Shield weights and construction

[Erpingham]

As suggested by Nick Harbud.

Here's a starter for ten on Viking Shields

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_shields.htm

Addition :

The work on medieval shields is said to be

Kohlmorgen, Jan Der mittelalterliche Reiterschild. . Karfunkel Verlag. 2002.  A lot of it is (probably illegally) here :

http://michael-engel.io.ua/album325285_0

This is also interesting :

https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/BMTRB_5_Bullock_et_al.pdf

[aligern]

Read the BM technical bulletin with interest.  In their reconstruction of the grave that contains a shield the authors deduce the shield diameter from the distance from the boss to the perimeter of the grave. However that is to jake an initial assumption that the shield lay flat across the warrior's head and I doubt it did.bThe clue is the two pairs of decorative studs which are shown as being eccentrically placed on the shield rim. That would be rather odd, because even a slight imbalance on the rim of a circular object being yeld centrally will be uncomfortable as it will try and twist the disc of the shield. Far more likely that the pairs of studs were pkaced in symmetry and that the reason for their dispoacement is that the shield was always pkace on edge and the ornaments dropped down vertically once wooden face of the shield rotted away. The shield couod thus have been a fair bit larger in diameter.
Roy

[Duncan Head]

The Kasr el-Harit shield, or Fayum shield -  see this extract from Travis Roman Shields - has been estimated at 10kg/22lb (based I think on Connolly's reconstruction).

First of a series of posts about the hoplite aspis at http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/aspis.html

[Nick Harbud]

The 10kg weight for a Roman scutum might be based on the Duras Europas shield.  The descriptions I have found give its height, depth and that it is constructed of 3-ply wood.  However, I cannot find any mention of how thick the wood is.  Notwithstanding, assuming the wood is poplar, or something of similar density, one can calculate that it is 12mm thick or 4mm for each ply.

Interestingly, this appears to be one of the heaviest shields around, being heavier than a hoplon (7.3kg) or the larger pavises (8.8kg).  This might explain all those stories of its wondrous powers of protection.

[aligern]

I recall it was Phil Barker who, years ago, suggested that Late Roman troops had heavier shields and therefore wore less armour than earlier Romans. There is a logic to this as a man can only carry so much (though he dan always carry less) and a decision to stop missiles further away from the body might well mean  increasing shield weight and thus precipitate the need to lighten other areas such as body armour. Similarly carrying darts in the holliw of the shield will add to the load and suggest that weight savings  be made elsewhere.

Of course, if one was to adopt longer mail, a heavier shield and thus add to weight he  might become less mobile and have to stand on a hill to fight?

Roy

[Mark G]

Wouldn't all that weight on the left arm severely unbalance the man though?

[Jim Webster]

Wouldn't all that weight on the left arm severely unbalance the man though?

It would, but there again if the shield is longer and the bottom can rest on the ground except in the short period of actual combat, the man might be more rested and better able to cope with the unbalance?

Jim

[aligern]

A. guige strap would help too with weight taken across the shoulders.nSome manuals give Byzantine front line infantry huge shields, but the role envisaged is a stationary one, almost pavise lije.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

I wonder how much of a role missiles like the angon and spiculum might have played in the adoption of heavier shields.  These pilum-equivalents, hurled by men with musculature superior to that of the average legionary, might have highlighted deficiencies in the traditional shield which had sufficed up to that point.  One recalls how a bit of determined falx-wielding by the Dacians had led to up-armouring of front rank legionaries, an adjustment which lapsed once Dacia was conquered.

If larger, or at least stronger and hence heavier, shields were brought in during the reign of Caracalla (which seems to be the time when legionaries largely laid aside their armour) one would have to ask what stimulus existed at that time to prompt such a change.  The campaign against the Alemanni in AD 213 could be considered the stimulus for such a change, although one would have to add the rider that Caracalla does not seem to have been entirely rational in his military adjustments: he remodelled three legions as a Macedonian phalanx for his Parthian campaign because of his fervent wish to be seen as another Alexander the Great, a comparison not upheld by his undistinguished military record.

[aligern]

Creative points as always patrick, though:
If the new situation is the use of spicula and bebrae by the barbarians then why does not the use of shields by legionaries in Rome's extensive civil wars change because they are facing pila? It appears that the casualties to winning sides in such battles are not that high which is why Mark and I felt that the pilum was not a great dealer of death, but more part of a weapons system that disabled the opponent's shield first. I really wonder if  upweighting the shield would make any difference to that.

