I have been following the two threads on missile weapons and armour, and the discussion raises the issue of shield penetration. I am neither an archer nor a metallurgist, but I do know a bit about military history, and there is no doubt that for a very long time, the shield was the main defense of most warrior against all missiles. Yet it seems, from what has been said, that bows should have been readily able to penetrate shields contemporary to them.

Case 1: the Migration and Viking era. It has been strongly argued that the idea of the "shortbow" is fundamentally wrong, and that warbows of this period were similar to later longbows, and had considerable penetrating power. We know for certain that the shields of this period were made of thin planks, typically 1/4" to 3/8" thick (6 to 9 mm), maybe faced with leather. We can be reasonably certain that most warriors in some armies were not wearing mail, and that all armies had some men without mail. There is no convincing evidence for fabric armour either, although the practical rationale for padding with mail is clear. There are a few archers mentioned in various accounts of warfare in this time, but they are clearly single individuals and of secondary importance.

Does a warbow easily put an arrow through a 1/4" plank? If it does, why wouldn't archers be much more important than they seem to be in Viking and Anglo-Saxon warfare? If the shield is inadequate, why not carry a heavier shield (or none?)?

Case 2: the Crossbow and the Pavis. The power of late medieval crossbows has been discussed at some length. Pavises have also been discussed - but technical details like their thickness seem to be hard to pin down. I don't think there is any question that pavises were carried as protection against missiles, many of these are rather largish shields. They were constructed of planks, often softwood, covered with leather, parchment, or linen. I suspect the thickness of pavises is in line with other shields - maybe 5/8" thick at most. Some had folding legs so they could stand up on their own, but not all - and a shield of, say, 1 1/2" wood might get a little heavy.

How thick a plank is a late-medieval crossbow expected to pierce (composite prod, steel prod, winched or cranequin?) Would a pavis likely stop a bolt? Again, if the penetration of the bolts is greater, why would pavises be used?

Answers would be appreciated.

Case 1:

Most Viking and Migration era shields had a metal, curved shield boss which meant that getting hit in the hand holding the shield is unlikely. With a shield held out at a bent arms length the shaft of an arrow would have to penetrate half a meter through the shield the hit the person behind the shield. And then it would be traveling too slowly to do damage. The shield bearers arm can absorb a portion of the energy as well.

The relative unimportance of archery in Migration and Viking era armies may have to do with the difficulty of wielding warbows. Other threads on English longbows and Asian bows make me think that while archery for hunting food was relatively easy, wielding a warbow took tremendous strength and a specialized skill set.

Case 2:

You call the pavise thin, even though it is around twice the thickness of the shields you mention, so the pavise is likely very tough indeed. An archer standing behind a pavise that stands on its own can stand back a meter, such that to get hurt, the crossbow bolt would have to travel entirely through the shield and still posess enough energy to hurt a person wearing a jack.

Both cases:

Fully penetrating a shield is quite difficult. A bodkin arrow or crossbow bolt may put a crack (not a hole, no material disappears and the wood has a grain so it's a crack) in the shield which is as wide as the arrow shaft. Then the entire length of the arrow shaft has to be pushed through a tight crack thats trying to close again (remember the elasticity of wood). By the time the arrow stops the shaft was moving to slowly to even scratch a person wearing a jack.

The above should help explain why a bullet, laking a shaft, provides better shield penetration.

* * *

Alas my above opinions are not based on any specific research that I know of, so I'd love if someone who's done it, or seen it done could post such experimental info.

The thinnest of the viking shields fragments I had seen was cca 1cm thick and the thickest 2,4cm... 1/4" seems to me to be too thin.. such shield would barely survived single blow in one piece... where have you found this?
Secondly - killing a man behind a shield does not require only to penetrate his shield but also to deliver the arrow few dozens cm through it - and the wood slows the arrow considerably . It is of no good to shoot the shield through and then be stopped after 5 cm. Even if you hit the man behind the shield, it isprobable, that his armor will protect him from the projectile that lost most of its kinetic energy.

Missile weapons could be quite important in migration era warfare; In dee, there are more types of missile weapons in active use during this period than in the late middle ages. Quite a lot of them are thrown weapons, like javelins, the occasional throwing axe, and Ye Olde Rock.

Basically, dark age warriors are just that; Warriors. They are individuals, called together by a cheiftain, who basically equip themselves. Thus, there are no "units" of archers, or in deed uniform units of any kind; Armies might be divided into groups ("Sveit" in norwegian) but these are formed on a ad hoc basis, or from the followers of a "big man".

Medevial norwegian saga literature sometimes divides battle into three phases; Shots, Throws and Blows.
Basically, armies would shoot at each other for a while, then close, throw spears, javelins, and miscelania at each other, before closing. Other sources make no distinction between missile and hand to hand fighting, just reffering to everything as "Strid", roughly translating as combat.

Often, one warrior would take part in all these stages, first shooting with his bow, then grabbing his shield and spear(s), and advancing into battle.

