So shields come in all sorts of shapes (and sizes). Off the top of my head:
Round and flat
Round and dished
Oval
Square
Rectangular
Rectangular and curved
Crescent
Figure of eight
Kite
Heater
And more I expect.
Question - what determines the different shapes of shields? Is it mostly a cultural thing? Or is it a functional thing? Is there evidence at different periods for definite advantages to different shield shapes that drives their development and adoption? Are there unique shield shapes used in some periods only and not at any other time and if so why?
I assume there is a constant balance between protection offered, weight, difficulty of construction, wielding (eg hand or arm, hands needed for weapons), fighting style, weapons used and other factors. But same-shaped shields seem to be used for long periods by ethnic/cultural groups so there doesn't appear to be any technological progression - is fashion the (a?) major factor?.
Question in part inspired by discussion of hoplite battle in which the round and dished shape of the hoplite shield is sometimes offered as evidence for a particular type of fighting - so it would be nice to think of examples other than hoplites. (Though - are round and dished shields used in other periods?)
This thread http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=3421.msg44227#msg44227 recently raised Chinese examples - some of these are pretty weird but there doesn't seem to be any obvious functional advantage to some of the shapes.
Following on Paul Bardunias' experiments with bowl-shaped hoplite shields that demonstrated othismos was possible by transferring the pressure of the push to the sternum and the thighs, leaving the lungs free to breath, I notice that the phalangite shield, though smaller, is large enough for the same purpose, the shield rim resting on the sternum and the pelvis (or top of the thighs).
I don't have the references in front of me right now, but there are allusions to phalangites applying othimos-like pressure in a pike phalanx, implying that the phalanx could switch to othismos without a problem. My own working hypothesis is that the pike phalanx was a direct offshoot from the hoplite phalanx and preserved many of its features such as wielding pikes overarm (the only way to project them past the front ranks shields when in close order). Giving it the ability to engage in othismos (presuming that we accept othismos existed) would be a natural feature to inherit from the hoplite phalanx. Notice how bowl-like phalangite shields could get though as I recall their earlier versions were flatter. Is it possible the original Macedonian pike phalanx was not intended to engage in othismos but later versions did do so?
"Macedonian" shields, are of course, round and dished, and continue in use longer than the Argive aspis.
There's plenty of round dished shields from the Medieval Islamic world. For all I know there may be continuity from Hellenistic practice here - what do pre-Islamic Arab and later Antique Persian shields look like? The Medieval ones sometimes have a central spike, which you really wouldn't want to push on the guy in the rank in front of you with.
Trying to think of anyone who used square shields?
One shape you're missing are the "winged" shields of Late Medieval eastern Europe. They're roughly rectangular but with one of the upper corners extended upwards: googling for "hussar shield" should bring up examples (tho I don't know if that's the correct or best name for them). Another is hexagonal, as Gallic shields are often portrayed, though if this is functionally different from oval may be doubtful.
Who, and if Essex's figures may be believed, Andalusians used heart-shaped shields. I have some painted red ...
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on August 01, 2018, 12:27:35 PM
"Macedonian" shields, are of course, round and dished, and continue in use longer than the Argive aspis.
Were Macedonian shields sufficiently concave to permit breathing during othismos? Perhaps Paul can answer that one.
Pictish incurved square.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on August 01, 2018, 12:29:39 PM
Who, and if Essex's figures may be believed, Andalusians used heart-shaped shields. I have some painted red ...
The
Adarga, also used by the Spanish and Portugese. It's actually North African, rather than Andalusian, in origin and is made of leather without framing.
Speaking of Macedonian shields, we had a multipage thread (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1960.0) about them back in 2015.
Relevantly to Justin's question, it seems like they could vary quite a bit in size - from 40 to 80 cm - and one with a ca 66 cm diameter is estimated to have had a depth of ~11 cm, so it's pretty strongly concave: allowing that this is the concavity of metal cover, conceivably the wooden frame (which is not preserved) may have made the inner side less so.
QuoteTrying to think of anyone who used square shields?