I thought current state of play was that the Roman infantry did not abandon its armour? But if we believed that they did is it not likely that their own explanation, that it was due to the troops disliking the weight? Perhaps, if it happened at all, it was to do with moving faster.?

[Patrick Waterson]

If the new situation is the use of spicula and bebrae by the barbarians then why does not the use of shields by legionaries in Rome's extensive civil wars change because they are facing pila?

If the widespread barbarian use of 'heavy throwing weapons' had anything to do with the adoption of putative (and as far as I know still unproven) adoption of heavier shields, I would put it down to these weapons being used by men with musculature, mass and throwing energy which noticeably surpassed that of the average Roman.

I thought current state of play was that the Roman infantry did not abandon its armour? But if we believed that they did is it not likely that their own explanation, that it was due to the troops disliking the weight? Perhaps, if it happened at all, it was to do with moving faster.?

Having done a bit of digging (primarily into Cassius Dio), Caracalla seems to have let the discipline of his soldiers slide, but the question of armour is more elusive.  The WRG 6th edition army lists emphatically eschew metal armour from Caracalla's reign, but Vegetius (I.19) writes:

"From the foundation of the city till the reign of the Emperor Gratian, the foot wore cuirasses and helmets. But negligence and sloth having by degrees introduced a total relaxation of discipline, the soldiers began to think their armor too heavy, as they seldom put it on. They first requested leave from the Emperor to lay aside the cuirass and afterwards the helmet. In consequence of this, our troops in their engagements with the Goths were often overwhelmed with their showers of arrows. Nor was the necessity of obliging the infantry to resume their cuirasses and helmets discovered, notwithstanding such repeated defeats, which brought on the destruction of so many great cities.

Troops, defenseless and exposed to all the weapons of the enemy, are more disposed to fly than fight. What can be expected from a foot-archer without cuirass or helmet, who cannot hold at once his bow and shield; or from the ensigns whose bodies are naked, and who cannot at the same time carry a shield and the colors? The foot soldier finds the weight of a cuirass and even of a helmet intolerable. This is because he is so seldom exercised and rarely puts them on."

Vegetius thus dates the abandonment of armour to Gratian's reign, although he does not specify whether metal armour persisted beyond Caracalla.  The latter is recorded (by Dio) as doing the following:

"He organized a phalanx, composed entirely of Macedonians, sixteen thousand strong, named it "Alexander's phalanx," and equipped it with the arms that warriors had used in his day; these consisted of a helmet of raw ox-hide, a three-ply linen breastplate, a bronze shield, long pike, short spear, high boots, and sword." - Dio LXXXVIII.7.1-2

Whether raw oxhide helmets and three-ply linen breastplates became standard in the Roman army of Caracalla's day or were limited to his 'phalanx' is a question I leave for the more knowledgeable.  Vegetius however does clearly link the abandonment of armour with lack of familiarity, acclimatisation and exercise by the troops, not with any wish for increased mobility.

[Erpingham]

Returning for a moment to Anglo-Saxon shields and the theory that they were smaller, I note new pictures of the helmet plates from the Staffordshire Hoard show warriors with small shields. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/32880447

Could be driven by compositional considerations, of course, but you get similar on Sutton Hoo and Vendel helmets.

[Mark G]

Or the state not affording mercenary wages and conscript armour at the same time?

If armour becomes more complicated, unable to be home made. And you hire loads of Germanic types who self equip.  Wouldn't you cut down the state armourers too?
Making it harder to fully armour your less field ready troops for actual battle, as opposed to policing?

[Dangun]

I wonder how much of a role missiles like the angon and spiculum might have played in the adoption of heavier shields. 

Sadly, no evidence, just a thought bubble....
And i'm not sure how early we are talking about in comparing earlier and later Romans...

But might it also have something to do with how the Roman's were armed?
Arm yourself with a short sword, and you may armour yourself expecting that the enemy will be closer.
Arm yourself with a spear/pike, and you expect the enemy to be further away... or you have a problem.

Similarly, I can imagine that shield design might change if opponents, instead of standing off and prodding at you with a spear, stand close and swing overhead with a blade.

In aggregate, if I am armed with a short sword, and expect opponents wielding blades, I want a shield with a square, metal-reinforced top edge and I'll probably crouch behind it.

[Jim Webster]

Isn't there also the theory that shield sizes increased in England as the wielders moved from a more 'individual combat' style of fighting to a situation where you defied the enemy from behind a wall of linked shields.
The move from Warband to Spear in wargames terms 

Jim