[Jack Savante]

Roman small round shields (parma) definitely had shield bosses even if the Byzantine generally didn't:

http://images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org...546591.jpg

[Herbert Schmidt]

Thank you all very much for your invaluable help. You are really helping a lot!

[Jack Savante]

Yes, definitely.

HOWEVER.

Byzantine shields were centre grip in a different sense than Viking shields, in that the hand held two ropes, rather than a bar.

For example see attachment.

This also applied to their kite shields.

I've used shields like this and find them far more versatile and effective than the Viking style bar and Western European arm brace type shield configurations, but you have to be strong to use them correctly, which is why they are probably not in vogue with the often athletically challenged reenactment community!

[Sean Manning]

[Jack Savante]

They appear to have come in a variety of sizes, small and large, the link shows a Thraex Gladiator using a small one:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...tery_2.jpg

Before the Romans here's one from the 13th Century BC in leather, and another in bronze.

http://www.bronze-age-swords.com/Clonbrin_shield.htm

[Sean Manning]

[Jack Savante]

The Thraex shield hardly looks look large enough to protect the torso to me. All you need to do is google 'Roman Parma' to see scores of examples of quite small bossed shields in use in Rome.
But enough of splitting Roman hairs, you seem to have completely overlooked the Bronze Age shield.
Furthermore there is along Arabic tradition of using bucklers that are quite small, and of course the well known Sikh steel shields whose usage has a long tradition.
Australian Aborigines used shields that came in a variety of sizes, including very small, made of wood with a prominent boss. This usage is speculated to have existed for at least 40, 000 years.

So we have established that small shields, with bosses, have been used since a time long before written history.

I suppose the next question for the poster of this question is which point in the development of small shields you consider of interest to your enquiries, and then focus on that era.

[Herbert Schmidt]

Thanks a lot folks!

I stumbled across the "pugnum" which apparently was a small shield used by romans. As I have no clue about roman military, could someone please confirm or dismiss this? As far as I know the pugnum came very close to the buckler, but was held by two leather straps, although in the centre.

The genealogy of the buckler is immens.

Do you have references for the Aborigines using small, center held shields?

What is still a bit unclear to me is where was the buckler in the migration area? We have small bronze shields, roman shields but what about the migration area or the "dark ages" (I hate this expression!). It seems odd that such a useful and formidable shield went completely out of use. I can hardly believe that.
Does anyone know anything?

Thanks a lot!

Herbert

[Jack Savante]

Here's an excellent specimen of an Aboriginal Shield, 30cm across with a centre grip.

http://www.auctiva.com/hostedimages/showimage...p;format=0

http://www.auctiva.com/hostedimages/showimage...p;format=0

http://www.auctiva.com/hostedimages/showimage...p;format=0

And the ebay listing it came from:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ABORIGINAL-SHIELD-QUE...0457457505

It's a shame there isn't more interest in Aboriginal arms and fighting, as the Australian Aborigines were excellent fighters and expert guerrilla warriors.

[Dan Howard]

[Sean Manning]

I have never heard of a Roman weapon called a pugnum, and I cannot recall seeing any Roman shield as small as a buckler. That said, I do Greece and the Near East more than Rome! I think a pugnum would be a "fist-thing." Roman standard-bearers and musicians sometimes carried a small centre-grip shield called a parma but I am not sure if those were small enough ... the Roman Army Talk forum might be a good place to ask.

[Elling Polden]

If the distinction is to have significance, the differnece between a buckler and a small shield is usage. A buckler serves as an augmentation of your sword guard, rather than as a primary defence.
The shield, however, functions as a passive defence as well.
As allready noted the transtion happens somewhere in the 30-40 cm range. From experience, facing or using a buckler is quite different from facing or using a small shield,
It would appear that most cultures that want a "companion shield" will try to make them just large enough to give some passive defence. The byzantine strapped targets, pictish square shields, and so on beeing examples.

As such the european medevial buckler is conspicously small, which could warrant some comment in your book.
This could be due to how it was carried (over the sword scabbard), or a philosophy of use. Or perhaps that medevial european swords, unlike all others that I can think of, have long quillons to aid in hand protection.
Differneces are often just as interesting as similarities.

When it comes to terminology, it is quite common for translators to use the closest known equalient word, even if it becomes grossly inaccurate. A prime example is the translation of the norse word "Atgeri" to english "Bill", resulting in enlish readers envisioning norsemen running around with late medevial polearms. Thus, using the very spesific "buckler" instead of the more general "small shield" causes the reader to envision the wrong thing.

[Herbert Schmidt]

[Sean Manning]