So I was wondering, what are the advantages of rawhide vs. tanned leather on a shield edge?
I heard it's stronger and it's harder but is it really worth it? I mean it gets soft when wet, it's hard to repair and it doesn't stick to the shield as well as tanned leather when you cut it.

Has anyone tried both?
I'm mostly interested in viking shields.
Thanks!

Hi

by rawhide do you mean the hard stuff dog chews are made from? If so a Viking group I was a member of years ago stopped using it because though its hard it splintered and could cause injury while fighting (why does that sound weird??)I'll correct: it could cause unintended injuries...
We used to boil it till soft then shape it and then tack it on.
Anyway we swapped over to using softer leather to trim the shields. Used impact adhesive and tacks to put it on.

Frank

Yes I meant the dog chew leather.
Thank you for the answer! The splintering issue is exactly what I'm worried about. Softer leather stays on the shield's edge when struck, so it seems both safer and more protective.

Dog chews are not like the rawhide you can get from a leather supplier, since they are boiled. They have very different texture, appearance, and mechanical qualities. "Real" rawhide is much tougher and smoother, and vastly harder than typical tanned leather. Yes, it will soften when wet, but it has to be *soaked*, so a little bit of rain won't hurt it. Plus, it's very easy to protect it from rain with a quick coat of wax or grease. A good rawhide rim is more like metal than leather!

Mind you, I don't know how commonly rawhide was used for shield facings and rims versus leather, though I suspect the answer is "very". It's tricky to cover a shield with it, because if you stretch the wet rawhide too much it will shrink with tremendous force as it dries, and warp or destroy the wood base! But if you're skilled/lucky enough to avoid that, you'll get a very tough shield.

Matthew

Thanks Matthew!
I can get rawhide strips from a pet shop, that is used to make dog chew bones. However they say it's not boiled, only dried.
Do you think that would work?

Rawhide is a beast! I've been working with it lately for a couple of knife sheaths (and I did edge a viking shield in it) and it really is tough, and it does not get as flexible as people expect when it's wet. Some of the dog treats turn like gelatin when they're wet - good rawhide does not.

That being said, I would hate to face a shield with it!

Unfortunately, I'm a glutton for punishment, so I probably will. But boy will I be mad about it.

I'm no expert on the period but is any sort of metal trim around the edge authentic for a Viking shield and possibly a longer lasting solution especially if you're fighting wth it rather than just displaying it?
Just a thought: cut open a 1/2'' or 3/4 '' copper pipe; anneal it to soften and then tack it on around the rim?

Purists look away now

(psst...if its not authentic glue some cheap leather over the metal trim to hide it :D )

Frank

To the best of my knowledge (someone will correct me if I'm wrong) there is no archaeological evidence for metal reinforced edges on viking shields; that being said, I believe it is mentioned in some later Icelandic law?

Shield rim biting, but no references to iron rims.

Rawhide edges are a modern measure to increase the lifespan of a practice shield. To my knowledge the only shields with edge reinforcements are bucklers.
We use dog chew rawhide, or premade rawhide strips if we stumble across them.

But a historical shield would have a hide facing (thin parchment on the surviving medevial ones) that wraps around the edge.
If someone hits your shield with a sharp sword, it will be damaged in any case, and the weapon most likely get stuck. So this was not a priority.

The three iron bands on the back are mentioned in the later medevial laws in conjunction with the simplest permisible shield. But they are (almost?) never found. My theory is that iron strips would be a replacement for a hide cover, in order to keep the planks together.

Thanks for all the answers!
Elling, why were bucklers rimmed and larger shields not? Wouldn't it make sense to rim both?
I have never heard of viking shields not having some sort of rim, just the hide facing folded back.

Bucklers are smaller, and by nature intended to stop sword blows on the edge. They are also, like modern reenactors shields, used for training, and thus subject to constant wear.

Viking age shields, however, are of quite light construction, made of boards that are some 8mm thick at the buckle tapering to 6mm at the edge. Its primary function is to stop spear thrusts; single combat with swords is rare on the battlefield.
If the shield it is hit by forcefull swung attacks, will most likely need to be replaced anyway, rawhide or no.

In any case, a facing that helps keep the planks together is more important than a slightly reinforced rim. Most reenactors shields are made of plywood, and do not have this problem. Initially they where often without facing as well. These days it is common (around here at least) to face them with canvas and glue. But constant training smashes up the edges, so a rawhide rim makes the shield last longer.
Over time it has just become the standard notion of how the viking shield looks. To those who do not fight it seems Sensible™ to have iron fittings, and be very sturdy. This was not the case, however. Shields where like ammo and spreashafts; expendable materials of war. Later knightly shields are thicker, in the 1cm range, but they where carried hung on the shoulder as protection from couched lance blows. Still, they have no edge reinforcement.

Makes sense, thanks Elling!

So you say the 80-90 cm shields were used for battle? As in the shield wall? And they preferred smaller shields for duels?
I have heard of viking bucklers but I thought there isn't enough evidence to support their existence.

This might help, this seems to have good info and some authentic reproduction styles.
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manu...hields.htm

By complete coincidence to this thread, yesterday I was reading I P Stephensons "The Anglo Saxon Shield". In it, he concludes that many such shields were leather faced (glued) and sometimes backed, too, with the leather overlapping the rim, sometimes being stitched around the edge, with a many having a copper-alloy trim around the rim (stitched, clipped or riveted). He mentions the use of both cuir bouilli and rawhide, as well as tanned leather, on the rims.

Anglo-Saxon, not Viking, but contemporary nonetheless.

I always used to think of dog-chew shield rims as a true re-enactorism, but there may be a historical precedent.

Julian

This video often comes up in discussions of Viking age shields, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc