According to a Danish researcher reported at https://thornews.com/2017/08/30/research-vikings-did-not-hide-behind-shield-walls/
A paper by the researcher referred to is at https://www.academia.edu/27661409/Round_Shields_and_Body_Techniques_Experimental_Archaeology_with_a_Viking_Age_Round_Shield_Reconstruction_draft_
Interesting article. Nice find Duncan. Presumably the order may have been slightly looser to allow for individual fighting rather than shieldwall
Quote from: Holly on August 31, 2017, 05:46:07 PM
Interesting article. Nice find Duncan. Presumably the order may have been slightly looser to allow for individual fighting rather than shieldwall
The trouble with that is it could apply in many other periods where we feel a collective approach was favoured. Saga combat is lively - hacking, slashing, creative use of shield-play. So all our author has done is duplicate this. But was this what massed battle was like? One can suggest from reading
fechtbuchen that medieval combat was all open order, man-on-man stuff. Yet massed battle accounts stress order, compactness, keeping ranks.
Now, we can possibly say that shieldwalls were defensive, or we can suggest that they were used to close and then, when they got close, individuals and groups rushed upon each other. But I think the evidence for their existence is a bit stronger than our researcher is admitting.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 31, 2017, 06:17:25 PM
Now, we can possibly say that shieldwalls were defensive, or we can suggest that they were used to close and then, when they got close, individuals and groups rushed upon each other. But I think the evidence for their existence is a bit stronger than our researcher is admitting.
Not least because Anglo-Saxon accounts give the impression of a clash of shieldwalls rather than a shieldwall on one side and a frenzied leaping of individuals on the other.
Our Mr Hession may additionally have something to say on this point regarding descriptions of Clontarf.
so no desire to leap back to WRG LMI quite yet then! 8)
Irish accounts state that Vikings fought in close order, though that's by comparison to native loose-order tactics so may not tell us much. At Clontarf both sides are said to have been so closely formed that a chariot could have been driven over them from wing to wing, but that's a poetic allusion.
Some shields from furnished Dublin Viking graves of the 9th century are smaller than Scandinavian models, indicating that at least some Hiberno-Norse fought in looser order from an early date.
Cheers
Mick
Quote from: Holly on August 31, 2017, 09:37:04 PM
so no desire to leap back to WRG LMI quite yet then! 8)
I would be inclined to have Vikings default to close order against close order opponents and loose order against loose order opponents.
Quote from: Mick Hession on August 31, 2017, 09:40:59 PM
Irish accounts state that Vikings fought in close order, though that's by comparison to native loose-order tactics so may not tell us much. At Clontarf both sides are said to have been so closely formed that a chariot could have been driven over them from wing to wing, but that's a poetic allusion.
Some shields from furnished Dublin Viking graves of the 9th century are smaller than Scandinavian models, indicating that at least some Hiberno-Norse fought in looser order from an early date.
Cheers
Mick
It is curious that, in the War of the Gaedhill and the Gaill description of Clontarf above quoted, Irish shields are described (great, warlike,bright, beautiful,variegated shields with bosses of brass) but not Viking ones. But then, apparently, only the Irish had Lochlann (i.e. Scandinavian) axes . The main things distinctive about the Vikings are their bows and their mail.
QuoteI would be inclined to have Vikings default to close order against close order opponents and loose order against loose order opponents.
I think it may have been more the circumstances of the action. Both sides at Clontarf appear to draw up in close order, because this was a big field action on flat, largely clear, ground (though there are woods at the edges). A typical Irish running battle over hills, through woods and bogs and across rivers both sides would fight differently. Back to the idea of troops who could fight in close order or loose order.
Overall, expert though the author of the study is, he is reacting to an interpretation of shieldwall fighting found among re-enactors and History Channel series, rather than Vikings using shieldwalls per se. Well, I hope he is :)
The Irish adopted, as a response to the Vikings, larger Viking shields and the use of the axe in war. If we look at the later descriptions from Gerald of Wales he says the axe was used one handed and that neither helmet or mail were proof against it. That being the case you needed to be able to get out the way or rely on your shield to survive.
I'd guess the same fighting style was used against the Vikings and would think the active use of the shield to interdict attack would fit with the conclusions in the papers above. So not men standing shoulder to shoulder but something that allowed a bit of space per man.
The Irish poets as a class were mainly interested in the actions of their aristocratic patrons and so we get some description of their gear. The opposition don't warrant that except when something is unusual enough to mention, so mail and bows get a mention because few Irish warriors used them. Viking axes and shields don't because they are to be expected.
Clontarf was a big battle in Irish terms with contingents on both sides of diverse origin. The commanders presumably had to work hard to get everyone where they needed them to be. Before the onset it would have been an imposing and, because of the numbers, unusual sight, presumably the contingents formed up close together to facilitate order. I'd guess that is what inspired the poetic allusion.
An inter Irish battle often involved the combatants going toe to toe and hewing, striking and slaying as the poets tell us but other tactics were available too. Presumably the Vikings also had a variety of tactical choices.
I have provided examples before when this came up on another forum, but there are straight forward quotes from Scandinavian literary sources describing the use of shield walls by the vikings.
Would we like to argue (again?) about Viking axes?
Quote from: Dangun on September 01, 2017, 04:20:44 PM
Would we like to argue (again?) about Viking axes?
Is there a controversy about axes? It can't be about their existence, so is it about use? Even the anti-shieldwall people don't seem to have a problem with axes as there is an axe article (https://thornews.com/2016/11/06/the-langeid-viking-battle-axe/) linked from the shieldwall article.
Quote from: Dangun on September 01, 2017, 04:20:44 PM
I have provided examples before when this came up on another forum, but there are straight forward quotes from Scandinavian literary sources describing the use of shield walls by the vikings.
Would we like to argue (again?) about Viking axes?
I was surprised that the Danish researcher didnt mention them. I was even more surprised that the inference was that shieldwalls werent used by Vikings. As a Dark Age reenanctor I can tell you what I prefered to fight in!
Re enactor evidence is both brilliantly useful and dire by turns. For example the group that believes that Roman plumbata were thrown underarm does nit seemingly account for likelihood that said Romans are probably seconds from being impacted by a mass of Germans or Sarmatian horsemen and so have to throw their darts whilst in close order and that throwing underarm is a major problem for any but the front rank if troops are packed together braced against a charge.
As was said earlier by several members, single combat, man to man , is not the combat of say 1000 men who are defending against another 1000 and that mutual protection from those either side of the warrior is as important as self protection and that landing heavy blows is nit that common because the opponent parries or hiis move forces you the parry , or that cleaving into an opponent's shield in o the point where it says s difficult to pull your shield out is a very dumb idea.
They also miss the point entirely that many opponents are armed with and using spears which are less destructive of the shield.
Roy
completely agree re the destructiveness (or lesser amount thereof) of spears on shields.....
on another point re axes, they are also very useful to drag shields forward......
Duncan pointed out this paper (https://www.academia.edu/27661409/Round_Shields_and_Body_Techniques_Experimental_Archaeology_with_a_Viking_Age_Round_Shield_Reconstruction_draft_) as the basis for the idea that Viking shields were ill-fitted to shieldwall or indeed any form of defensive fighting. Reading the paper indicates that this conclusion was reached because (inter alia) sword cuts easily damaged the rim of the shield. Observing the construction of the reconstructed shield used, one notes the lack of any form of metal reinforcement around the rim.
The shield has the rim wrapped in rawhide, following known Viking shield design arrangements. What it does not do is allow for any kind of reinforcement under the rawhide wrapping. An iron rim (wrapped in grease and coated with rawhide to inhibit rust) would make a considerable difference to the shield's ability to fend off strokes without being apparent in surviving archaeological examples (the iron would have had plenty of time and scope to rust away in the interim).
It is thus possible that this essential feature of the conclusion is based on misconceived reconstruction.
Yet shield bosses and other ironwork does not entirely rust away.....
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on September 01, 2017, 08:57:09 PM...the idea that Viking shields were ill-fitted to shieldwall or indeed any form of defensive fighting. Reading the paper indicates that this conclusion was reached because (inter alia) sword cuts easily damaged the rim of the shield. Observing the construction of the reconstructed shield used, one notes the lack of any form of metal reinforcement around the rim.
Interesting point.
And I would add, that even accepting the evidence from reenactment: a) not being the best design for a shield wall; and b) not using shield walls, are completely different conclusions.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 01, 2017, 04:46:53 PMIs there a controversy about axes? It can't be about their existence, so is it about use?
Maybe not a controversy, but ideas about their relative prevalence seem to vary.
Quote from: Mick Hession on September 01, 2017, 09:41:44 PM
Yet shield bosses and other ironwork does not entirely rust away.....
and even if they turn entirely to rust, the rust remains in place, even if only as a detectable residue
If the shields themselves were effectively rows of plank braced side by side, then the grain of the wood is also a factor.
That is, chop on a short end with the grain will slit down the length. Chop the side, and you get not far.
I saw a theory that this was behind the designs painted on, to disguise the grain more.
If I only tested leather rims aligned vertically, it's easy to splinter a shield. Nit so much if you hit side wood (or iron).
Considering the form fits function argument, Viking shields were of necessity multi-purpose. They had to be large enough to shield the person in mass combat, light enough to carry in cross-country raiding, robust enough to survive open ocean journeys on the weather side of a ship and handy enough to use in individual combat. That they were effective for one purpose does not mean they were not used for others.
Quote from: Mark G on September 02, 2017, 07:02:01 AM
If the shields themselves were effectively rows of plank braced side by side, then the grain of the wood is also a factor.
And for a circular shield this means the way it was held becomes important: grain left-to-right or grain up-and-down?
grain is important......yes!
Reenactors spend a lot of time and effort to get their shields looking nice and dont like them being split apart at the first go. I only ever saw a couple made from 'planks' and they were held using a central boss grip and planks more or less horizontal. I had a plywood shield covered in leather and reinforced with dog chews :)
QuoteAnd for a circular shield this means the way it was held becomes important: grain left-to-right or grain up-and-down?
Side to side (you can see it on the examples of preserved shields in the Thornews article). The obvious reason is to stop it splitting.
There's an interesting article here (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_shields.htm) about construction and use of shields, with another set of shield tests (this is one of the ones the author of the recent research didn't like). Most importantly, it considers descriptions from sagas of shield use and tries to reconstruct them. Again though its about the single combat styles. Incidentally, dave, it does have the axe-hooking technique because it is in a saga.
We can also remind ourselves of the recent thread on Viking shield finds from Britain and Man. We have enough of these to know that, if burial shields are real and not funerary artefacts (which most people think they are) metal shield rims were rare. Slightly more common were clips which were spaced round the edge but mostly nothing, not even nails to hold a reinforced edge (which is why we think they were sewn).
On axes, we find enough of them to suggest they were fairly common but they don't dominate the accounts of weapon use so they can't have been universal. Swords and spears seem the most common weapons, with occassional exotics like hewing spears and
atgeirs .
thanks for the link!
I had forgotten to add that some reenactors used linen for their shields and yes the weight difference is considerable!
Quote from: Erpingham on September 02, 2017, 09:28:57 AM
We can also remind ourselves of the recent thread on Viking shield finds from Britain and Man. We have enough of these to know that, if burial shields are real and not funerary artefacts (which most people think they are) metal shield rims were rare.
Interesting. Is it true that most people believe that burial shields were faux burial-object shields?
I guess the same logic (sic) is not applied to burial swords?
