[Taylor Ellis]

Is this shield:

http://www.arms-n-armor.com/2000/catalog/item043.html

Historically accurate? I know the general shape is good, but I've only read about them being made of wood?

Cheers guys.

[Craig Johnson]

You are correct. The simple pain steel shield would be a rarety in period. If the shield is all metal the front was usually heavily embossed. The heraldic knightly shields of the medieval period would have been wood, leather, gesso and paint. We can do a very traditionally constructed shield but they are expensive as the labor time is significant. We are working on one nordic style round shield with extensive metal fittings on the front, right now and there are literally over a hundred hours in the construction process at this point and it is not finished as yet.

The steel heaters we make are used mainly for stage and western martial arts practice and display. If you go to our Heritage section you can see a couple of shields painted up for display they look pretty good once we doll them up and they hand easily.

Best
Craig

[Taylor Ellis]

Thanks for the reply Craig!

[Bob Burns]

I almost bought the Arms & Armor Heater Shield and vied instead for the #20 Spike Buckler, which I really like, that spike protruding from the center of the shield just seemed to speak to me.

This thread brings about a question and it's a question from someone in their first year of learning so this may sound pretty elementary to everyone. Why were wooden shields used as opposed to metal shields, given that the metal shield be as weight conscious as possible, especially in shields of this size. Obviously a large kite shield made of metal would be quite a bit of weight to haul around and therefore impractical. But in shields of this size, would not a metal shield be of better protection as well as more devestating when used as a weapon? Also, I would think that wooden shields of this size, unless thoroughly reinforced with metal edging on the circumference as well as in the center etc., would they not be given to breakage and penetration? Another question of mine would be, given that the smaller shields made of wood have all the necessary metal fittings to make them more reliable, wouldn't they be pretty close to the weight of the shield had it been made of metal in the first place?

Like I said, these questions might seem very basic, but actually I have been wondering about this for some time now.

Grateful for any answers,

Bob

[Stephen Hand]

Wood is cheap and light. Metal isn't.

To get wood you cut down a tree and make planks; a relatively simple job. To make steel you have to dig the ore out of the ground, smelt it with massive amounts of charcoal (which itself has to be prepared from wood) and hammer it for hours in a forge (using more charcoal or coal) just to get the basic wrought iron. Then you need to hammer it into a sheet. I've seen a chap spend two days and about 40 pounds of coal and charcoal to make about two pounds of iron.

In addition, steel shields don't soak up as much impact as wooden ones. Much force is transmitted through to your arm.

Cheers
Stephen

[Bob Burns]

Thanks Steve, that makes a whole lot of sense in all areas that you stated. Yeah I saw something on the iron smelting as was done in the iron age, on the History Channel a few weeks ago. That's a whole lot to go through and would have been of considerable cost I imagine. Back in the day when from my understanding, many a man fought with farm tools or an axe if he was lucky. Even so where you have an army and all are indeed armed with swords, still a shield becomes damaged or lost in the melee of battle, where is that next shield going to come from? Obviously the army is not going to stop so several people can stop and spend a week making a shield. So that makes all the sense in the world about the use of wooden shields. Just trying to be brief here, but I have a good grasp of what you said and you answered my questions very well, thanks a lot!

Bob

[Jean Thibodeau]

Bob;

Could be wrong but I would think an army on the march on campaign would carry spare shields as well as spare spears or spear shafts and have the capability of doing field repairs to their equipment.

Although arming a whole Host with steel shields would be very expensive an individual warrior with the financial means would have been able to afford a steel shield: They probably would still have used wooden shield just out of tradition or habit.

Historically steel shields seem to be more a 16th century thing, so in spite of theoretical advantages or disadvantages that we might discuss as what we would prefer as equipment the historical record seems to indicate no use or very rare use of steel shields before the 16th century.

Well, if we go back to Classical Greece we do see Bronze covered shields.

[Philip C. Ryan]

Another advandage of wooden shields is their ability to catch and bind your opponent's weapon. A sword or axe or spear strike stands a good chance to imbed itself into the fibers of the wood, rendering it useless. This would providing an easy kill by the shield wielder.....at least theoretically.

I can also attest through personal experience, that a wooden shield does absorb alot more impact than metal ones!

[Allen W]

A little O/T I but a figure the main question has been answered so I'll add my own, does any one know when the steel dhal came into use? It seems Mongols are always depicted with them but I know of no examples dated before the XVIth cent. and all Ottoman shields I've seen are covered with cord and leather/fabric with no hint as to what lies beneath.