| Author |
Message |
|
Damion R
|
 Posted: Wed 12 Dec, 2007 11:20 pm Post subject: Historically accurate viking round shield |
 |
|
|
Hello everyone i'm new to the forum.I have a question i've looked around the internet, searched history books but I am not satisfied with any of the information.Im looking to build or buy an absolute historically accurate viking round shield. Can anyone point me in the right direction. Thank you
|
|
  |
 |
James Barker
Location: Ashburn VA Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Thu 13 Dec, 2007 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here is all the info you could want: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chrisandpeter/shield/shield.html
I made one for display based off information here and in the Anglo Saxon Shields book.
I used white pine planks and ran them through a planer to be 6mm thick.
I cut them to be 4.5 - 5 inches thick and made 8 planks to have a 36 inch round shield.
I glued them side by side, clamped them, and let dry. It was a large rectangle at this point.
I then drew out my inner circle for the boss and the outer circle
I then attached a temporary handle as the glued planks flex.
I cut out the circles.
I then did a layer of gesso, milk painted my design, and sealed the front surface.
I replaced the temporary handle with a poplar handle I bought online (link below). I used period nails and clenched the handle down.
I put of the boss the same way. (bought from same place as handle)
I then added raw hide to the edge using small tacks to hold the leather in place as it dries.
Last steps I have not done yet is to pull out the nails and drill holes through the raw hide and shield and lace it on with linen cord. Next I need to add a guige strap.
The shield is nice and light; next one I am going to leather cover the face with a 2oz rawhide I can get from my local leather supplier but first I need to look at the Anglo Saxon laws on which animal skins were forbidden to be used on shields.
Here are some images of a kid at an SCA event trying on my Living History Viking kit with my shield before I got the rawhide edge on:
Where I got the boss and handle: http://www.freewebs.com/catherinesquest/index.htm
James Barker
Historic Life http://www.historiclife.com/index.html
Archer in La Belle Compagnie http://www.labelle.org/
|
|
 |
|
Leo Todeschini
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Dec, 2007 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would pretty much second what James says, sometimes they had iron reinforcing strips, but not often and sometimes they were of lime not pine, but either is fine and the handle could equally be ash . What I suspect is not fine is that most of out pine these days (or at least in Europe) is speed grown and so may well be quite different to that available to our forebears.
What is very surprising is the thickness of the boards, I think the only explanation is that shields were pretty much disposable items and this is reflected in warriors taking a number of shields with them on campaign and the cost of this is offset against the fact that you can have a quite large and usuable shield
Tod
www.todsworkshop.com
www.todcutler.com
www.instagram.com/todsworkshop
https://www.facebook.com/TodsWorkshop
www.youtube.com/user/todsstuff1
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas S
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Dec, 2007 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
It was sheepskin that was forbidden on shields. I am guessing that there may have been some fear of associative magic or whatever, that soldiers would become sheep on the battlefield...
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Hand
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Dec, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leo Todeschini wrote: | | What is very surprising is the thickness of the boards, I think the only explanation is that shields were pretty much disposable items |
The thickness of the boards is very hard to understand if you use the shield statically in front of you as most re-enactors (myself included some years ago) tend to. However, if you use the shields as surviving evidence suggests that they were used, then the relatively thin boards and consequent light weight makes a lot of sense. The shield is a weapon, not a wall to hide behind. You use it to close lines of attack and to bind and strike your opponent. To do this, the main guard has the shield edge facing the opponent. Holding a standard clunky re-enactment shield like this quickly exhausts all but the biggest shoulders.
If you use shields in this way they tend not to be struck that hard and they tend to last longer than if used as a static wall, but they are still quite vulnerable. Our problem is that the stakes are so low when we fight. We know that we're safe, so a broken shield is a major pain in the backside. If my life was on the line then I'd be thinking about my shield more like a car airbag - if it had just saved my life I wouldn't be squarking too much about the cost of replacing it.
By the way, if people want more info on the historical sources for how big shields were used, take a look at the two papers I've written, the first in Spada, and the second in Spada II, both published by Chivalry Bookshelf.
