety
Interesting. Just as a sidenote : I think you can find smaller shields in a lot (if not all...) of culture of around 200bc to 400 bc in Europe, Steppes and Oriental regions. Their occurences are numerous and shapes varied from square to round. Strangely enough, History is not like we were told in school and in movies.
frommy recollection of that very book, they do give a timeframe tendency for the size to grow as time went on from the 5th to the 10th century or so it is more than a decade ago that i read it,though also the distal taper makes a massive difference in handling of weight when turning the face 'warzecha style'. there is also a paper on 'viking' shields in similar style that shows them to be pretty consitently over 70 cm (and probably commonly 80-95 cm) period in question is a big factor as well as culture
airnt another thing i thought interesting: the shieldbosses do change with time and the poointy variety are mostly contemporary with the smaller sizes (almost buckler) and tehn the ones with the coin finial are slightly larger. This seemed to me interesting as the coinn shaped ones are able to catch the edge of an opponents' shield and turn it in a spear fight, with the larger shields ('viking' for the sake of argument) the extra reach kinda makes this option irrelevant. also the shield you hae there is fitted with a domed boss (without a waist) which would be more common for 'viking' shields... or mayb, just maybe... might be more associatedd with larger styles. i don''t know or sure if it is simply types due to period taste or that the correlation with the growing shielld and the proliferation of shapes has a functional meaning.
There actually is a variation in sizes. Some people think it might have varied depending on the person and their fighting style. We have to be careful not to lump everyone into one kind of person. Because like today, people were different, and had different tastes and preferences.
Matt, I wonder if there's any correlation between linden finds and the overall wealth of the grave? Since lime-wood was seen the quintessential wood for shields and 'lind' was used as a poetic word for 'shield', maybe it was its quality and suitability rather than its frequency that gave it that status. Then again, maybe it just became more popular after this early period.
61 cm = ~24 inches or 2 ft. The Irish and Scotch seem to have largely used targe sized. The book is 32.51 used from Amazon. I'm going to re watch the video because I think one carving clearly showed domed shields and another seemed to show shields without a boss. The didn't check shield size against size of person or presence or absence of sword/spear. The man with a spear and sax for backup might have had different needs than the man who was using his sword as backup or maybe had a throwing spear and his sword as his primary weapon. Yep. Some of the carvings show small shields that lack a boss
morallyambiguousnet Except it isn't 61cm, it was 60cm, and your feet aren't relevant in this conversation - keep your fetishes to yourself would ya? :P
Hi, I enjoyed your video. You are of course correct. I have the book you reference, but you should also get "The Anglos Saxon Shield" by Stephenson, also useful.
Hey Matt, on the topic of shields, I've always wondered. Why was there a trend going away from center grip shields and towards strapped on shields in the late middle ages? I know both technologies existed since ancient times, but is there a reason the trends changed? Was it because it allowed heavier shields to be wielded as cavalry became more popular? Or was this not really a trend and really more a common myth?
icspps Bos-held shields didn't disappear, they stayed in use until the renaissance, but just became less popular than strapped shields (unless we count bucklers, which were hugely popular and were just small boss-held shields). As to why the strapped shields grew in popularity, there is no short answer and we don't know the full answer. I'll make a video about this.
icspps I think cavalry could be a reason. Imagine riding on a horse with a long shield that covers a part of the horse too. Then you need to have straps.
I think it's worth pointing out that the shields and weapons they buried people with aren't necessarily the same as shields and weapons they would have used in combat. At times they probably buried old uncle saxon with a cheap representation of a shield so they could take uncle saxon's real linden plywood shield into battle themselves. As you point out, the gold plated gigantic sutton hoo shield was irregular and probably never designed to be used in war, who's to say any of the burial shields were?.
So I agree, it seems rather convenient for the width of the shield being only a little more than shoulder width of a person when you have to dig a hole in the ground. But there is some corroborating evidence that the the shields were small. This is mostly in artwork, like the Franks casket and Sutton Hoo helmet plates, where the shields look like they are rather small.
Před 9 lety+1
Oh, and about the woods, one question : It is strange that the very wood that has a lot of occurences in sources, is the one that has almost the least of occurences in archeologic finds. Did you talk with an archeologist specialised in woods ? Maybe he/she can help you and bring light to this problem. Maybe for instance the decomposition of woods doesn't occure the same way for different woods and some doesn't leave any trace at all, for instance ! (or very difficult traces to analyse)
Hey Matt, this is a bit unrelated from Anglo-Saxon shields, but how common were pavise shields on the battlefield? I know crossbowmen would often use it but did other soldiers use it too?
Hi Matt, This is more a reply to your previous video but could you tell me a bit more about Fiori on armored and mounted opponents? I had a quick look at it and noticed the majority of the blows are directed against the head, however he also mentions thrusting at the chest and 'testing the back armor'. Is this due to varying qualities in armor worn by people of the time? What were the chances you'd be able to thrust through chest/back armor? And as someone who owns armor I'd like to ask you whether you prefer fighting with the visor open or closed. Cheers
This suggests that the tiny round shields you see in Migration/Vendel age artwork arent stylistic artistic license, but are instead representative of actual shields being used.
Hey, Matt, your video made me curious about tomb findings... Is there any evidence that only "real" weapons and armor were buried, or is it possible that funerary-purposed weapons were made too, just to be buried as status symbols? If they existed and were close enough to the standard ones, I think that could mess with archaeological findings and reconstruction.
Gran Gurbo People have questioned this before, but the conclusion is that nearly always they are real weapons and armour which often show the evidence of use - in some cases for many years or even generations. Shield bosses, for example, often show signs of damage from fighting.
scholagladiatoria Is there much evidence (and I realize that this would be almost impossible to prove), that the person buried was the user of the shield/spear/sword? So here is why I am asking. Let's say that someone Father died, to ensure his position in the after life, or perhaps to show ones grief, the son would put a shield/sword that he had handy; and not necessarily the family heirloom. The reason I am curious is two fold. 1) Seems very expensive to me to burry someone with functioning implement2) If a weapon (or shield) was still functional, it would mean sacrificing an heirloom as well as a token of a memory for the love one.