Quote from: Dangun on September 02, 2017, 10:27:26 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on September 02, 2017, 09:28:57 AM
We can also remind ourselves of the recent thread on Viking shield finds from Britain and Man. We have enough of these to know that, if burial shields are real and not funerary artefacts (which most people think they are) metal shield rims were rare.
Interesting. Is it true that most people believe that burial shields were faux burial-object shields?
I guess the same logic (sic) is not applied to burial swords?
No, sorry, bad grammar on my part. I meant most people believe they are real.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 02, 2017, 10:30:40 AM
No, sorry, bad grammar on my part. I meant most people believe they are real.
Phew! My sanity is restored. :)
Just scanning without doing any work, but a lot of the sagas quoted on that site are the later, less helpful, 13th century stuff.
Quote from: Dangun on September 02, 2017, 10:38:52 AM
Just scanning without doing any work, but a lot of the sagas quoted on that site are the later, less helpful, 13th century stuff.
Aren't nearly all sagas 13th century or later?
For something a little earlier, a picture of two shieldwalls from Cumbria (http://viking.archeurope.info/index.php?page=gosforth-hogbacks-photos).
Would it be fair to conclude that the weight of evidence suggests that the Viking shield was habitually used in shieldwalls, despite the observation that the shields seem to be designed with individual combat in mind?
Iron rims do indeed appear to be rare, which suggests either desirability and lack of general attainability or restriction to stronger warriors, or perhaps even both.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on September 02, 2017, 07:15:53 PM
Would it be fair to conclude that the weight of evidence suggests that the Viking shield was habitually used in shieldwalls, despite the observation that the shields seem to be designed with individual combat in mind?
Depends whether we and Rolf Warming are using the same definition of "shield-wall". The photo from the TV "Vikings" in the original Thornews article suggests that he may be arguing against a testudo-like stationary fort of overlapping shields, and not necessarily against close-order formations with shields touching.
What would be the conclusion on Celtic or early German shields. Both are very similar in construction to Viking shields , though of different shape, but pkank construction and central grip. These shields are habitually used in shieldwalls....overlapping and in testudo like constructions.
I guess a definition of shieldwall might be in order to define the parameters of whats acceptable re shields...?
On the walls themselves, do we have any evidence for arrow defence walls, like the testeudo sort of thing, or just single man and shield lined up ones?
I think the first time I came across the arrow defence ones was in a brad Pitt movie.
Quote from: Mark G on September 03, 2017, 07:55:42 AM
On the walls themselves, do we have any evidence for arrow defence walls, like the testeudo sort of thing, or just single man and shield lined up ones?
I think the first time I came across the arrow defence ones was in a brad Pitt movie.
the Alfred the Great (1969) made a big thing about testeudos and shield walls as part of the battle winning climax
Put another way, if a shield is sufficiently big to cover the front of a man can this then be said to permit a shieldwall formation of edge to edge (at the worst) shields?
re the arrow defence thing.....direct evidence...possibly but I leave that up to others to ferret out. Practically.....if arrows are coming in, it is inevitable that more than just the front rank will raise shields against them. Its the degree to which there is a coordinated arrangement that is the real question i guess..
As we've already deduced, Viking shield sizes are a trade-off between covering enough body and being easily handled.
In "shieldwall" formation, they essentially cover the body. Doubtless, shields were raised against incoming missiles as per the Franks Casket (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-urVrKDBiF3M/VEv_-6061UI/AAAAAAAAF0U/VkEbuaGxmSs/s1600/frankscasket_lid-p.jpg). But there is the famous line in the Brunanburh poem about men being "shot over shield".
As we've already mentioned, our Danish researcher is probably using shieldwall differently to how we, students of medieval warfare rather than historical combat techniques, are using it. As Duncan put it, the TV construction of a multi-layered, all covering, array of shields is probably his target, rather than a row of men holding their shields in front of them in close-order. On one rank holding shields in front and others protecting them above, there is a description in the Penguin translation of the Vikings at Stamford Bridge overlapping their shields "in front and above", though another version has this "shield to shield, both in the front and rear ranks."