(https://i0.wp.com/www.medievalists.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/saint-george.jpg?resize=650%2C433)
Sorry - hit send there by accident. There was a 15th century square knightly shield, with a notch for the lance. Note also it folds out at the top and bottom.
(interesting example of artistic use of a dated armour style here. The armour of St George is probably 1420-1440 in style but it was painted in the 1480s)
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on August 01, 2018, 12:27:35 PM
Trying to think of anyone who used square shields?
Picts? https://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcleopasbe11.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F11%2Fkings.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcleopasbe11.wordpress.com%2Fcategory%2Fpictish-carved-stones%2F&docid=cgG9FPy5--7JQM&tbnid=SG3xrAcf2wtk1M%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjYie2G4cvcAhXMB8AKHTL9BqAQMwihASg4MDg..i&w=1098&h=1042&bih=1014&biw=1920&q=pictish%20stones&ved=0ahUKEwjYie2G4cvcAhXMB8AKHTL9BqAQMwihASg4MDg&iact=mrc&uact=8 (https://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcleopasbe11.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F11%2Fkings.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcleopasbe11.wordpress.com%2Fcategory%2Fpictish-carved-stones%2F&docid=cgG9FPy5--7JQM&tbnid=SG3xrAcf2wtk1M%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjYie2G4cvcAhXMB8AKHTL9BqAQMwihASg4MDg..i&w=1098&h=1042&bih=1014&biw=1920&q=pictish%20stones&ved=0ahUKEwjYie2G4cvcAhXMB8AKHTL9BqAQMwihASg4MDg&iact=mrc&uact=8)
The Viking graves (late c9th / early c10th) from Dublin are interesting. Organic matter has mostly rotted away but the majority are typically Scandinavian - round with a large boss covering a central handgrip. However a significant minority (unique to Dublin, so presumed to be of Irish origin) have smaller bosses whose base angles indicate a more curved shieldboard with a smaller diameter. These bosses are too small to enclose a fist so the excavators reckon they didn't use a central grip, and a different grip suggests a different fighting style. Just because a warrior is buried with a particular shield doesn't mean he used it in life, of course, but the fact that Dublin Viking graves have a higher proportion of light spearheads (again, some types unique to the site) than Scandinavian sites indicates differences in fighting style and hence a functional reason for different shield characteristics while retaining the same overall shape.
Cheers
Mick
Thanks, great examples. If I knew what to call some of these weird shapes (winged square? incurved square?) I would add them to my list...
It would be good for our mental health to avoid this becoming another othismos thread.
Any more thoughts on the fashion/function questions?
The isihlangu, the Zulu war shield, used to hook aside an enemy's shield so an assegai could be buried in his chest.
(https://i.imgur.com/3r2hHcV.jpg)
Quote from: RichT on August 01, 2018, 01:28:08 PM
Any more thoughts on the fashion/function questions?
It's a difficult one. To take an obvious example, Romans used the
scutum for hundreds of years with an evolution over time. It could be because they liked the shape but it is more likely that they evolved a style of fighting around that shield - heavy javelin, short cut and thrust sword. Later, they change to an oval or round shield and adopt a spear and longer sword. Fashion or change in fighting technique?
I'm also not totally sure how much we can separate the two. If we look at the evolution of the knightly shield from 1100-1400, we can see it first change shape by squaring the top. Fashion? No knight would want to be seen with an old fashioned shield. Yet it retains the length of the old kite - still doing a job protecting the legs. In the 13th century it shrinks and becomes heater-shaped. The shape clearly comes from the old square toped kite but it gets shorter - maybe leg armour is more widespread? Fashionable knights are down the shield shop upgrading to the newest model. The smaller shield continues into the 14th century but towards the end it's beginning to be discarded - better armour means you can do without it and, anyway, you need a two-handed weapon to deal with the other sides better armour. It remains useful on horseback though - useful enough for new styles of small cavalry shield with a notched corner and concave front, some of which retain the heater-shape but others are different (see above). These may be fashion-driven but may be practical adaptions (they stop the enemy lance glancing up into the face or down into the thigh).
Quote from: Erpingham on August 01, 2018, 12:55:27 PM
There was a 15th century square knightly shield, with a notch for the lance. Note also it folds out at the top and bottom.
