[Folkert van Wijk]

I am (1) looking for the authentic construction method of making a dished round shield 500-700 AD.
And (2) for a modern method of doing this myself. Can someone of you knowledgeable people point me out to a website or PDf maybe somewhere that shows me these methods..?

I also understand that it's questionable wether(all) shields where dished in that time?

[Matthew Bunker]

Hi Folkert,

1) Is difficult.
You can do it by carving the whole thing down from thicker planks as Richard Underwood did:-
http://www.millennia.f2s.com/reconstruction.htm

Or do it by using 'coopering' methods, where each plank needs to be narrower at the top and bottom than in the middle, cut to the correct angle on the butting edges and then steamed so that the planks can be curved over a form, glued along the butting edges and clamped in place. That's how I've done it and the method that I consider to be the most likely one used. It's not easy though and I'm afraid that I've never documented the process.

There is a third method, which involves building the shield from pie-slice shaped pieces of board which leads to a conical shaped shield which does match some period illustrations. It's the one used by Regia's Steve Etheridge when he made a reconstruction for an episode of 'The Weapons that made Britain' that you can see here:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0moVAG0JDOc

2). Modern methods.
Easiest one would be to buy a dished blank from Tim Noyes at Heron Armoury. He makes them by using a former, a flypress and sheets of birch ply. The result is a perfectly formed lenticular shield blank, approx 36" diameter which stands up to the stresses of re-enactment combat exceedingly well and, once faced on both sides with hide or leather, looks perfect.
These German chaps sell them as well. Don't know how they make theirs though:-
http://www.reenactment-bedarf.de/html/schilde.html


Another methods is the method used by the talented French chaps here:-

http://fabricae.free.fr/

if you look under 'Fabriquer un Bouclier' you'll find a photo essay of the method used.

As for it being quesionable....there is circumstantial evidence in the form of surviving fittings that some say points towards the use of dished/lenticular shields but it doesn't prove it and others argue that the same features are evidence of something else entirely (as an example, some bosses have a flange which meets the wall at an obtuse angle which might be taken as evidence of a dished shield as a flat board would might be expected to require the flange/wall interface to be perpendicular. However, it might just be at that angle so as to ensure that the nails fixing board to boss are kept under tension and to provide a little bit of shock-absorbancy to the boss).

Same with pictorial evidence. Lots of pictures of what look like they might be depicting dished shields (from slightly later periods) but these could just be attempts to show side views or partial persepctives of flat boards.
Until we find planked remains that prove the matter then it will remain a subject of debate.

Hope all of that is useful to you.

[Elling Polden]

I have one of the above shields , which is made from veneer/ply.
My estimate that using layers of ply strips are probably the historical method for making them. Roman shields where made from veneer, as well as some medevial shields.
Alternately, one could bend boards with a combination of moisture and heat, similar to the making of barrels or shipboards.

There are several ways to achieve the same effect, but they demand access to tools, knowhow and time.

[Folkert van Wijk]

Thanks for the info, and yes I think this give's me a good overview of the possibilities...

[Matthew Bunker]

[Elling Polden]

One does not have to laminate ply in alternating directions. In fact, one could split a plank into ply, and glue it back together in the desired shape. Or build a laminate of thin strips where the layers overlap eachothers seams..

Looking at Harke's article, the most interesting bit is that the shield is only some 6mm thick at the boss. This is very thin indeed. Viking flat shields are this thin at the edges, but thicker at the center. My shield from Heron Armoury is about twice as thick with the rawhide facing.
A 6mm linden board would not be that hard to bend in the first place. But it stil leaves several questions as to how the planks would be put together. Tapered board radiating from the middle, paralell boards, and so on.

The preserved high medevial shields that I have seen are all made of planks set together at an angel, but they only curve in one direction. You could make a domed shield in the same way with pre-bent planks, though.

[Matthew Amt]

I suspect something akin to coopering, but maybe without the steaming and bending? The planks could simply have been shaped to the desired curvature in the first place. Sure, that means starting with something c. 5" thick and carving it down to size, but these are folks who thought nothing of shaving every plank in a ship down from double the desired thickness just to leave cleats standing up from the inner surface for the lashings. I am very leery of the conical pie-slice construction, but some of those depictions DO look very conical!

Most depictions of shields outside Scandinavia shows them as convex. The surviving archeological components--angled boss flanges with angled rivets, curved handles, surviving Late Roman shields, etc--shows the board was convex. Even descriptions of shields call them "hollow". That's 3 for 3, as close to solid proof as you'll ever get. Isn't it easier to conclude that shields were dished than to invent a whole new branch of physics to explain the "shock absorbing" qualities of sloped shield boss flanges? (Sorry, that was nasty and snarky of me, but that theory always drives me nuts!)

Matthew

[Matthew Bunker]

[Gregory J. Liebau]

[Matthew Bunker]

[Gregory J. Liebau]

Hard to say what benefits may arise from various techniques when we don't actually know anything about the dimensions/construction of contemporary lenticular shields. Perhaps the stress added to the steamed/bent wood would be enough to make lathed/carved planks preferable? Have you watched coopers at work shaping barrel staves? The professionals are quite fast at their work...

I'm more or less playing devil's advocate here. My only interest in lenticular shields goes back to the Assyrian period, and those were obviously of wickerwork.

-Gregory

[Gregory J. Liebau]

[Matthew Bunker]

[Matthew Bunker]

[Gregory J. Liebau]

Later medieval heater shields consistently exhibit varied thickness, being thinner towards the edges with the central planks bearing the brunt of the mass. These would have been planed down substantially after assembly to maintain the curvature and negate any of the awkwardness where the planks joined.

The Gokstad ship shields also generally were planed to thinner dimensions around their circumference, which could only have been done properly/easily after assembly. IIRC, those go from about 10-6mm in thickness from center-to-rim.

It's rather relevant to note that in the cases noted above that "extra" work was done even for shields intended only for a ceremonial function. A majority of surviving heaters are funerary shields, and the Gokstad shields were of course sent off with similar sentiment.

-Gregory

[Matthew Amt]

[Matthew Bunker]

[Rick Orli]

But OF COURSE they were dished, at least often, based on lots of quite clear illistrations. Certainly in the Byzantine era. The advantage of a dished shield is huge. way more than I expected. basically you put the center of gravety with or behind the hand and for handiness manoverability and comfort that is an amazing benefit. My solution to dished kite shield can be seen here 3/4 way down the page with some construction pictures.

http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/ByzInfantryTypes.htm

I made it out of plywood, since that was a common byzantine shield construction material although I assume the original material was different from the modern. the first step was to steam-curve the whole - otherwise the tension would be too great. I cut a hole in the center for the boss wich allows the hand to reach in to the hollow of the boss. of course there are several ways to wear/hold a kite but for swordwork you want it on your fist.


The next step is to cut out a pie piece and stitch together, while clamped shut. (rawhide stitching). (Don't cut it round yet because you need the excess materials for your clamp to grab securely. ) make permanent with glue and overlay of glue-soked linen tape. built up and sanded to be somewhat smoth. Once everything is covered over by canvas soaked in glue and the outside gessoed and sanded (several layers), you get a smooth finish with a distinct ridge. Several period bas reliefs of dished kite shields show a ridge exactly like that.
On the inside, I built up the center with thin layers of veneer and paper, so that it tapers to a thiner edge. Inner lining is thin silk, impregnated with glue

one was made with hide glue /period materials and a couple with poly resin and I really can't tell them apart, except for my first experimental model which slightly resembles a fibreglass snowboard. Rawhide edging, stitched. About The most work was dishing the commercial bosses I purchased - they were all designed to fit on flat shields and totally did not fit my dished versions. That took hours of heating and banging for each one.

I made one oval dished for ca 600AD Roman, and making a round one would be about the same. On my oval one the pie slice is progressively wider to force a more bowl-shape (rather than conical).

I somewhat disagree with the 'hey its disposable' reasoning... in a battle its disposible but until then its carried about everywhere, maybe for years, and with good luck a shield might last a generation - just as a soldier might retire whole. I strongly argue that dishing make the shield so much better (handling on and off the battlefield) that it's well worth the effort, then as now.

-Rick

[Elling Polden]

There is one very important argument against carving the curve out of thicker planks. Namely that in doing so you break the grain of the wood.
Thus a impulse to the top of the board could cause the entire thing to split anlong the grain. A whole, bent board, or ply, would flex along the grain insted.