[Mark Millman]

Folks,

On Tuesday 31 March 2009, Oleg Naumov wrote:

Vince, Unfortunately there were no any comments with that photo. As far as I know that museum was situated in the Worchester pressed steel company building in 1944. The friend of mine confirmed that museum still exists.

The museum in question is the Higgins Armory Museum in Worcester, Massachusetts.

You can see this buckler, with commentary, in the museum's on-line catalogue, which includes the entire Higgins collection of over 4,000 artifacts. The buckler's listing is here.

I hope that this proves helpful.

Best,

Mark Millman

[Vince Matthews]

Thank you gentlemen for your answers and input.Keep it coming !!! This is exactly the stuff i'm looking for.All these bits should add up to a workable design evantually.The detailed description of the lantern is enlightening ( pun in.) Now ,to see if that lantern design was a common design or a "special" one-off for this shield.Oh to be in Vienna. Any of you on the continent feel like running over to the museum in Vienna and snapping a few photos,maybe see if they will let you take the shield home for the weekend where it could be dissected and photoed ??? That goes for yall in Mass. as well,just tell them you'll bring it back monday .

Thanks again gentlemen,

Vince

[Sebastiaan Pelsmaeker]

Greetings,

This is a rough translation of the text posted by Oleg Naumov.

"During the Mannerism a special love for technical inventions of an extreme nature existed. A good example of this craze for technical toys is the Lantern shield. In this case it is an especially elaborate and useless invention for nightly battles. One of the aims during the Mannerism was to combine and to, whenever possible, put as many different functions together in one object.
The background of the development of the lantern shield is the change in fighting methods in the course of the 16th century. The primitive hack-and-slash fighting with the sword evolved to the complicated stabbing-style with the rapier, which, during the first half of the 16th century, is parried using the small round shield of the infantry. In the second half of the 16th century a left hand dagger was used. These off hand daggers were often equipped with a way to break an opponent’s blade.
The construction of the lantern shield was an attempt to combine all these weapons. It combines the round shield and a long gauntlet with a dagger. The extendable long blade could be used as an offensive weapon, as could the removable spikes at the centre of the shield and on the knuckles of the gauntlet. These knuckle spikes could also be used as blade catchers and were serrated for that purpose. Other blade catchers specifically for disarming an opponent are the free standing concentric strips riveted on.
An especially fantastic and odd enhancement to the shield is the spring-lid closed lantern. The purpose of this addition is the ability to blind your opponent during nightly battles, effectively rendering him defenseless, so it would be easier to defeat him. In reality though the lantern would probably soon have been extinguished due to the speed of moving fighters, or the fighter would have spilled the oil onto himself and thus have set himself alight. Because of these things the shield was probably more dangerous to the user than to a possible enemy.
Even so, what this shield lacks in its practical use for fighting is easily made up for by the number of interesting conversations started by this object."


I hope this helps,

Sebastiaan.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Vince Matthews]

Would somebody be so kind as to translate that Austrian (German) text?[/quote]
Oleg,
could you date/author that Austrian text for me? I'm trying to wiegh the value/accuracy of this discription based on the date of publication and author.I've read many a discription by "knowledgable" people who have missed key points or got them wrong all together in trying to describe an artifact that has long since ( sometimes recently ) ceased to be utilized .I find it difficult to believe that so many examples of this particular type of socalled " useless inventions " survived if they where indeed so "useless" (does anyone still have a " Popiels Pocket Fisherman" ,how about a "pet rock"?).I think we have to keep in mind that at the time these shields were actually being used people would not live long if trying to attack or defend with such a "useless " invention, and consiquentely niether would the producer.I have not as yet come across an Italian description of this Italian invention, only german criticism of a foriegn technology.Can anyone provide such a document ?

[Chad Arnow]

[Vrin Thomas]

[Vince Matthews]

Thanks Chad but I'm confused,none of the reading that I have done makes any real distinction between the "lantern shield" and the "lantern,gauntlet,sword catchers,sword shield combination" other than to piont out the addition of the gauntlet sword,spike etc..Even the previous text in this thread (and most literature that I've read ) talks of all lantern shields as being useless "technical toys" and citing this particular "lantern shield " (their words not mine) as an extreme example of this combining of weapons and or attachments.The Vienna - shall we call it "combination shield" - has a lantern mounted on a shield,how can it not be a "lantern shield ?Perhaps made for differing purposes but but surely both can be considered a "lantern shield". I think this "contraption" is just an extreme example of a simple "lantern shield".That is where I was going with the statement "so many examples of them have survived", that so many "lantern shields" have survived not this particular "combination shield" and that all Lantern shields are considered a "useless invention".
Second, if you squint real good at the combo shield in Vienna you can see that the lantern and opening cover are attached with brass rivets from the outside in,all the other attachments are rivetted from the inside out and rather crudely at that.This could lead one to speculate that the lantern is the only original attachment, making this shields original function to be a lantern shield and the rest stuck on later.Have a good look at the museum site pics and I'll betcha dollars to donuts that at least two different craftsmens hands made this,one with a bit of skill,the other not so much.Examples such as the work on the crisp clean lines on the depression for the lantern cover to sit flush and the latch assembly are miles ahead of the work on say,the hammer work on the flatspot for the sword mount or the bulge on the bottom corner or the rivetting of any of the mounts other than the cover and center attachment boss.From what I can see, the hands that rivetted the gauntlet and sword on did not attach the lantern and maybe not even the center spike.