Cheers
Stephen
Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield
Stoccata School of Defence
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Dec, 2007 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Hand wrote: | By the way, if people want more info on the historical sources for how big shields were used, take a look at the two papers I've written, the first in Spada, and the second in Spada II, both published by Chivalry Bookshelf.
Cheers
Stephen |
Very good papers by the way.  Even if this might sound like " brown nosing "  
I'm sort of looking forward to more of the same in a possible " Spada III " , shield articles as well as maybe more articles like the excellent one about the use of the partisan.
These publications are very worth re-reading as one's experience/knowledge progresses since one can get much more out of them on a second or third read: What seemed confusing or hard to understand initially becomes interesting and more and more clear as one learns/practices. One could say the same for all of the better books dealing with martial arts.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Hugo Voisine
|
| Posted: Sat 15 Dec, 2007 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Very good papers by the way. |
I would like to second this. There's not enough serious and well-documented stuff about the martial arts of the early medieval period... Too much pure conjuncture and not enough serious reverse-engineering if I may say.
| Quote: | | If you use shields in this way they tend not to be struck that hard and they tend to last longer than if used as a static wall, but they are still quite vulnerable. Our problem is that the stakes are so low when we fight. We know that we're safe, so a broken shield is a major pain in the backside. If my life was on the line then I'd be thinking about my shield more like a car airbag - if it had just saved my life I wouldn't be squarking too much about the cost of replacing it. |
A question... are you referring only to individual combat here, or do you think that we need to change our definition of a "classic" viking / saxon shield wall (where the shields are, well, used has a wall, straight in front of the body) ?
« Que dites-vous ?... C'est inutile ?... Je le sais !
Mais on ne se bat pas dans l'espoir du succès !
Oh ! non, c'est bien plus beau lorsque c'est inutile ! »
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damion R
|
| Posted: Sat 15 Dec, 2007 9:54 pm Post subject: Thanks |
|
|
WOW gentlemen what a response this will definitely keep me busy for some time and thank you for the replies and the effort to help me thank you 
|
|
|
|
|
David Huggins
|
| Posted: Sun 16 Dec, 2007 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wholeheartedly agree with Stephen's comments on the use of the shield by most re-enactors of this period and it use as a weapon in it's own right. Even it's defensive use is underplayed with to much use of the sword to parry an opponents blows.
and he who stands and sheds blood with us, shall be as a brother.
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Hand
|
| Posted: Sun 16 Dec, 2007 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Hugo Voisine"] | Quote: | | A question... are you referring only to individual combat here, or do you think that we need to change our definition of a "classic" viking / saxon shield wall (where the shields are, well, used has a wall, straight in front of the body) ? |
Hi Hugo,
I am only referring to single combat here. As I stated in the first Spada paper, historical images of people in formation are very different to images of them in single combat. In formation the shield appears to have been held in front of the body and used statically. In my experiences in re-enactment melees if you use your shield too actively in a close order situation you get stabbed under the sword arm, usually by a spearman a couple of guys across and a couple of ranks back. In single combat if you use your shield too passively then you get taken to the cleaners by someone who knows how to use it as a weapon.
Cheers
Stephen
Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield
Stoccata School of Defence
|
|
|
|
|
Hugo Voisine
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Dec, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the precision Stephen. I thought that this was the case, but considering my total lack of experience in reenactment combat, I had no way to be sure of what works and what doesn't when your working inside a formation.
« Que dites-vous ?... C'est inutile ?... Je le sais !
Mais on ne se bat pas dans l'espoir du succès !
Oh ! non, c'est bien plus beau lorsque c'est inutile ! »
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bram Verbeek
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Dec, 2007 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I started out with a small wooden shield some 40cm across, then a flat shield 45 by 80 cm, thereafter a curved shield 60 by 80 cm, and the next shield will be bigger still, I seem to have a tendency to increase its size and depth of curvature (has to do with change of scenery asd well)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic