Vikings didn't use shield-walls

[Erpingham]

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.

[Anton]

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.

[Andreas Johansson]

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".

[Erpingham]

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"?

[Duncan Head]

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"?

On 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.

[Anton]

Thanks for that Duncan, Phillip Rance is always very interesting.

[Bohemond]

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.