Quote from: Mick Hession on August 01, 2018, 01:00:25 PM
Picts?
Thanks. Seen both types before, but memory wasn't cooperating. :)
True it's hard to tell fashion from function and the two may not be distinct.
For Greek/Hellenistic shields there are some changes of shield with reasons given:
- 'Iphicrates reform' changes the aspis for a pelta, presumably still round (and maybe the same size) to achieve lightness while still giving adequate protection
- Arming 'in the Macedonian fashion' also perhaps changes the aspis for a pelta so as to free up the left hand to carry the sarissa (though this is, in my book, controversial)
- Some early 3rd C Greeks adopt the thureos (as a replacement for the aspis and/or the pelta) though the reasons are lost to us - lightness?
- Late 3rd C Achaeans switch back to the aspis (or at least a round shield) to improve protection (along with adoption of the sarissa)
In two cases (Iphicrates and Achaeans) there are historical accounts of the reason for the change (which are in effect reversals of each other).
In art (including Roman art) the Argive aspis remained the way to depict a Greek shield for centuries.
Quote from: RichT on August 01, 2018, 01:28:08 PM
Thanks, great examples. If I knew what to call some of these weird shapes (winged square? incurved square?) I would add them to my list...
Acc'd to an unsourced WP article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_shield) the winged sort, or at least a small variant thereof, is known as a "Hungarian shield".
In German they're apparently
Ungarischen Tartschen or
Ungarischen Flügeltartschen "Hungarian (Wing) Shields".
(
Tartsche isn't the general word for "shield", but I can't readily identify the common denominator between the various types so called: they include free-standing infantry pavises as well as small round bucklers for cavalry. The word is in origin the same as "targe".)
Anthony's squarish shield with a lance-rest is also a species of Tartsche by the way.
As a piece of visual stimulation on shield types, try this pinterest selection (https://www.pinterest.co.uk/annebhd/boucliers-anciens-autres-que-les-pavois-et-autres-/?lp=true). Warning - there are a lot.
Plenty of examples of the Bohemian shield, which is one we overlooked. This is sort of coffin shaped but notable for its hollow central rib or fold, which contains the handle. Also here is Andreas ' winged hussar shield.
On the subject of medieval shields, this is said by some to be the earliest survivor, belonging to Arnold von Brienz d. 1225
(http://blog.nationalmuseum.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Kampfschild_2.jpg)
It started off as a short kite or teardrop but was cropped across the top into a more fashionable heater shape.
Quote(Tartsche isn't the general word for "shield", but I can't readily identify the common denominator between the various types so called: they include free-standing infantry pavises as well as small round bucklers for cavalry. The word is in origin the same as "targe".)
We might note in passing "targedrager" is the Flemish for Pavise Bearer, according to the musters of the Flemish crossbow guilds.
The smaller English target (a buckler) is, of course, a dimunitive of targe.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 01, 2018, 03:30:42 PM
Plenty of examples of the Bohemian shield, which is one we overlooked. This is sort of coffin shaped but notable for its hollow central rib or fold, which contains the handle.
That appears to be more or less the same thing as what's sometimes known as a "Lithuanian pavise".
QuoteAlso here is Andreas ' winged hussar shield.
FWIW, it's also here called a "Hungarian shield".
Here is a form & function query, not entirely shape related.
How does the method of carrying the shield relate to the way it is used? Does technique flow from form or is the fighting style the arbiter of shield design?
Some examples :
Horizontal grip - aspis (hand by rim), knightly shield (hand towards rim but arm at angle to horizontal)
Vertical grip - usually long shields - hand can be at bottom (straight arm) or top (bent arm)
Centre grip - held with one hand. Often bossed, with handle vertical. Roman scutum has horizontal grip (so similar to vertical grip shields). Medieval centre grip shields can be two straps held together . Adarga is like this
It should be possible to ascertain something about the style of fighting from the way of holding the shield. For example, some are easier to raise over your head than others.