Quite a time ago, I made a shield using a ring that holds the lid of a oil drum as the outer rim. Now I've just measured and it is exactly 61 cm. Totally coincidental
do they provide any stats for the sizes of the poeple found in the graves with the shields?`Personaly I would assume that larger shields where generaly found with taller people
I've just received a practice sabre and I've been doing all the drills I could find on your channel. Would be very interested to see more exercises that I could practice.
Could it be that linden/lime wood was the ideal wood, rather than the normal wood? They might have also had a thickened portion of the shield edge for knocking people with (I don't think there was any shield rotation/twisting techniques; so having it heavier on one side might have not mattered so much). The lack of levies in this early period probably meant a lot of a local king or chieftain's retinue traveling around to grab help on the fly whenever there was a battle to be fought (easier to travel with a 2 foot diameter shield instead of a 3 footer).
You mention a couple of times the highland targe...any chance you could say a few words on the differences between targes and bucklers? How the different attachment method lends them to be used differently, if indeed it does?
just talking reenactment here, the size of the shield porbably depends on what you want to do, and what weapons you use, for instance one on one with sword i prefer a smaller shield to ensure mobility, fighting in a shieldwall a larger shield has its perks on the other hand when i use one hand spear i gnerally prefer a larger and in some aspects a taller shield so that i can use it as sort of a wall to hide behind while poking the oponent with the spear
Small shield seems fine to me for use with a sword or axe, but for some reason, I can't imagine a small shield being particularly great with a spear and perhaps not even as effective as using a slightly longer spear two handed.
Maybe you covered it and I missed it, but isn't it likely that they have been buried with ceremonial shields as opposed to an actual battle shield? If so, wouldn't there be some variation between a ceremonial shield and a battle shield?
People were slightly smaller on average, but the difference was not as great as some people imagine. Also, high status, selected and trained warriors, who were well fed, would be taller than the average population at the time. If you assume, for example, a man is 2 inches shorter, that's a span (finger tip to finger tip) of 2 inches less, and each arm is around 1 inch shorter, and the forearm around half an inch shorter. It would not make a big difference to the optimal size of shield.
When Thran and Elgrim were talking about the viking, they said it is probable that the vikings took smaller shield when on campaign and larger shields for thair duels. What would you say about that?
Just a thought would it be worth looking at the average height of the men of the period and the ratio of shield width. As on average people are taller now, it would stand to reason shields now would be bigger.
Did the fighting style change based on the diameter? Or is there much known about how they fought at all? I can't imagine there are many sources that survived...
I honestly think the size of the measurable size of shield is less of concern that what is covers based on the individual and the relative size of the opponent, you acknowledge that people back then were on average, a bit shorter than we are now, thus, a smaller shield would cover more of their body and thus the likely opponent would be able to develop moves have moves being developed on him that might not be possible if two taller people were to try the same techniques with shields the same size. Also, this doesn't contradict Roland Warzecha's world, since Mat was talking a earlier date in history and a different culture and geographically location, than Warzecha's video, which was about Viking age, 8th to 11th centuries, Norse, Scandanvia, Denmark, Norway, combat and culture. On a funny note, I think the fighters depicted to your books look downright suicidal, going into combat with buckler sized shieild while what seems to be javelins and arrows being thrown at them .
So you have a nice steel buckler, a "Norman kite" shield, and an Anglo-Saxon center-boss shield. Toss in a Scottish Targe, a Viking-era Scandinavian shield, a jousting shield, a stand-up pavise, and a back-mounted pavise, and I think you'll have every major Western European shield type covered. Isn't it nice how I'm making plans for spending your money? :-)
Not sure if anyone has said this however could it be height related or a body measurement? Like Kali sticks are sized depending on your arm length, could this not apply here? Which might also explain the difference between cultures, they used a different measurement. A viking shield is waist height from the floor and a Saxon shield is forearm length added to the bose.
may shield size depend on fighting tactics? Iin 1 on 1 type combat even in army sizes it might be prevrable to have a smaller shield and in a shield watl a bigger one. If there is a lot of 1 on 1 fighting going around on a battlefield I would think a smaller shield might be chosen because it is quicker to move agains incoming attacks.from multible directions. but if you fight in a fromation battle a big shield to protect a big part of you and your companions seems logical. And another thought isn't a bigger shield more likely to get in your own way in more open combat. those are just my thoughts on it.
I own one 59 centimetres centre-grip shield myself (just shy of 24 inches for Imperials) and one less obvious flaw I can report is that you can't rest small shield on the ground like you could with a large centre-grip shield (please try imagine a Roman oval and rectangular shields here). with those you can just put it down and place your hand on top to keep it standing while small one you just have to keep it up - so no rest. This in CONTEXT would be when army faced off and both side play a waiting game or something similar. By the way, what's up with a shield boss on a kite shield? it's a strap shield no?
I thought linden (lime) was more a "Viking" preference but I'm not at all certain. Another thing that puzzles me: In reenactment which I used to do, we are taught that round shields had a long strap, so it can be worn over the shoulder like a satchel in a shield-wall and then a 2 handed spear can be used also. I wonder how certain this is? Are there tonnes of buckles found with shields that indicate some kind of belt?
TheBaconWizard It is shown in period art work. It seems that not all shields had this strap (later called a guige), but many certainly did. I have one on my kite shield.
TheBaconWizard I take the linden/lime issue to be something of preference, but was perhaps something that was not always followed for whatever reason. Much like yew was the preferred wood for making longbows, but it was not something that they could always get their hands on for large scale bow making and thus bowyers and archers made due with other woods. Possible that the same situation applies to linden shields. Another possibility that has been brought up by others is that the word itself was used as a catch-all term to describe shield making, much like how kleenex is now a catch-all term to refer to all types of facial tissue regardless of whatever name brand makes it. Same with a lot of other things in life though. There appears to be an ideal thing to use for making certain things, but it's not readily available and so alternatives are used. Bronze would be another instance. Bronze made with tin seems to have been the ideal way to make it, but when people either couldn't get tin or it was too expensive to import, they settled with arsenic bronze, because it was just as good.