As a specific case in point, take Hastings. For the members of the Saxon fyrd, the Bayeux Tapestry clearly shows them to be unarmoured, with no protection but a shield. They are being targetted by Norman archers, who presumably use the Viking-style warbow. Were the men of the fyrd adequately protected by their 6mm 9mm shields?

I’ve been pondering this question too, if only to try understand how a Roman army would do in a theoretical encounter against a later Medieval army :lol: I’m slightly divided on the issue but at the moment I tend to agree with consensus here that the shields of both the Romans and Vikings would catch shafts after a foot or two of penetration. I know in tests that I have seen against wood the arrows shaft always gets caught after the arrow had penetrated a foot or two through. These tests were against thicker pieces of wood (1") than would commonly be used in shields but I no longer think that most shields derive their primary defense from their wooden element. Viking, Greek, and Native American shields for example were said to derive the majority of their defensive abilities from multiple layers of raw hide glued together. The Roman scutum and the medieval pavise both utilize layers of glued linen in their construction.

As for tests I can think of only two, both of which were using bows much less powerful than what would have been common to the late middle ages with regards to crossbows and longbows. One was conducted against an authentic cheese glue, rawhide, and board constructed Viking shield. The show tested a 150lbs Longbow before but this time they just had some random guy stand out and shoot an arrow into it, this implies to me a bow of much less draw weight, maybe 50 or 70lbs. In any case the arrowhead almost penetrated all the way into the shield. Against a shield without leather reinforcement the arrow broke one of the planks loose and continued through the shield. On an interesting note, in order to encourage his troops in an early battle against the Germans, a Roman commander made the comment that the Germans shields were reinforced with neither mettle nor leather. The conquistadors of the De Soto expedition put a wood and leather target against a native bowman whose stone tipped arrow penetrated a foot and a half through the shield.

It would be fun to see how an authentic linen/rawhide reinforced scutum or Viking shield would respond against a heavy weight warbow or a powerful crossbow.

I suppose they might have another use as well. If I remember the shields were found on the ship as perhaps the ships decoration or perhaps use? in that case they could be a whole different beast than what someone uses in combat to protect themselves. I think that as for many the shield was their primary defense it had to have held up at least during one battle or it would have quickl;y evolved to if it was very thin.

Randall

Another question is how reusable / durable was a shield supposed to be ? Minor nicks might be ignored or repaired, a hole patched with a glued piece of wood, leather covering replaced or also patched ? if painted and repatched it might still have a long useful life.

A lot of technique, deflecting and avoiding hard stops plus resilience might waste a lot of the energy and make making a hole in a shield more difficult than when it's shot at leaning against a backstop.

Metal rims seem to come and go out of fashion as well as the possibility of metal strips reinforcing the surface on the areas most likely to come in contact with the edge of a blade when deflecting.

The experience of reinactors who simulate large battles and hit in earnest ( With some control for the sake of safety ) should give some idea about shield survivability.

Looking at my Kite shield from Mercenary's Tailor with 1/2" thick poplar, 4-5 oz. leather covering and the very tough looking rawhide rim I think it should be able to get you through at least one major battle before needing to be replaced or major repair.

Would arrows stick or bounce if the shield was hit at an angle ? Possible ? Probable ? A large Danish axe would seem to be the best shield destroyer. Oh, since Kite shields were used by Knights I imagine against couched lances at times, the ease that a shield can deflect a lance point as opposed to the point sticking into the surface should make a lot of difference to the result !? As mentioned earlier an arrow might stick out many inches from the back of a pierced shield but the remaining energy might be too low to pierce maille & gambison: Would still be distracting and time would be taken at the first opportunity to break off the arrow(s) at least the part on the inside side of the shield. Oh, and the shield would have done it's job in combination with other armour, maybe even leather armour would make the difference between OUCH and DEAD.

Wonder if the design philosophy might differ in that at some periods shield might be intended to be longlasting and at other times designed for only one major use ? A heavy all steel 16th century rondache versus a light wicker shield of an Assyrian light javelin man or slinger ?

[quote="Jaromír Koz<caron>iak"]

Geoff Wood wrote:

Jaromír Koz<caron>iak wrote: I agree, decorative is a possibility. They are pieces of evidence, to be taken in conjunction with any others we can get hold of. On the decorative suggestion, it does seem a little odd that people of the period would place real metal objects (e.g. swords, spears) in graves, and even the metal parts (e.g. boss) of shields, but decide that the wooden parts were too valuable to bury, so they'd put a decorative thin wooden bit in its place. That seems to suggest wood was more valuable to them than metal?

Where shield furniture is found in burials, such as Sutton Hoo, the metal furniture was not placed separately in the grave, rather the shield was buried intact but the wood did not survive, leaving the metal components to be found in situ.
Rod.

From Oakeshott's "The Archeology of Weapons" quoting from Kormac's Saga on Holmganga law.

"Each man must have three shields, and when these are made useless he must stand upon the cloak, even if he had moved out of it before, and defend himself with his weapons".

"Thorgils held the shield for his brother, and Thord Arndisaron that of Bersi, who struck the first blow and cleft Kormac's shield. Kormac struck at Bersi in the same way. Each of them spoiled three shields for the other".

Rod.