Historically speaking, combat metal shields always have a problem with weight. Because of this, it has always been stated that combat metal shields can never get large.

The Greek Round Shield covers only the torso when you stand up straight; you need to crouch a little in order to have more protection. The Roman Scutum is larger, but it is essentially made out of wood; only the boss and the rim are made of metal.

But are there any exceptions? Are there any historical pure metal shields that were larger than the Greek Round Shields? If there are, what kind of metals were they made out of (bronze, iron, steel)? Yes, I am interested in hand-to-hand combat shields, not decorative shields or siege shields.

Thank you

The Greek aspis is not a metal shield. It's a heavy wooden shield usually covered with a thin decoration of bronze.

Right, Greek and Roman shields were wood, and not all Greek shields even had the thin bronze facing. There are numerous surviving Bronze Age shields made of bronze sheet, and some of them are in the range of 3 feet in diameter, about the same as the later Greek aspis. But we don't know if they were meant to be used in battle as is, or if they had a leather backing, or if they were meant to be ceremonial. They aren't all the same--a couple at least clearly had backings, while some apparently did not. And for many we do not have accurate data on their thickness or alloy. Some of the smaller ones, in the 12 to 24 inch diameter range, do seem to be battle shields, complete with visible weapon damage. But I've never heard of one larger than about 3 feet.

For later eras, I know of iron and steel bucklers and "targets", up to about 24" in diameter, but I've never heard of metal siege shields such as mantlets or pavises.

Matthew

i've seen face shields in the wood cuts of Albrect Durer i've always thought those were of metal construction - some depicted in his art work are rather large but i've never seen too much exploration into the topic before. i only bring it up because Durer was known to have drawn from life for the most part.

Huh! That's intriguing, but I have a feeling you must be misremembering. There has been a lot of study on the aspis in the last couple years, with all the known remains being studied pretty closely, and I don't think anyone has mentioned a bronze facing that thick. Certainly a few are known that cover the whole shield bowl and rim, but I'm not sure if that is considered to have been "common" or "less common".

Part of the problem, of course, is that it is very difficult to find any actual accurate measurements of thicknesses of shields, shield facings, armor parts, helmets, etc., at least for ancient pieces. Modern writers will often throw out casual measurements, with no indication of whether it was done with a micrometer at several spots on the piece or just eyeballed from outside a museum case. So "1 mm" could mean anything from tissue paper to an eighth of an inch... Plus there are modern authorities who consider 1mm bronze to be "too thin and flimsy" for armor (which it is not!), and those who consider it "too thick and heavy" for armor (also untrue!).

Khairete,

Matthew

8% tin bronze has a density of around 8,800 kg/m3

A circular shield facing with a diameter of 1 m and thickness of 1 mm would weigh 0.5 x 0.5 x pi x 8800 x 0.001 = 6.9 kg.
That's before you add a wooden or leather backing and all of the furniture.

My knowledge of the hoplite panpoly is rudimentary at best, but nevertheless I think we should not jump the gun and assume that the bronze facing was merely decoration. Even if we are to assume that the aspis' bronze facing is no more than 0.5 mm, according to the above calculation it would still weigh roughly 3.45 kg. The wooden and leather components of an aspis are heavy enough as it is, and it is highly doubtful to me that any rational soldier would be willing to add even 2 kilos to the weight of his shield simply to make it look cool and shiny.

I am not saying that appearence wasnt a factor for the popularity of bronze shield facing, but there must have been more to it that just decoration. In my opinion the bronze should be viewed as a reenforcement as it gave the aspis shield additional structural strength and longevity.

I suppose it would be a simple matter of math to find out what the largest metal shield could be. Although, I wonder how thick a piece of metal has to be to provide the required protection.

By most accounts, targets of proof had gotten too heavy by the late sixteenth century. Military writers noted how soldiers refused to bear them except very briefly. Unfortunately, I've never seen any numerical figures for such shields.