The shape of shields

[RichT]

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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?

[Andreas Johansson]

"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.

[Andreas Johansson]

Who, and if Essex's figures may be believed, Andalusians used heart-shaped shields. I have some painted red ...

[Justin Swanton]

"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.

[DougM]

Pictish incurved square.

[Erpingham]

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.

[Andreas Johansson]

Speaking of Macedonian shields, we had a multipage thread 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.

[Erpingham]

Trying to think of anyone who used square shields?

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)

[Mick Hession]

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

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   

[RichT]

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?

[Justin Swanton]

The isihlangu, the Zulu war shield, used to hook aside an enemy's shield so an assegai could be buried in his chest.

[Erpingham]

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).

[Andreas Johansson]

There was a 15th century square knightly shield, with a notch for the lance.  Note also it folds out at the top and bottom.

Picts?

Thanks. Seen both types before, but memory wasn't cooperating.

[RichT]

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.