There remains the question of exactly what combat looked like when two shieldwalls actually contacted. How rigid was the shieldwall? We know the idea was to break the wall, but is this to destroy its mutually-supportive cohesion or its physical joined-upness? I suspect the former, and there was room for a degree of use of the active shield techniques and weapon skills our researcher and the Hurstwic article detail.
Mindful of Nicholas' issue about the lateness of sagas, here is a description of shieldwall fighting of a more contemporary nature
Then one stern in war waded forth, heaving up his weapon,
sheltered by his shield, stepped up against Byrhtnoth.
The earl went just as resolutely to the churl,
either of them intending evil to the other.
Then the sea-warrior sent a southern spear,
that wounded the lord of warriors.
Byrhtnoth shoved it with his shield, so that the shaft burst,
and that spear-head broke so that it sprang out again.
The fighting-warrior became infuriated; he stabbed with his spear
the proud Viking, who had given him that wound.
Aged was the army-warrior; he let his spear go forth
through the neck of the younger warrior, guided by his hand
so that he reached the life of that sudden attacker. (130-42)
Then he swiftly pierced another Viking,
so that the mail-shirt burst—that one was wounded in the breast
through the ring-locks, the poisonous point
stood at his heart. The earl was the happier,
then he laughed, the mindful man, said thanks to the Measurer
for the day's work which the Lord had given him. (143-8)
We'll leave it there with Byrhtnoth on top of his game, but this isn't a rigid lock-shield shoving match . Poetic license?
Quote from: Erpingham on September 02, 2017, 11:18:42 AM
Aren't nearly all sagas 13th century or later?
Some of the Icelandic sagas date from the 9th and 10th, I think.
Quote from: Dangun on September 03, 2017, 03:08:05 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on September 02, 2017, 11:18:42 AM
Aren't nearly all sagas 13th century or later?
Some of the Icelandic sagas date from the 9th and 10th, I think.
I don't think so. I think the earliest Icelandic historical material is 12th century. Traditional poetry from early centuries is found in sagas though, which may be causing the confusion.
Checking the The Routledge Research Companion to the Medieval Icelandic Sagas, there seems to be a lot of disagreement as to when the sagas were composed, but none of the scholars cited would seem to place any before about AD 1180.
That's the sagas in the form we know them today, of course. Apart from the incorporated poetry Anthony mentions, at least those parts of the historical content that's independently verifiable must have existed previously in some form, whether as texts or oral traditions.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on September 03, 2017, 04:22:32 PM
Apart from the incorporated poetry Anthony mentions, at least those parts of the historical content that's independently verifiable must have existed previously in some form, whether as texts or oral traditions.
Yes, possibly some written material was used especially in the historical sagas. And there may have been traditional ways of telling certain tales which became embedded.
In terms of the case in hand, it seems unlikely that things like descriptions of fights between heroes and villains represent detailed recollections. The fighting styles may therefore be contemporary with composition. How different these were to techniques a couple of hundred years before becomes a question. On saga fighting, the weaponry usually seems the same as we know from Viking times and the shields all seem to be the round bossed type, not kite shields, so perhaps none too different. In terms of armies and their forms, the 13th century accounts found in sagas seem to fit well enough with earlier material e.g. Anglo-Saxon.
For example, take this from the early 11th Century Maldon poem
Then Byrhtnoth encouraged his warriors there,
riding and ruling, directing his soldiers
how they must stand and keep that place, and gave them
instruction as to how they should hold their shields
correctly, fast with their hands—that they should fear nothing.
When he had fortified his fyrd-men graciously,
then he alighted amid the ranks, where it most pleased him,
in the place where he knew his most loyal hearth-guard to be.And compare with the early 13th century St Olaf's Saga
So when the farmers had been assigned to detachments, then the landed men
spoke, telling the men in the army to take note of their positions, where each
was placed and under which banner each was now supposed to be and in
which direction from the banner and how close he was placed to the banner.
They told men to be alert now and quick to get into formation when the horns
sounded and a war call rang out, and then to advance in formation,Quite similar ideas of order and structure and the role of commanders seem to be expressed.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 03, 2017, 05:13:05 PM
Then Byrhtnoth encouraged his warriors there,
riding and ruling, directing his soldiers
how they must stand and keep that place, and gave them
instruction as to how they should hold their shields
correctly, fast with their hands—that they should fear nothing.
Tangentially, this sort of instruction - which impressionistically is rather common in pre-battle encouragement - makes best sense if some/many/all of the troops addressed are unaccustomed to fighting, or at least organized warfare: seasoned veterans might well think they bloody well know how to use their shields, thank you very much. If Halsall and others are right that levies were largely a feature of defensive warfare, while offensive operations were largely the perserve of more professional warriors,
and if the reports bear some relation to what was actually said rather than being wholly conventional, such instructions should disproportionately be found in the mouths of defending commanders.
Any up for a literature study? :)
I agree that we are looking at a type of instruction to non-professionals (fyrd in one case, peasant rebels in another). We can add this third example from William of Malmesbury regarding Henry I :
For, though the nobility deserted him, yet was his
party strong; being espoused by archbishop Anselm, with
his brother bishops, and all the English. In consequence,
grateful to the inhabitants for their fidelity, and anxious for
their safety, he frequently went through the ranks, instruct-
ing them how to elude the ferocity of the cavalry by op-
posing their shields, and how to return their strokes. By
this he made them voluntarily demand the fight, perfectly
fearless of the Normans.
These are fyrdmen again.
My main reason for quoting it though was the implication of organisation. Men are formed up in a set way - they are not a mob of cavourting individuals.
Quote from: Dangun on September 03, 2017, 03:08:05 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on September 02, 2017, 11:18:42 AM
Aren't nearly all sagas 13th century or later?
Some of the Icelandic sagas date from the 9th and 10th, I think.
I thought Snorri Sturluson wrote them all from the comfort of his bath... ::)
While we are talking of instructions about shieldwall fighting, here is another, admittedly 13th century, example from The Kings Mirror
If you are fighting on foot in a land battle and are
placed at the point of a wedge-shaped column [swynfylking] it is
very important to watch the closed shield line [skjaldborg] in the
first onset, lest it become disarranged or broken. Take
heed never to bind the front edge of your shield under
that of another. You must also be specially careful,
when in the battle line [fylking], never to throw your spear, un-
less you have two, for in battle array [fylking] on land one spear
is more effective than two swords.
Admittedly a late example of a shieldwall but technically pretty much the same as earlier examples, I'd suggest. Note the emphasis on the order of the shieldwall. Also the technical detail of how to overlap your shield. I'd interpret this as don't get the right edge under the shield of the man on your right - that way you can manoeuver it freely.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on September 03, 2017, 04:22:32 PM
Checking the The Routledge Research Companion to the Medieval Icelandic Sagas, there seems to be a lot of disagreement as to when the sagas were composed, but none of the scholars cited would seem to place any before about AD 1180.
I should have been more precise - composition and publishing may have occurred on different dates.
But the general point is we might wan to privilege the earlier compositions which described historical events as opposed to the later compositions of fictional events.
If another tangent be excused, fylking is a derivative of folk, and thus likely shares an etymology with fulcum, phoulkon.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on September 04, 2017, 01:03:58 PM
If another tangent be excused, fylking is a derivative of folk, and thus likely shares an etymology with fulcum, phoulkon.
Yes. The tricky bit is whether there is any implication of a similar formation or whether they are simply deriving from "folk" meaning an army or the following of an individual.
The non professionals are interesting. The fact that they have shields and weapons, presumably they own them? Means they are expected to fight in some situations at least.
Carrying weapons usually has some link to status and is taken seriously as a right. Some basis training in weapons handling should be assumed to be part of a youth's education. It's no where near that of the professionals because that takes precious time away from the agricultural cycle. So advice from professional warriors on the proper way to hold a shield and how to ward off cavalry attacks, or to form up seems very sensible to me.
In terms of a general levy applying to defensive actions only that would not apply in Ireland, or I think Scotland or Wales, there the law required a free man to be ready to take part in offensive and defensive warfare as required.
Quote from: Erpingham on September 04, 2017, 01:33:59 PM
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on September 04, 2017, 01:03:58 PM
If another tangent be excused, fylking is a derivative of folk, and thus likely shares an etymology with fulcum, phoulkon.
Yes. The tricky bit is whether there is any implication of a similar formation or whether they are simply deriving from "folk" meaning an army or the following of an individual.
They're surely independent coinages from the same root.
Fylking is a general word for formation - a specific one can be indicated by the compound
swynfylking (lit. "swine formation") - and is derived from the verb
fylkia,
fylka "arrange (men) in battle formation", whereas
fulcum,
phoulkon, at least in Roman usage, designates a specific formation and is just the root with a Latin or Greek ending.
ETA: As far as I'm aware, there's no particular reason to think the Graeco-Roman term had the specific meaning in whatever Germanic language it was borrowed from - it may very well still simply have meant "army, warband; people". It's not uncommon for loanwords to acquire a more specific meaning in the act of borrowing: for a topical example,
saga in Old Norse is simply "story, tale".
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on September 04, 2017, 03:48:57 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on September 04, 2017, 01:33:59 PM
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on September 04, 2017, 01:03:58 PM
If another tangent be excused, fylking is a derivative of folk, and thus likely shares an etymology with fulcum, phoulkon.
Yes. The tricky bit is whether there is any implication of a similar formation or whether they are simply deriving from "folk" meaning an army or the following of an individual.
They're surely independent coinages from the same root. Fylking is a general word for formation - a specific one can be indicated by the compound swynfylking (lit. "swine formation") - and is derived from the verb fylkia, fylka "arrange (men) in battle formation", whereas fulcum, phoulkon, at least in Roman usage, designates a specific formation and is just the root with a Latin or Greek ending.
I think I would agree with you and that any similarity of form is incidental. However, it is interesting they chose that word for that formation. Was there something about it that made them think "German"?
Quote from: Erpingham on September 04, 2017, 03:56:55 PMI think I would agree with you and that any similarity of form is incidental. However, it is interesting they chose that word for that formation. Was there something about it that made them think "German"?
QuoteOn the one hand, the general scarcity of Germanic loanwords suggests that in this rare instance Germani recruited into the Roman army continued to employ a word from their own language precisely because it retained a meaning and significance for them in their new cultural surroundings. That is to say, they applied the Germanic word folc to the Roman deployment that most resembled their own way of fighting—a close-order array, fronted by better-equipped and more experienced warriors, designed to engage the enemy in close-quarters combat. The underlying linguistic motivation was therefore recognition and familiarity, not innovation. On the other hand, to judge from Maurice's usage, Latin-speakers conceived this new word current among Germanic auxilia as having a specialist or technical meaning associated with this particular deployment and came to understand the shield-wall or "testudo" as intrinsic to the meaning of folc-fulcum.
Thus, a bit inconclusively, Philip Rance (http://www.legioxxirapax.com/zasoby/Rance2.pdf).
Thanks for that Duncan, Phillip Rance is always very interesting.
Just seen this. Apologies if anyone else has pointed it out, but there are two types of shield shown carried by the English on the Bayeux Tapestry. The 'tear-drop' shields are carried an extremely close order formation and shown as overlapping. Other warriors carry round shields, sometimes slung on their backs as they wield two-handed axes. It has been suggested that these men fought in teams with spearman, possibly in looser order. Roy Boss has mentioned this, and also (I think)Ken Lawson in his book on the battle of Hastings. As to the survivability of shields I would think that wood and leather would be tough enough for most encounters and preferable to a heavy shield that was unwieldy in the melee.