Shapes - I have seen some square shields in ancient art, possibly Chinese - don't have the references to hand, will try to dig them out. Also Barker in plate 97 of AEIR has a square shield. Stillman and Tallis have multiple almost square shields in AANE, mostly from Iran. Plates 76 & 77 have very odd shapes like a 4 pointed star. Barker has something similar in plate 96.
Form & Function. 30 odd years ago I read about European knights having weighted top edges/corner specifically to thrust up into the face/chin of an opponent so enabling a strike to the vitals of an opponent while he jerked his head back. As to do I still have the source 3 house moves later...?
Quote from: Erpingham on August 01, 2018, 05:55:15 PM
Horizontal grip - aspis (hand by rim), knightly shield (hand towards rim but arm at angle to horizontal)
Vertical grip - usually long shields - hand can be at bottom (straight arm) or top (bent arm)
Centre grip - held with one hand. Often bossed, with handle vertical. Roman scutum has horizontal grip (so similar to vertical grip shields). Medieval centre grip shields can be two straps held together . Adarga is like this
Illustrations of shields far more commonly show the outer side than the inner, so for many types I'm unsure what type of grip they had. What would be some types using the vertical grip, frex?
(Also, is it really meaningful to speak of a horizontal grip on a round shield like an aspis? The shield presumably doesn't care much at what angle you hold your arm, for all that horizontally may be the
intended orientation.)
Could you divide shield holding methods broadly into:
- held (in one hand, whether with a horizontal or vertical handle, and wherever on the shield it is placed (but presumably usually centrally))
- worn (usually strapped to the forearm)
Is there a simple relatinship like:
sword = held
spear = worn
?
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on August 02, 2018, 08:55:02 AM
Illustrations of shields far more commonly show the outer side than the inner, so for many types I'm unsure what type of grip they had. What would be some types using the vertical grip, frex?
It's quite common in medieval Italian shields e.g. these from the Avio frescoes
(https://fai-website.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/images/castello-di-avio4.jpg)
Quote
(Also, is it really meaningful to speak of a horizontal grip on a round shield like an aspis? The shield presumably doesn't care much at what angle you hold your arm, for all that horizontally may be the intended orientation.)
True, as this chap demonstrates :
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6b/72/56/6b725673692fe2cea163a24817394a19.jpg)
Though presumably it had a "natural" ready position? Hence in the knightly shield, the hand was above the elbow, whereas with the
aspis it was level.
Quote from: RichT on August 01, 2018, 12:09:58 PM
So shields come in all sorts of shapes (and sizes). Off the top of my head:
Round and flat
Round and dished
Oval
Square
Rectangular
Rectangular and curved
Crescent
Figure of eight
Kite
Heater
When it comes to curved or convex shields, there are good physical reasons for doing this. Any convex or lenticular shield transfers the force of the blow away from the site of the strike in the same fashion that domes on buildings transfer force laterally.
They also gain by presenting a thicker cross section of material in the same manner that tanks started sloping their armor in WW2 (though Christie was ahead of his day). We often see shield that are meant to defend against arrows for example with a cone-shaped cross section. This also makes deflection more likely.
Having the grip deep in a shield moves the center of balance back along the arm, which may explain the shape of the hoplomachus shield.
An additional benefit is that chops coming against a curve, like the sides of a scutum, will encounter a flatter surface rather than a rim to bite into and split. Long ago I wrote some posts on this on my blog: http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/2008/02/curved-shield.html (http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/2008/02/curved-shield.html) and http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/2008/02/domed-shield.html (http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/2008/02/domed-shield.html)
Round shields are handier than any other shape. The symmetry of mass makes them very fast to move in any direction with minimal torque on the wrist. Rounded corners also aid in making descending slashing blows from the left shoulder. With a square shield the corner gets in the way. The Viking guys tell me that a benefit is that the round curve matched the curving motion of the sword hand, allowing the sword to be used behind the shield with the same length of blade exposed or hand protected during the move.
Oblong shields cover more of the body. We see such things as shield-aprons on the aspis to try to get the same coverage. This is not just in the form of direct protection, but also an obscuring of the motion of the legs behind the shield.