[Chad Arnow]

Vince,
We may have to agree to disagree here. Just looking at shields+lanterns only, they don't bear a ton of similarity in form, decoration, and usage, etc. to the shield+lantern+misc. weapons. The only common denominator is the shield and lantern. Sure, those are big elements. But the purpose and other elements of the items are clearly so different that they don't seem to be the same animal to me.

Yes, both are shields and both have lanterns. So "lantern shields" may not be an incorrect term. But for the purposes of these kind of discussions, I believe we need more specificity. I don't think that calling two very different forms the same thing simply because they share a common elements. On top of that, trying to discuss them as a single group/classification, when (to me) they clearly aren't, is similarly unhelpful.

For example: we can call many things "swords". But I can't say "all swords have pommels" because katana and some messers, and other forms do not. That's why we try to be specific in discussions and group things more neatly where we can.

You said something to the effect of since there were a number of examples of lantern shields ("so many" was your term), they must have been more than a curiosity. Well, there are only one or two of the super-shields (is there more than just the Vienna shield in that group?), along with many more of the simple lantern+shield. So you're trying to explain the usefulness of the 1 or 2 with the numbers of all the rest. And "the rest" in this case seem to be different animals altogether.

A number of people have tried to lump these all together in this thread and I've tried to get people to think of these different items as different items. Apparently, I haven't been successful.

[Vince Matthews]

Chad,
I will accept that these two types of lantern shields are of different design.
Call all but the simplest "super shields" thats fine with me but whatever you call them they all have a lantern!
I think that as you read back you will find that it is not just people in this thread that "lump these all together" it is the literature we have to go by that does this .
How would we catagorize the Higgins Armoury example? No decoration to speak of and a big ole spike and a lantern.Is it a lantern shield or a step towards a supershield ?
Don't get me wrong Chad I'm not saying that the super shield was or was not usefull or an oddity or mass produced,just that someone sometime somewhere used it for some kind of fighting and unless that person died trying it out it must have been of some use.That is of course an assumption of mine and could be completely wrong but to find out how usefull or useless this thing was I need to build it and see what someone trained in the use of shields will do with it.

To all the armourers here I would also envite comment on the two craftsmen theory,heres the link to the best pics I have found (www.rubens.anu.edu.au/raider4/austria/vienna/museums/ruestung/germany/index.php?page=3) For those of you waiting for a finished project the prelim. plans/patterns are drawn and are awaiting the budget department to give the go ahead to the materiel department so the guy with the hammer can start his thing.I'm off to research the lantern part of this thing so any info there would be a great help.

[Oleg Naumov]

Gents,
First of all, I’m sorry for not answering sooner. Dear Sebastiaan, thank you for your translation. It spilled some light on the matter.

Vince,
That text in German is taken from the book “Meisterwerke der Hofjagd-und Rustkammer” published by Kunsthistorishe Museum Wien. Authors of that book are Christian Beaufort (according to my sources that guy is the director of Rustkammer) and Matthias Pfaffenbichler.

Well, it seems to me our discussion becomes very similar to medieval dispute about the shroud of Christ.

[Vince Matthews]

Thank you Oleg,
After some brief research I find it difficult to argue with either of those gentlemen's credentials.

[Vince Matthews]

Gentlemen,Gentlewomen,
Recently I had been informed that some of my exchanges in this thread contained inappropriate comments.After re-reading said posts I had to agree that they indeed came across as such and have removed the most offensive.I have extended apologies to both Chad and Nathan but after some thought I've come to the realization that I should also offer an open apology to all members who have been following this thread and may have been offended.
I have nothing but respect for the people on this forum.I meant no malice and was trying to be engaging and amusing.It seems I was neither.
Again I offer my sincere apologies.

humbly yours,

Vincent Matthews

[Vince Matthews]

Boy,do I know how to kill a conversation

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Vrin Thomas]

I want to see more pictures of the combination weapon variety. On the internet images of them are rare as hens teeth. Even cruising flickr and other photo places looking for poached museum photos I am seeing nothing.

Is it that the (lantern/shield/blade/breakers) thing defies all modern context and therefore stuns the interest out of a casual observer? Why no more photos out there in the world?

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Chad Arnow]

[Justin Pasternak]

Does anyone know or could guess as to how much the Gauntlet-Type Lantern Shield weighes?

[Chad Arnow]