| Mike Ruhala wrote: | ||||||||||
It would be interesting if we could determine when massed units of archers began appearing on the central/northern European battlefield. Likewise it would be illuminating to figure out exactly when round shields became the dominant form among Germanic and Scandinavian warriors. Kite shields probably appeared decades before 1066 but if the Bayeux Tapestry is to be believed it's important to remember quite a few round shields are also depicted even if they are a minority.
I wouldn't think so, it's not so hard to hook a round shield with an axe's bottom horn, it's sharp and metal so it'll tend to bite into the shield regardless of rim shape.
They did it so we know it worked but unfortunately the finer details of how they formed shield walls haven't been recorded as far as I know so the best we can do is just try it out for ourselves and see what appears to work the best. Consider a sample of three men standing shoulder to shoulder, the shield of the man in the middle is in front of the shields of the men to his left and right, kind of like this _--_. If that center man applies rearward pressure to his shield while the men to the sides apply forward pressure a surprisingly rigid structure will result. This doesn't even have to take a lot of muscular exertion to maintain, they can adjust their weight distribution in their fighting stance and essentially lean on each other. It works better with more men, like this _--_--_--_--_--_--_--_.--_--_--_, which may have something to do with why shield walls could break.
Just to clarify it wasn't the weapons or martial arts that influenced later swordsmanship directly, it was philosophy. If you give two ignorant people sticks and tell them to fight the first thing they'll come up with is a very simple parry-riposte system. That has its use but is vulnerable to the next thing they'll figure out on their own, feints. From there some clever people will realize that under certain circumstances it's possible to attack and defend with the same action but that's about as far as it gets without a proper teacher. There are other ways to use time and space that aren't particularly intuitive but are critically important to Medieval and later fencing systems, even after you've had them explained to you and understand them it takes a lot of training to be able to actually use them. This stuff was somehow derived from Aristotle's teachings, I don't know all the history on that but apparently Book IV of his Physics plays an important role. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.4.iv.html
The most immediately fatal target in the abdomen is the aorta, I don't see how it would likely be damaged without leaving marks on at least the spine. In any case we do have Viking Age evidence to consider. Google turned up the link below which provides several useful leads, hopefully it works for you. https://books.google.com/books?id=Ha-8CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=wounds+viking+skeleton&source=bl&ots=eFHsAUa1bB&sig=ViPTugiDQb-EgguLo7nwj5IrB4U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibr4fdj5fKAhVJGR4KHYnUBOw4ChDoAQgpMAQ#v=onepage&q=wounds%20viking%20skeleton&f=false |
I have't seen any real evidence of massed use of archers in Northern Europe before the English started using them in great numbers from 1300 (?). It coincide with the development of very strong bows, so my gut feeling tells me that it's a new battlefield development.
About round shields from the Viking Ages we only have 1 fairly complete one from Denmark and then also a number of partial shields from Norway.
Earliest appearance?
Then from the Iron Age you have 2 round shield from Thorsbjerg Mose and that is a deposit from 200's AD, so perhaps these are the earliest round shields, though you have found round shield from the Nordic bronze age as well?
Thorsbjerg shields: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorsberg_moor#/media/File:Thorsberg_Shields.jpg
A viking shield found at Trelleborg ringfort on Sjælland gives us a precise date of the 980's. It is 80 cm in diameter. The men stationed at Trelleborg was an army, so it's with all certainty a shield for battle and not for duels.
Article with picture in situ: http://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/danmark/ark%...ingeskjold
After preservation: https://wuhstry.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/capture-1.png
So axe is most likely not a reason for the change of shield shape.
Thanks for your shieldwall explanation - quite interesting!
So it is the Aristotelian scientific thinking that might revolutionize sword teachings at some point in the middle ages?
Could probably be true, but so hard to say when it began: Boethius Latin translations of Aristotle (for instance "The Catagories") had not been lost in the Western World and was available all through the middle ages and used in the Monastic and University teaching. The "quadrivium" was likely formulated and introduced by Boethius (480-524)!
Sorry for historic digression:
Especially the "Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics" by Ibn-Rushd/Averoes became important in the early 1200's, though it met a lot of opposition that almost crushed it.
Ibn-Rushd wrote to fight for Aristotelian philosophy against the anti-philosophical doctrine of Al-Ghazali, but totally lost the debate in the Islamic world as they never had any "Averoesians" since then (the important idea is the splitting of religious and philosophical thinking as two different entities), but became so famous in Western Europe he was simply known as "The Commentator".]
Funny enough one of the two leaders who fought for introducing the Averoesian/Aristotelian philosophy at the Paris University was another Boethius - this guy was Danish though: Boethius of Dacia latinized for "Bo af Danmark" [Denmark was commonly called Dacia in the middle ages if any Romanians get confused by that]. Accused of being "Averoesian" he had to flee Paris in 1277 with his philosophical-comrade-in-arms Siger of Brabrant as their movement was deemed heretical.
So the real take off for Averoesian/Aristotelian thought on a broader level is from early 1300's, when the English Franciscan friar William of Ockham/Occam (called Venerabilis Inceptor, “Venerable Beginner”) cuts the way with "Occam's razor" even today a fundamental of science like cladism of paleontology. Teachings of Ockham became the "Via Moderna" in conflict with Thomas Aquinas that became the "Via Antiqua" (Aquinas tried to fuse Aristotelian reason and faith together, which faith superior if in conflict with reason). Later a guy named Martin Luther studied "Via Moderna" and learned to split knowledge and faith into two separate compartments!
Germanic people had professional warriors (and also professional duelist according to the sagas) doing nothing else all their life at least from the Iron Age, many working for Romans then attacking Romans or other Germanic people.
I would think that the books starting to be published - I.33 as the first we know about from exactly around 1300 - might be from classical inspiration, but advanced fighting skills must have been taught for generations (just not put into any sophisticated more scientific system based on catagories - and that is the real revolution).
Whether fatal blows to the abdomen would give spinal injuries depends very much on angle - it would think many would have been dying fast or slowly over days from stomach wounds not giving any skeleton marks.
About the viking graves in England: The problem is that we can't be certain if it is actual battlefield wounds, or captured people massacred! [St. Brice Days massacre for instance]. Just when looking on the page you gave the link to:
The Oxford and Ridgeway Hill examples shows in my opinion massacre like injuries (probably extensive torture before final death). The Fishergate example from York is much better since you have varied types of injuries.
Attachment: 367.38 KB
