Early Saxon bucklers: still valid?

[aligern]

http://www.vikingage.org/wiki/images/2/2a/Repton_Stone.jpg

shows a drawing of the Repton stone.

[Yin Shao Loong]

Suggests that shields on average were larger for Europe than the apparent range in Britain then. Is there a link to apparent wealth....ie smaller shields especially if made from a single piece of wood are lower status? Or are we seeing something of a 'skirmisher' element for the smaller shields rather than main line infantry?

One line of reasoning I've seen (can't recall where), is that the small shield was correlated to raiding action, being more mobile, though the later example of the vikings clearly shows that raiding and medium to large shields weren't incompatible.

However, the vikings employed shieldwall tactics and the early Saxons were generally thought to be 'warband' much like other Germanic infantry of the period. All the same, there's no necessary correlation between warband tactics and small shield sizes.

The two references posted earlier by Anthony suggest that shields found in the graves were mostly of medium size, but could range from buckler size to nearly twice as large, from 38cm - 69cm. The most common sizes for Dickinson and Härke are 50cm and 60cm. There were very few shields in the 90cm range.

Dickinson and Härke note Saxon shields in Britain seemed on average smaller than Continental shields.

I'm not convinced about D&H's use of the Repton stone and Franks casket as references for relative shield size due to possible distortion resulting from artistic convention.

Interestingly, the British Museum monograph suggests that Saxon shields were covered both front and back with a skin product (leather).

All in all, I suppose it seems reasonable to use a mix of shields. Perhaps smaller shields on the younger Geoguth moving up to medium shields on the older and wealthier Gedridht.

[Imperial Dave]

a pretty reasonable suggestion all in all. Most of my wargaming figures for a particular army contain a mix of shield size and form anyway (with the exception of Legionaries ) so am happy not to shoehorn the Saxons too much.

[aligern]

Isn't there a bog deposit of weaponry that could be a defeated comitatus? I recall that as being German, in period and with'large' shields?
Roy

[Erpingham]

Isn't there a bog deposit of weaponry that could be a defeated comitatus? I recall that as being German, in period and with'large' shields?
Roy

Could be Ejsbøl Mose, 200-400AD? 

From Denmarks History - The Roman Iron Age


Ejsbøl Mose in the outskirts of Haderslev had been the sacrifice bog for the local tribe since shortly after birth of Christ. Perhaps the tribe was Ptolemy's Sigulones or the Syegas mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Widsith poem. About 300 years AC a large weapons sacrifice took place. One hundred years later yet another sacrifice took place, which, however, did not include the whole army's equipment, but only the grandest thing, among others costly magnificent swords with sheaths and matching belt, gilted silver buckles and strap fittings; all of very high artistic quality, but also systematically destroyed.

It has been estimated that the defeated army consisted of about 200 infantrymen led by 9 mounted officers. Their weapons consisted mostly of spears, lances and shields. The lances had 2-3 m long shafts made of heartwood. The shields had a diameter of 60-80 cm. There have been found found 6-700 arrowheads, which were between 9 and 15 cm long, it is said, indicating that archers were an important part of the army.

There are several major finds like this, the biggest probably Illerup Ådal  Note in this description the words "shield buckle" has been used for "boss".  There are two volumes of the excavation report on the shields from the site but I can't find a summary anywhere.

[Erpingham]

One line of reasoning I've seen (can't recall where), is that the small shield was correlated to raiding action, being more mobile, though the later example of the vikings clearly shows that raiding and medium to large shields weren't incompatible.

Different shields for different uses is a possibility, though why raiding rather than, say, cavalry v. infantry?  If we look at our image evidence, we have several images of cavalrymen with smaller shields (Sutton Hoo shield foil, Repton, Aberlemno stone (if those are Northumbrians), Franks casket).  Not saying cavalry is correct interpretation but the "raiding" idea seems plucked from thin air.

I think we have three main interpretive threads

1. Different roles e.g. cavalry, raider, skirmisher
2. Different status e.g. younger/older, poorer/richer, elite/common
3. Deliberate making of undersized shields for grave deposition.

After a quick rummage through the evidence, I think I'm currently tempted as follows
Early bucklers have been exaggerated in importance.  Most shields are in the 50-70cm range - smaller than the Viking average but not so much so to strongly imply loose order tactics.  Larger shields seem to go with higher status, so may be there to create an impression not just for fighting.  Unlike poorer warriors, these high status fighters may have had a "prestige" shield which was buried with them and something a little handier e.g. for mounted combat.  The younger/older question could be settled by more detailed matching of small shields to the age of the person they were buried with.  Richer/poorer may show in the grave goods, again matching from individual graves.  We can't totally discount 3, but as no-one seems to be suggesting other grave goods were made specially to bury, why just shields?

[Imperial Dave]

nice summary Anthony, I am inclined to agree that its not cut and dried. 3. may be a red herring......?

[Erpingham]

nice summary Anthony, I am inclined to agree that its not cut and dried. 3. may be a red herring......?

To me, yes, but I can't definitively dismiss it. 

[Nick Harbud]

I would advise going for the larger shields for no other reason than they look more impressive on the wargames table. 

[Imperial Dave]

I guess the other thing to consider is the lack of uniformity in Saxon warriors equipment as there was no state run armoured working from 'blueprints for standardisation of sizes

[aligern]

There's an element of disagreement there Dave. The archaeologists have put together typologies of shield bosses which show clusters of form and that very likely derives from function. That suggests that at any one time fighting style(s) is a commonality and so is kit.Even if its just fashion there would be strong silarities. Also it is likely that specific groups within the tribe produced weapons and shields and thus had a common style.
Its perfectly possible that there were different weapon sets and thus different sizes of shield or sword/ sax within groups of fighters, but it is most likely that they are grouped together either by tactical role as say a group of skirmishers ir shield wall, or that tgey fought as teams with sub group roles within the team, so a leader might have men around him with large shields and heavy spears and , in the back ranks and operating on the flanks men with lighter shields and more missile weapons, perhaps with an archer at his rear right shoulder sniping at prominent opponents.
Roy

[Imperial Dave]

fair points Roy. Its a definite discussion point and maybe there are clusters of similar armour within familial or tribal sub groups but I cant see that there would be exact uniformity across all troops of say Wessex - there would have to be some variation?