Posts: 335 Location: Stuart, Florida
Tue 05 Jan, 2016 3:42 pm
| Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: |
The two different types of viking shields are a good indicator of two different circumstances of use. So I agree that the heavier one would be for battle and the lighter ones for duals (maybe light shields functioning as a sword catcher?). |
It's hard to say but there are historical references to swords becoming stuck in the rims of shields. We do know that the size, weight and construction of round shields in the Viking Age varied considerably. For a full sized shield you could be looking at anything from 8lbs to 15lbs, realistically speaking relatively few people are going to be able to make a shield that heavy dance around nimbly for an entire battle. I built a shield 24 inches in diameter using the most accurate methods and materials I could muster, it weighed about 6lbs.
| Quote: |
For instance: "In Iceland, the blows were regulated, each combatant taking turns with the challenged man going first. |
Interesting, this sounds similar to mensur.
| Quote: |
But if the round shield was ONLY a normal battlefield shield against arrows why didn't the Scandinavians retain the rectangular shield they used in the early Iron Age - for instance the shields from Hjortspring?
The change to a round shield must have had some kind of specific function. In the early Iron Age the Scandinavians probably fought in a kind of phalanx with spears and these rectangular shields. Why change to a round shield at all ??
|
I'm not saying they were [i]only used against arrows but I do believe that is the main threat they were specifically designed to counter and consequently they weren't designed as some kind of specialized shield for fighting other swords and shields in single combat. The Hjortspring shields are of the type that are well suited for sword and shield combat, the Romans were also sword and shield fighters and they seem to have favored elongated shields as well. This shape is more effective for defending against direct attacks because most people are considerably taller than they are wide, it's also more resistant to being pushed aside the way Roland demonstrates in his video.
As for why they changed from the elongated style to the circular style it probably has something to do with a change in tactics and commonly encountered weaponry. From what I've gathered from casually reading Roman sources, when they first encountered the Germanic tribes the latter were accustomed to fighting as individual warriors in small, loose formations. It is also my understanding that at this earlier time javelins were the ranged weapon of choice and I imagine those probably wouldn't come in at as steep of an angle as long-range volleys of arrows. By the Viking Age there were plenty of archers on the field and they were fighting in shield walls. By the end of the Viking Age swords and mail shirts were becoming more widely available and we see a return to an enlongated design in the form of the kite shield.
| Quote: |
| Roland's hypothesis and seeing him performing it makes it possible that it's useful in duals (whether actually used or not), |
Two things to consider. IIRC Roland has said he has refined his method since making that video so it may not represent his current interpretation, 5 years is like a million years in HEMA! :) For another thing he and his partner are familiar with their interpretation, are deliberately demonstrating it for an audience and they're not wearing a full set of protective equipment you'd need to seriously fence with real intent to defeat your opponent. The proposed system is presented in the best possible light in a video like that, if the context of the video was a competitive environment with unfamiliar opponents and everyone was wearing full gear the fight would look very different. Roland was and is aware of all that and isn't trying to misrepresent anything, it's just that video is a demonstration and shouldn't be taken as a proof in itself. I've noticed more and more people taking it out of context over the years so I feel I should point that out.
| Quote: |
but on the battlefield holding your line and breaking the enemies are the primary concerns. Shield binding doesn't seem possible in formations where the spear was primary weapon and axe/sword secondary.
|
Large group combat isn't my specialty but I suspect if you tried shield-binding in a shield wall you'd find yourself on the wrong end of a spear rather quickly. This is possibly another reason for the round shield, a wider shield can overlap with your neighbors in the line and present a more solid obstacle.
| Quote: |
As the Viking shield essentially is a oversized buckler, it was probably used in that way - extended to close off lines. So I agree with you that there couldn't have been a big difference between big and small viking shield in technique.
|
This image from the Bayeux Tapestry shows a warrior with round shield standing in a guard called luginslant. This position is scene elsewhere in the tapestry with the sword and kite shield but because of the enarmes in that case the shield is held close to the body. Other familiar KDF leger show up as well, for instance the axeman is in zornhut with his left hand above his right as is typical for staff weapons in the system. They probably used different names for their positions and organized information a bit differently than we see in Liechtenauer's teachings but the fechtbucher tell us Liechtenauer didn't invent any of this and it was already hundreds of years old in his time. So yeah, we actually have a pretty decent understanding of how the Normans likely fought with sword and shield but there is one snag... the sword is the long crossed variety so the style might not have applied to the earlier narrow-cross swords.
| Quote: |
I just find it interesting that the change to a viking shield took place during the Iron Age. I'm not convinced that arrows is enough to explain it. The Nydam Iron Age bow was probably 80-90 lbs. Stronger bows probably had to wait until the very late Viking Age? |
80-90lbs is pretty strong! :) I don't think it was the power of the bows though, I think it was the frequency of use and scarcity of armor that made the difference. The gaddhjalt was a pretty radical innovation though and laid the foundation for all the swordplay that followed. We know that the Medieval and later systems utilize timings and tempos inspired by the works of Aristotle so it is my belief that the renewed interest in classical texts during the Ottonian Renaissance probably helped inspire the weapon and the fencing system.
| Quote: |
The sword in the Viking age seems to be a prestige weapon for the elite. So you wouldn't encounter many on a battlefield. So I agree that it could give an advantage against spears and axes that also lack hand protection. I still think the shield was extended like a buckler, so less need for a guard protection as the viking shield provided the hand protection ?
I like your idea of being defensive waiting for an opening to snipe. That some duel-rules said you could have maximum 3 shields, shows that some duels could go on for a very long time. The fighting style in duels could have been patient. Fighters wearing opponents down by stamina. |
Skeletal remains show a propensity for wounds to the head and legs which suggests they were passively covering most of their body most of the time and looking for the right moment to exploit a chance to cut an uncovered target. That doesn't necessarily mean they were very patient though, a more aggressive strategy consistent with that evidence could involve feints, intimidation, ramming/charging and footwork designed to cause the opponent to make an error in judging distance and thereby expose himself to a quick attack. I often use that in competition and can defeat many opponents with just a few steps and a single swing of my sword, most of the time a wide guard wouldn't be necessary for that kind of fighting. 
