Vikings didn't use shield-walls

[Duncan Head]

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_

[Imperial Dave]

Interesting article. Nice find Duncan. Presumably the order may have been slightly looser to allow for individual fighting rather than shieldwall

[Erpingham]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

so no desire to leap back to WRG LMI quite yet then! 

[Mick Hession]

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 

[Patrick Waterson]

so no desire to leap back to WRG LMI quite yet then! 

I would be inclined to have Vikings default to close order against close order opponents and loose order against loose order opponents.

[Erpingham]

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.

I 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

[Anton]

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.

[Dangun]

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?

[Erpingham]

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 linked from the shieldwall article.

[Imperial Dave]

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!

[aligern]

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

[Imperial Dave]

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......

[Patrick Waterson]

Duncan pointed out this paper 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.