Looking at artwork it seems like a lot of them were domed. Is this supported by the archaeology? How would you dome a planked shield and why would it useful?
Patrick Pienne Yes, it seems lots were in the later periods. Yes the archaeology shows evidence for domed shields, in the curve of the iron grips which fitted to the back of the shield board. However, by the time curved shields were more common, people were no longer being buried with weapons, due to Christianity. So we don't know much at all about the domed shields, especially we don't know how they were made in this period. Later period ones are made of narrow planks that have been steamed into a curve and then the whole thing covered in leather.
I understand that the anglo-saxons used smaller shields than what I imagined, but what id like to know is why, and its something you did not cover in that video. Did they use these size of shields because they believed it was better to have a smaller shields than bigger ones? is it because of material cost? Is it because of their culture? hard to carry to battle? why? whats the reason they didn't go for a "slightly" bigger shield for a better protection?
I don't know anything about shields, but I do know about wood and carpentry. I am surprised to here how they were made. I would think that an axe hit would cut one of those shields in half with no effort a all, I suspect even a sword would. I would have thought that ash or oak, cut in such a way as to make any hit across the grain would have been required to make a wooden shield any use at all. I can't imagine one of these shields surviving very long in a fight. I think it would turn into kindling in pretty short order.
Question I have it how tall were the early Anglo-Saxon warriors? A 9 inch (24cm) shield would mean one thing to a soldier of 5'3", and something very different to a soldier of 6'3".
The data in the books actually looks a bit weird. Why does it look (the shape of the graph) like a different dataset if they plot the minimum diameter as opposed to the maximum? Shouldn't it be the same dataset just shifted a bit to the left?
Hey Matt - just a note, no serious historian uses the term 'dark age' or 'Dark Ages' when referring to early medieval history. It's considered outdated and Eurocentric.
***** I understand where the term came from in the first place, but to term the period the "Dark Ages" is to completely ignore the fact that the Islamic world was in the middle of its golden age at the time, not to mention China.
***** It is questionable whether it is possible to use the term "Dark Ages" effectively in a neutral way (as in referring to the lack of textual evidence); scholars may intend this, but it does not mean that ordinary readers will so understand it. Second, the explosion of new knowledge and insight into the history and culture of the Early Middle Ages, which 20th-century scholarship has achieved, means that these centuries are no longer dark even in the sense of "unknown to us". To avoid the value judgment implied by the expression, many historians avoid it altogether.
***** Because the term 'Dark Ages' is often used to refer to a whole period of history, ignoring the Islamic golden age that was occurring at around the same time.
Question, where shields something that was made to the size of the person wielding them, like a shield made for a guy that was 5'4 is different then the size of a shield of a 6'3 guy
Steven Swingler We don't know that level of detail for this period, but more likely different sizes were made for different purposes and personal preference.
I think there were heat treated crossguards, though I have never heard of hardened pommels. But these would be quite unnecessary, because why the hell would you need a heat treated pommel.
Argloth In general, no. They were iron. There are a handful of references to hard steel crossguards, for example in Vadi's treatise when talking about a special sword for fighting in armour. But normally, no.
Argoth: why would you go through the or making a iron or steel guard, which is secondary weapon in most cases, which is mostly for wieght, dynamic control, risk cracking it, for something that stands little chance of breaking anyway? it is solid/mostly solid lump of metal, it not like is a thin slats of metal sandwiched with deer antlers or gold like migration swords. It's pretty structurally sound and resitent as is.
Early shields seem more fit for raiding, skirmishing, and defense of burg & farm; Not for the Shield Wall of Alfred and his successors to Harold Godwinson.
This is great and all, but you are drawing all your sources from only one book. While the book does use hundreds of primaries to make it up, it is still just from one individual or group. Could you do us a favor and keep looking around for other sources/researchers on this? I'm not trying to say you're wrong or I don't agree with your view, just that it would help the validity and conformation. That and this is a really interesting subject I'd like to hear more on. :p
OH I had thought you were displaying that as a Viking Age round shield instead of the smaller Anglo Saxon shield (czcams.com/video/h8_ybPxCmog/video.html). Typical Viking shields were 80-90cm (32-36 inches) in diameter. Some were larger, such as the Gokstad shields, which were 94cm (37in) across. Based on surviving remnants, some shields appear to have been as small as 70cm (28in) in diameter. www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_shields.htm Something else of note here is that, at that time shields were made to fit an individuals size and fighting style and would larger or smaller as the individual needed.
It's a fact that people are taller on average now than they were back in the pre-Viking era. For a person now, a 60 cm shield may seem small, but for a 168 cm (5'6") man, that's a reasonable size. Now imagine that same 168 cm man carrying a shield 1 m in diameter. He would look like an idiot.
So the point of many shields being made thinner towards the edge I believe reinforces the idea that ThegnThrand brought up in some of his videos. That a warrior could purposely make one side of his shield weaker and also leave out rimming on which ever side. This may allow him to trap his opponents weapon if is cuts into his shield like this: czcams.com/video/2pb6AbcvE_Q/video.html.
Apparently 3 people really dislike that I used science. lol
scholagladiatoria 1 is the regular, the other 2 can't read the graph from the book
scholagladiatoria their shields are possibly very large, compensating for something. maybe the reach of their spears ?
scholagladiatoria Quit smashing my dreams.
scholagladiatoria I think most people who use the dislike button use it as a, "I don't necessarily LIKE this", rather than an active DISlike or disapproval.
scholagladiatoria And you didn't even use any math or formulas, just some numbers and a graph.
I would for example be very interested in the correlation between the size of the shield and the height of the person buried.
This is Thrand! Great video on Anglo-Saxon shields but Scandinavian shields have a larger average size from what I have heard and read due to research archeologically and in accounts as well as depictions. Saxon shields are know form being notoriously small and less effective in many accounts. This is my theory why the Viking Warrior may have had an advantage against early Saxon opponents in many cases.From my studies Saxon shields can be small like bucklers and this makes it impossible to make a proper skjald borg or shield wall. The Vikings if the average shield diameter was larger in general would have an advantage in shield wall formations as well as in single combat. A buckler from my testing over the years can not stand well against a large round if used correctly and is highly disadvantaged. Many historians have tried explain the elusive difference to Viking age Scandinavian warriors and why the appeared to excel in combat when almost all people they fought had the same quality swords,armour and shields available. I believe the larger shield size and usage provides the elusive missing link to where this advantage came from for the Viking or early Germanic warrior combined partially with religious beliefs about combat and attitude towards war it self.
ThegnThrand Thanks Thrand - I have replied to this on the UK HEMA facebook page :-)
scholagladiatoria Thank you so much for the reply and meant no disrespect in any way love your channel and opinions and recommend it to every one in to our medieval and historical arms and armour. Just think it helps to have interaction between people who research the same subjects of interest. I believe it helps expand knowledge for all.
ThegnThrand scholagladiatoria What are your thoughts on the generic SCA & Armour Archive wisdom that a proper single combat shield of this type should have a width roughly equal to the distance of the points of the elbows when the hands are held fist to fist?
For example, for me this would be about 74.5cm. I'm 6 ft tall and have a slight negative Ape Index.
Aspie Sean
The size you have stated is far to small unless it was a lenticular type that size shield and would have to be used as one, meaning held directly out front and used to glance weapons in that manner. I use a 3' center grip round and my style does reflect any other SCA style when I fight there. It is used like a swing door, extra weapon or movable barrier with foot work and is far superior to the smaller round style that most of them use not knowing how to attack around a larger shield or use it. I believe to use my style properly the shield must reach your hip from the ground in diameter. People who think they understand center grip hate me when they realize they have no idea how to hit me and get hit in the process. Works great against pole weapons and two handed weapons as well as heaters and other forms of shields that are smaller. I have yet to find any one highly skilled in the large round so never have to much of challenge sword and shield.
I will not most SCAers use the small rounds up close to their body and fight over it which gives almost no coverage. They like the smaller size based on their size to hit around the shield instead of manipulate it to attack when they want and were. Your attack with the large round is based directly on what your opponent does he tells you how to hit him with his actions and its attractiveness.
Lord Wayland vs Lord Thrand 2
czcams.com/video/WKDQcyqeMqg/video.html
Viking Sword and Shield: Open Ward Discussion Reply to Colin Richards
czcams.com/video/hJQjvyxdnpo/video.html
Viking Axe and Shield Techniques playlist
czcams.com/video/A9FZjzfq5Fk/video.html
Viking Shield Techniques
czcams.com/video/kutX9FvjePI/video.html
ThegnThrand Would your insight work with a torn shoulder or help prevent one? As I mentioned in my vids I tore my shoulder at a West Kingdom tourney a few years ago & it's not fully healed.
I like this channel very much simply because I learn a lot of new things. Keep up the educational value!
"I prefer inches"
Matt Easton. 17/4/15
This is especially interesting when considering the shield size guideline of being double the length of your forearm (wrist to elbow). From what I've looked at in regards to average forearm lengths for adult males, it seems to range between 23-30cm. Doubling those measurements, and it falls in line with the shield diameter ranges as seen in this book.
I love your opening, and the fact there is no sound for it. Allows me time to adjust sound before hand :)
Also Thank you very much for what you do. I always eagerly await all your videos.
Another point to consider -- those light woods are easier to work when wet, but tend to resist splitting when dry. I imagine they did notice this.
Don't feel bad guys, 60cm is average.
To add to that they don’t always have to be particularly thick.
Hey Matt! Thanks for the heads up, this is a very useful video. I'm in a hungarian reenactment group and we do 6th century gepid/lombard and 10th century viking reenactment, but we tend to use some items for both periods, for example, the shields, which are around 80-90 cms in diameter, and while I found that it's good for, for example a shield wall, but it is quite heavy (at least mine) and I tire quickly just by holding it. So in the future I might make a bit smaller shield around 60-70 cms in diameter for this dark ages period (I think it's not a great stretch to use the Anglo-Saxon features for reenacting the same period Gepids and Lombards as I found that the material culture didn't really differ all that much from Britannia to the Carpathians),
I think that the main reason for shield being that size was ease of carry. Especially raiders need to move quickly, and they are not intended to fight heavy resistance, additionally they need to be able to carry their loot. When they where planning to fight wars in shield wall formation they probably made the really big shields because they were worth the inconvenience. But for most of the time smaller shields were good enough and a lot easier to carry around. So the average shields would have been a compromise.
I love scholarship, research and history; that's why I love this channel and the British in general. Always a pleasure.
Very interesting! Love all the numbers. You've proven your point well I think. When I first saw this video posted it said "posted 39 seconds ago" lol, and youtube still hadnt processed it beyond 140p. :P
love the metric ^^ unforunatly, i will probably not see it again on this channel
cino scarpia Thankfully.
Evirthewarrior Thankfully? Yes, lets have some utter nonsense instead. wouldn't want to use a system where all measurements can easily be converted and compared regardless of sizes.
Lets use a quarter of some random dudes thumb as the standard and go from there.
Lord Victor Halgaard American Hegemony shows me that we do not need your metric system.
Because its going so well for you, right? Oh wait your economy is screwed because you are several trillion dollars in debt, your police forces seem to kill random innocents every other day, the violent crimes are up there with the best of them, and your government is so corrupt it cant even agree with itself what to do or rather not do about it.
Do tell how this is in any way relevant to your use of the imperial system - other than a general theme of some pretty dysfunctional systems.
Lord Victor Halgaard "your economy is screwed" It is still the strongest economy in the world.
"your police forces seem to kill random innocents every other day" - hyperbole
"your government is so corrupt" - while it is an issue, it isn't the end of the world and we are working to correct the problem, other countries are far worse off.
"relevant to your use of the imperial system"
It allowed us to be the most dominant force on the planet, in pretty much every way.
We have a lot of poplar here in Canada so you can get it in lengths & widths suitable for small projects. I carved, ironically, a viking sword for my son out of one of these pieces & was amazed at how feather light, tough & flexible it was. Also there are lines of grain running through it that are very cut resistant. I would say that poplar is definitely better than linden/basswood at resisting damage.
hey Matt,
I am a huge fan of your videos and would love to see more videos on shields and armour. In the beginning you showed your Norman kite shield, do you think there might be a video in that one and its use? :)
Cheers!
Matt, I'd always held ideas about early European combat until I opened my eyes & started to look at it through the eyes of people dedicated to finding out the truth rather than repeating the same old line as presented before.Now I must carry it over to shields as well. Guess you can teach an old dog new tricks after all.Thank-you for your instruction, Dante.
I would like to request more videos like this. Seeing some more of the research from your field would be fascinating.
It would be interesting to compare this study with a similar one of late anglosaxon/Viking era shield sizes, and then pontificate on the reasons for these changes. Cheers!
Anyone who splits fire wood is going to understand why those woods were popular choices. No pun intended. Not only are they light but they are difficult to cleave which from what I understand was the most sought characteristic of a shield.
I like stats to. That's probably why I love RPGs so much. The closer the stats and mechanics are to real life dynamics and parameters the more fun I think they are.
Interesting.
I was one who thought your shield was too small. It's kinda nice to be proven wrong as it means I've learned something :D
Fascinating video, Thank you! Were any of these shields rimmed with metal? Also what did they paint the surface of the shields with?
This is the kind of stuff I love to learn!
I got an interesting Norwegian book named "Vikinger i krig" (Vikings in war) witten by Kim Hjardar and Vegard Vike which mentiones that viking shields in finds mostly measured from 80 to 95 centimeters, the wood tapered from 7 - 8 millimeters in the middle to 5 - 6 millimeters at the rim (obviously there would be layers of leather or cloth outside this), and quite often they was made from spruce or pine.
***** The book never thold why. It`s light wood, and with leather glued front and back + rawhide rims I suppose it did the job :-)
Much of what they write, while maybe making sense, we have NO sources for. NONE! It is not a piece of proper historical research. It is... guesswork.
Their summary of Viking society's organisation is the best I have seen yet though. That we have more evidence for. They still cite no cources, but I wrote my Ma dissertation researching early medieval Danish society and power politics, so there I can tell they write based on the same sources I use. But when we get into warfare, I know the sources in existance, and they are too few to make any analysis and deduction. Hence Kim (nice guy though he is) starts guessing.
Thank You for using metric for anyone outside of Britain or its former colonies those inches pound give us headache... :)
I always assumed was based on who made it and when. If you had to make your own then you'd make one that fit your style of fighting i.e. Vikings, dark age conscripts, tribal societies . Standardised shield size would be be more likely if the state equips you or expects you to fight in a certain way i.e. Greece and Rome. Another factor to consider is how old your equipment is. It may be a hand me down from a previous era. Technological disparity isn't a modern thing.
I feel historians and such tend to assume all peoples at a time were the same. But people have different tastes and preferences, and they always have.
Interesting.
Just as a sidenote : I think you can find smaller shields in a lot (if not all...) of culture of around 200bc to 400 bc in Europe, Steppes and Oriental regions.
Their occurences are numerous and shapes varied from square to round.
Strangely enough, History is not like we were told in school and in movies.
That's 24 inches for us metrically challenged viewers.
I enjoyed this.
Yay for metric!
Hjerrick yay for basic math operations X×25,4 :D
titanscerw lel :D
Hjerrick Why is feet and inches so hard to understand? 1 foot is 12 inches. 3.28 feet is roughly a meter! It's so easy to memorize, jeeze. >:l
One Kilometer is 1000 Meters. One Meter is 100cm. One cm is 10mm. It's so easy to memorize, jeeze. >:|
Gimli Son of Glóin
Fuck you gimli. Your gahbage.
frommy recollection of that very book, they do give a timeframe tendency for the size to grow as time went on from the 5th to the 10th century or so
it is more than a decade ago that i read it,though
also the distal taper makes a massive difference in handling of weight when turning the face 'warzecha style'.
there is also a paper on 'viking' shields in similar style that shows them to be pretty consitently over 70 cm (and probably commonly 80-95 cm)
period in question is a big factor as well as culture
airnt another thing i thought interesting:
the shieldbosses do change with time and the poointy variety are mostly contemporary with the smaller sizes (almost buckler) and tehn the ones with the coin finial are slightly larger. This seemed to me interesting as the coinn shaped ones are able to catch the edge of an opponents' shield and turn it in a spear fight, with the larger shields ('viking' for the sake of argument) the extra reach kinda makes this option irrelevant.
also the shield you hae there is fitted with a domed boss (without a waist) which would be more common for 'viking' shields... or mayb, just maybe... might be more associatedd with larger styles.
i don''t know or sure if it is simply types due to period taste or that the correlation with the growing shielld and the proliferation of shapes has a functional meaning.
There actually is a variation in sizes. Some people think it might have varied depending on the person and their fighting style. We have to be careful not to lump everyone into one kind of person. Because like today, people were different, and had different tastes and preferences.
Matt, I wonder if there's any correlation between linden finds and the overall wealth of the grave? Since lime-wood was seen the quintessential wood for shields and 'lind' was used as a poetic word for 'shield', maybe it was its quality and suitability rather than its frequency that gave it that status. Then again, maybe it just became more popular after this early period.
Even though I know what he means, now I can't get the image of Saxons being buried with saxophones out of my head.
61 cm = ~24 inches or 2 ft. The Irish and Scotch seem to have largely used targe sized. The book is 32.51 used from Amazon. I'm going to re watch the video because I think one carving clearly showed domed shields and another seemed to show shields without a boss. The didn't check shield size against size of person or presence or absence of sword/spear. The man with a spear and sax for backup might have had different needs than the man who was using his sword as backup or maybe had a throwing spear and his sword as his primary weapon. Yep. Some of the carvings show small shields that lack a boss
All of this statistics talk excites my inner engineer.
Not surprising that your new shield is 61cm, since that's pretty much bang-on 2 feet ;)
morallyambiguousnet Except it isn't 61cm, it was 60cm, and your feet aren't relevant in this conversation - keep your fetishes to yourself would ya? :P
Lord Victor Halgaard Matt said "61 cm", early in the video.
Fetishes: Isn't that what the internet is for? ;)
morallyambiguousnet Well, its certainly as good a place as any!
Lord Victor Halgaard Damn skippy!
Hi, I enjoyed your video. You are of course correct. I have the book you reference, but you should also get "The Anglos Saxon Shield" by Stephenson, also useful.
Hey Matt, on the topic of shields, I've always wondered. Why was there a trend going away from center grip shields and towards strapped on shields in the late middle ages?
I know both technologies existed since ancient times, but is there a reason the trends changed? Was it because it allowed heavier shields to be wielded as cavalry became more popular? Or was this not really a trend and really more a common myth?
icspps Bos-held shields didn't disappear, they stayed in use until the renaissance, but just became less popular than strapped shields (unless we count bucklers, which were hugely popular and were just small boss-held shields). As to why the strapped shields grew in popularity, there is no short answer and we don't know the full answer. I'll make a video about this.
scholagladiatoria thank you so much. Looking forward to the video. :)
icspps I think cavalry could be a reason. Imagine riding on a horse with a long shield that covers a part of the horse too. Then you need to have straps.
Yeah I also wonder why the highlander's targe is usually held with straps
Heimrikr hinn Svarti i never had or held a highland targe. But it looks very heavy.
I think it's worth pointing out that the shields and weapons they buried people with aren't necessarily the same as shields and weapons they would have used in combat. At times they probably buried old uncle saxon with a cheap representation of a shield so they could take uncle saxon's real linden plywood shield into battle themselves. As you point out, the gold plated gigantic sutton hoo shield was irregular and probably never designed to be used in war, who's to say any of the burial shields were?.
So I agree, it seems rather convenient for the width of the shield being only a little more than shoulder width of a person when you have to dig a hole in the ground. But there is some corroborating evidence that the the shields were small. This is mostly in artwork, like the Franks casket and Sutton Hoo helmet plates, where the shields look like they are rather small.
Oh, and about the woods, one question :
It is strange that the very wood that has a lot of occurences in sources, is the one that has almost the least of occurences in archeologic finds.
Did you talk with an archeologist specialised in woods ? Maybe he/she can help you and bring light to this problem. Maybe for instance the decomposition of woods doesn't occure the same way for different woods and some doesn't leave any trace at all, for instance ! (or very difficult traces to analyse)
***** Good point.
Great video.
I found the book for 10 quid on amazon
Book seems to be available on Amazon.
Hey Matt, this is a bit unrelated from Anglo-Saxon shields, but how common were pavise shields on the battlefield? I know crossbowmen would often use it but did other soldiers use it too?
Suyash Bhatt Yes, they came in various sizes and were popular in the 15th century.
Hi Matt, This is more a reply to your previous video but could you tell me a bit more about Fiori on armored and mounted opponents?
I had a quick look at it and noticed the majority of the blows are directed against the head, however he also mentions thrusting at the chest and 'testing the back armor'. Is this due to varying qualities in armor worn by people of the time? What were the chances you'd be able to thrust through chest/back armor? And as someone who owns armor I'd like to ask you whether you prefer fighting with the visor open or closed.
Cheers
This suggests that the tiny round shields you see in Migration/Vendel age artwork arent stylistic artistic license, but are instead representative of actual shields being used.
If i had 60 cm, plenty of women would go after me
Harvey Kent i prefer rolands 80-90 cm ;-)
Fascinating. Can't argue with the evidence.
Hey, Matt, your video made me curious about tomb findings... Is there any evidence that only "real" weapons and armor were buried, or is it possible that funerary-purposed weapons were made too, just to be buried as status symbols? If they existed and were close enough to the standard ones, I think that could mess with archaeological findings and reconstruction.
Gran Gurbo People have questioned this before, but the conclusion is that nearly always they are real weapons and armour which often show the evidence of use - in some cases for many years or even generations. Shield bosses, for example, often show signs of damage from fighting.
scholagladiatoria Is there much evidence (and I realize that this would be almost impossible to prove), that the person buried was the user of the shield/spear/sword?
So here is why I am asking. Let's say that someone Father died, to ensure his position in the after life, or perhaps to show ones grief, the son would put a shield/sword that he had handy; and not necessarily the family heirloom. The reason I am curious is two fold.
1) Seems very expensive to me to burry someone with functioning implement2) If a weapon (or shield) was still functional, it would mean sacrificing an heirloom as well as a token of a memory for the love one.
Now it would be interesting to compare the diameter of the shield with the body height of the dead owners to see if there's some relation.
Quite a time ago, I made a shield using a ring that holds the lid of a oil drum as the outer rim. Now I've just measured and it is exactly 61 cm. Totally coincidental
Also, are there any manuals that detail the techniques used in armor vs armor wrestling/takedowns?
Hattori Hanzo Yes, lots. Have a look on Wiktenauer for Fiore, Vadi, Talhoffer, Kal, Wurm... there are lots.
do they provide any stats for the sizes of the poeple found in the graves with the shields?`Personaly I would assume that larger shields where generaly found with taller people
I've just received a practice sabre and I've been doing all the drills I could find on your channel. Would be very interested to see more exercises that I could practice.
Could it be that linden/lime wood was the ideal wood, rather than the normal wood?
They might have also had a thickened portion of the shield edge for knocking people with (I don't think there was any shield rotation/twisting techniques; so having it heavier on one side might have not mattered so much).
The lack of levies in this early period probably meant a lot of a local king or chieftain's retinue traveling around to grab help on the fly whenever there was a battle to be fought (easier to travel with a 2 foot diameter shield instead of a 3 footer).
You mention a couple of times the highland targe...any chance you could say a few words on the differences between targes and bucklers? How the different attachment method lends them to be used differently, if indeed it does?
just talking reenactment here, the size of the shield porbably depends on what you want to do, and what weapons you use, for instance one on one with sword i prefer a smaller shield to ensure mobility, fighting in a shieldwall a larger shield has its perks
on the other hand when i use one hand spear i gnerally prefer a larger and in some aspects a taller shield so that i can use it as sort of a wall to hide behind while poking the oponent with the spear
Curious if the size of the shield was related to size of the person and if that was taken in to account in the book and graphing.
Basically shields were about two feet across, or in other words twice the length of the person's forearm.
Small shield seems fine to me for use with a sword or axe, but for some reason, I can't imagine a small shield being particularly great with a spear and perhaps not even as effective as using a slightly longer spear two handed.
Maybe you covered it and I missed it, but isn't it likely that they have been buried with ceremonial shields as opposed to an actual battle shield? If so, wouldn't there be some variation between a ceremonial shield and a battle shield?
Possibly. They may have been the same, to be symbolic of what the person might have used in life. Just a theory
Hey, Matt! Would the shields being relatively small to us be because on average the people were smaller than us back then?
People were slightly smaller on average, but the difference was not as great as some people imagine. Also, high status, selected and trained warriors, who were well fed, would be taller than the average population at the time. If you assume, for example, a man is 2 inches shorter, that's a span (finger tip to finger tip) of 2 inches less, and each arm is around 1 inch shorter, and the forearm around half an inch shorter. It would not make a big difference to the optimal size of shield.
I keep my copy of Early Anglo Saxon Shields between my copy of Late Danelaw Fillegree Patterns and my copy of Eggplant Cultivation in the Lower Sudan.
cygil1 Good choice.
When Thran and Elgrim were talking about the viking, they said it is probable that the vikings took smaller shield when on campaign and larger shields for thair duels. What would you say about that?
Just a thought would it be worth looking at the average height of the men of the period and the ratio of shield width. As on average people are taller now, it would stand to reason shields now would be bigger.
19firebird86 We are only around 5cm taller on average now. It is not a meaningful difference really.
Did the fighting style change based on the diameter? Or is there much known about how they fought at all? I can't imagine there are many sources that survived...
How does the use of a small shield differ from a large shield or a buckler?
Also could you use a shield that big with a two handed spear grip?
I honestly think the size of the measurable size of shield is less of concern that what is covers based on the individual and the relative size of the opponent, you acknowledge that people back then were on average, a bit shorter than we are now, thus, a smaller shield would cover more of their body and thus the likely opponent would be able to develop moves have moves being developed on him that might not be possible if two taller people were to try the same techniques with shields the same size. Also, this doesn't contradict Roland Warzecha's world, since Mat was talking a earlier date in history and a different culture and geographically location, than Warzecha's video, which was about Viking age, 8th to 11th centuries, Norse, Scandanvia, Denmark, Norway, combat and culture. On a funny note, I think the fighters depicted to your books look downright suicidal, going into combat with buckler sized shieild while what seems to be javelins and arrows being thrown at them .
So you have a nice steel buckler, a "Norman kite" shield, and an Anglo-Saxon center-boss shield.
Toss in a Scottish Targe, a Viking-era Scandinavian shield, a jousting shield, a stand-up pavise, and a back-mounted pavise, and I think you'll have every major Western European shield type covered.
Isn't it nice how I'm making plans for spending your money? :-)
dajolaw I'm way ahead of you on this :-)
Not sure if anyone has said this however could it be height related or a body measurement? Like Kali sticks are sized depending on your arm length, could this not apply here? Which might also explain the difference between cultures, they used a different measurement. A viking shield is waist height from the floor and a Saxon shield is forearm length added to the bose.
may shield size depend on fighting tactics? Iin 1 on 1 type combat even in army sizes it might be prevrable to have a smaller shield and in a shield watl a bigger one. If there is a lot of 1 on 1 fighting going around on a battlefield I would think a smaller shield might be chosen because it is quicker to move agains incoming attacks.from multible directions. but if you fight in a fromation battle a big shield to protect a big part of you and your companions seems logical. And another thought isn't a bigger shield more likely to get in your own way in more open combat. those are just my thoughts on it.
I own one 59 centimetres centre-grip shield myself (just shy of 24 inches for Imperials) and one less obvious flaw I can report is that you can't rest small shield on the ground like you could with a large centre-grip shield (please try imagine a Roman oval and rectangular shields here). with those you can just put it down and place your hand on top to keep it standing while small one you just have to keep it up - so no rest. This in CONTEXT would be when army faced off and both side play a waiting game or something similar.
By the way, what's up with a shield boss on a kite shield? it's a strap shield no?
Fashion, tradition, flexibility of use. take your pick :)
I thought linden (lime) was more a "Viking" preference but I'm not at all certain.
Another thing that puzzles me: In reenactment which I used to do, we are taught that round shields had a long strap, so it can be worn over the shoulder like a satchel in a shield-wall and then a 2 handed spear can be used also.
I wonder how certain this is? Are there tonnes of buckles found with shields that indicate some kind of belt?
TheBaconWizard It is shown in period art work. It seems that not all shields had this strap (later called a guige), but many certainly did. I have one on my kite shield.
TheBaconWizard I take the linden/lime issue to be something of preference, but was perhaps something that was not always followed for whatever reason. Much like yew was the preferred wood for making longbows, but it was not something that they could always get their hands on for large scale bow making and thus bowyers and archers made due with other woods. Possible that the same situation applies to linden shields. Another possibility that has been brought up by others is that the word itself was used as a catch-all term to describe shield making, much like how kleenex is now a catch-all term to refer to all types of facial tissue regardless of whatever name brand makes it.
Same with a lot of other things in life though. There appears to be an ideal thing to use for making certain things, but it's not readily available and so alternatives are used. Bronze would be another instance. Bronze made with tin seems to have been the ideal way to make it, but when people either couldn't get tin or it was too expensive to import, they settled with arsenic bronze, because it was just as good.
That's a nice shade of yellow.
I personally like the smaller shields, very maneuverable.
My guess the size of shield is dependant on the size of the user.
Looking at artwork it seems like a lot of them were domed. Is this supported by the archaeology? How would you dome a planked shield and why would it useful?
Patrick Pienne Yes, it seems lots were in the later periods. Yes the archaeology shows evidence for domed shields, in the curve of the iron grips which fitted to the back of the shield board. However, by the time curved shields were more common, people were no longer being buried with weapons, due to Christianity. So we don't know much at all about the domed shields, especially we don't know how they were made in this period. Later period ones are made of narrow planks that have been steamed into a curve and then the whole thing covered in leather.
My round shields are 60 cm and 50 cm, so I feel quite comfortable with them. *:D*
I understand that the anglo-saxons used smaller shields than what I imagined, but what id like to know is why, and its something you did not cover in that video.
Did they use these size of shields because they believed it was better to have a smaller shields than bigger ones? is it because of material cost? Is it because of their culture? hard to carry to battle? why? whats the reason they didn't go for a "slightly" bigger shield for a better protection?
When did the majority start using the form of kite shield you showed?
I don't know anything about shields, but I do know about wood and carpentry. I am surprised to here how they were made. I would think that an axe hit would cut one of those shields in half with no effort a all, I suspect even a sword would.
I would have thought that ash or oak, cut in such a way as to make any hit across the grain would have been required to make a wooden shield any use at all.
I can't imagine one of these shields surviving very long in a fight. I think it would turn into kindling in pretty short order.
Question I have it how tall were the early Anglo-Saxon warriors? A 9 inch (24cm) shield would mean one thing to a soldier of 5'3", and something very different to a soldier of 6'3".
Average male height then was 5'8". Now it is 5'10" (and was 5'9" when I was growing up). So it hasn't changed much.
There's a copy of that book on amazon.
The data in the books actually looks a bit weird. Why does it look (the shape of the graph) like a different dataset if they plot the minimum diameter as opposed to the maximum? Shouldn't it be the same dataset just shifted a bit to the left?
Is there an equivalent work on Viking shields I wonder?
Hey Matt - just a note, no serious historian uses the term 'dark age' or 'Dark Ages' when referring to early medieval history. It's considered outdated and Eurocentric.
***** I understand where the term came from in the first place, but to term the period the "Dark Ages" is to completely ignore the fact that the Islamic world was in the middle of its golden age at the time, not to mention China.
***** It is questionable whether it is possible to use the term "Dark Ages" effectively in a neutral way (as in referring to the lack of textual evidence); scholars may intend this, but it does not mean that ordinary readers will so understand it. Second, the explosion of new knowledge and insight into the history and culture of the Early Middle Ages, which 20th-century scholarship has achieved, means that these centuries are no longer dark even in the sense of "unknown to us". To avoid the value judgment implied by the expression, many historians avoid it altogether.
***** Because the term 'Dark Ages' is often used to refer to a whole period of history, ignoring the Islamic golden age that was occurring at around the same time.
Question, where shields something that was made to the size of the person wielding them, like a shield made for a guy that was 5'4 is different then the size of a shield of a 6'3 guy
Steven Swingler We don't know that level of detail for this period, but more likely different sizes were made for different purposes and personal preference.
A little unrelated question: were late middle ages and renaissance sword guards and pommels heat treated ?
I think there were heat treated crossguards, though I have never heard of hardened pommels. But these would be quite unnecessary, because why the hell would you need a heat treated pommel.
Argloth In general, no. They were iron. There are a handful of references to hard steel crossguards, for example in Vadi's treatise when talking about a special sword for fighting in armour. But normally, no.
scholagladiatoria thank you
Argoth: why would you go through the or making a iron or steel guard, which is secondary weapon in most cases, which is mostly for wieght, dynamic control, risk cracking it, for something that stands little chance of breaking anyway? it is solid/mostly solid lump of metal, it not like is a thin slats of metal sandwiched with deer antlers or gold like migration swords. It's pretty structurally sound and resitent as is.
Early shields seem more fit for raiding, skirmishing, and defense of burg & farm; Not for the Shield Wall of Alfred and his successors to Harold Godwinson.
For reference:
61 cm = 24 inches in freedomunits
There's a fair few copies on Amazon.co.uk from the marketplace resellers, although one less than there was 10 minutes ago ;)
Look at my profile picture, then look at yours, then look at mine again, then realize you're an alternate dark parallel version of me. lol
By your own admission you're an albino :P
What is the sword in the middle it's the third sword up from the bottom
First comment yuhu!!! Go carthage
Hannibal Bastian Go Carthage LOL
61 cm = 24 in
I prefer the metric system.
This is great and all, but you are drawing all your sources from only one book. While the book does use hundreds of primaries to make it up, it is still just from one individual or group. Could you do us a favor and keep looking around for other sources/researchers on this? I'm not trying to say you're wrong or I don't agree with your view, just that it would help the validity and conformation.
That and this is a really interesting subject I'd like to hear more on. :p
I wonder what the durability of these shields would have been like against the weapons of the time.
That's a good size, you have to be able to move it and carry it all day long.
OH I had thought you were displaying that as a Viking Age round shield instead of the smaller Anglo Saxon shield (czcams.com/video/h8_ybPxCmog/video.html). Typical Viking shields were 80-90cm (32-36 inches) in diameter. Some were larger, such as the Gokstad shields, which were 94cm (37in) across. Based on surviving remnants, some shields appear to have been as small as 70cm (28in) in diameter. www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_shields.htm
Something else of note here is that, at that time shields were made to fit an individuals size and fighting style and would larger or smaller as the individual needed.
What was the average person's size? Probably a lot smaller so relatively, the shields were larger.
Pieter Batenburg We are on average only 5cm taller than them. Much less than the typical variation between individuals today or then.
That little? I thought they were much smaller. That's not a lot, is it?
It's a fact that people are taller on average now than they were back in the pre-Viking era. For a person now, a 60 cm shield may seem small, but for a 168 cm (5'6") man, that's a reasonable size. Now imagine that same 168 cm man carrying a shield 1 m in diameter. He would look like an idiot.
So the point of many shields being made thinner towards the edge I believe reinforces the idea that ThegnThrand brought up in some of his videos. That a warrior could purposely make one side of his shield weaker and also leave out rimming on which ever side. This may allow him to trap his opponents weapon if is cuts into his shield like this: czcams.com/video/2pb6AbcvE_Q/video.html.
Three cheers for geoarcheology! :D