Center grip shields can be rested on the ground! They also can be held further away from the body, which increases the amount of body covered with the same size shield. You can punch much more forcefully with a center grip shield due to a large range of motion. Space between your shield and body can be the difference between life and death when you watch arrows penetrate shields and get stuck somewhere along the shaft.
For the same reason that rectangular shields can interfere with your strikes, they can interfere with those of your foe.
Flat shields are MUCH easier to make. If you know how to move them, you can present a very flat surface to an incoming slash. I don't think I need to explain that the more length of blade that strikes a surface at one time, the less focused the force will be.
Double grip shields usually have two grips flanking the center of the shield- rotella for example. This puts a lot of torque on the elbow holding the shield up because more than half the weight of the shield is to the right of the hinge of the elbow. These are usually not presented directly to the enemy, but angled across the body from the left. When they face a foe directly, it us usually in missile combat. A shield on the arm in the fashion effectively protects the whole left side and is very hard to strike around.
The aspis grip is special, but not unique (Phillipine Taming show it sometimes). By placing the elbow in the center, or just to the right of it, you balance the weight on both sides of your elbow joint. This makes the shield much easier to hold for a long time up in position, and makes vertical rotation very fast.
Crescent shapes, such as peltae, allow the man to look over the shield while throwing. Other shapes like the kite shield and winged shields seem to be specialized to protect the left leg and left shoulder respectively while mounted.
Figure eight shields are really oval shields that are pinched in from the sides to make them convex shields in order to gain all the advantages written of above. The notion that they are pinched to strike through the waist section is unlikely when you see how that section projects backward due to the pinching.
Shields with complex curves like the dipylon and many waisted South East Asian shields, may owe their shape ultimately to the shape of stretched hides. But there are advantages to a waisted shield of this type. You can attack around the waist and the projections catch incoming strikes.
With all of these shields we should not discount asthetics. It may be no coincidence that Minoans and Mycenaeans and their shields are both shown wasp waisted.
As to the pelta being suited for othismos, all of the ones I have seen would be, but we are told of those that are "not too deep". The problem is that without an offset rim, the force is transferred to your upper chest and thigh over a narrow area. It is possible that there is a thickened section inside the radius of these shields as opposed to projecting outwards as in the aspis, but I cannot be anywhere near as thick. This inner vs outer buttressing is why we have chins and apes do not by the way.
Quote from: PMBardunias on August 04, 2018, 07:33:55 AM
Flat shields are MUCH easier to make.
I think this is a very good point.
Ease of manufacture and choice of material will have significant economic implications.
Not the most glamorous aspect of this topic, but nonetheless relevant.
Quote from: Dangun on August 04, 2018, 11:17:57 PM
Quote from: PMBardunias on August 04, 2018, 07:33:55 AM
Flat shields are MUCH easier to make.
I think this is a very good point.
How much depends on the material. I don't think it is much harder to make a curved wicker shield than a flat one. Wood though is a different matter.
Quote
Ease of manufacture and choice of material will have significant economic implications.
It's a complicated mix. Your materials choice may be constrained by what is available and what technologies you are familiar with.
Quote from: Erpingham on August 05, 2018, 09:11:58 AM
How much depends on the material. I don't think it is much harder to make a curved wicker shield than a flat one. Wood though is a different matter.
This is true. Since they developed out of basket weaving, curved is probably the ground state. You can find flat woven shields, but the nature of weaving means that the shields really benefit from a curved shape to keep things solid and stiff. Sorry I overlooked that. With wood, you either need to steam-bend planks or warp them in some fashion, or carve the shield out of a much thicker pieces of wood. The aspis was a mix of these techniques, seemingly bent planks were then finished by hand or on a lathe. The bending process is obviously easier when making a composite shield out of thin laminates, but the lamination process is involved. Much easier to get some lime wood and cut a few planks to a circle, then sew on a raw hide cover. Easier still is to stretch out a hid and add a handle, a common primitive shield type. Some of the most primitive wooden shields are curved because they are carved from one piece of wood. This means you are starting with wood that is as thick as your shield and handle. So the shield can easily be curved to that depth. Like carving out a dugout canoe, this takes work.