Early Saxon bucklers: still valid?

[Yin Shao Loong]

What is the current thinking on the size of shield employed by Early Saxons in Arthurian/Late Roman Britain of the mid- to late 5th century?

Recent thinking seems to hold that those Early Saxons employed a buckler-sized shield, employed both offensively as well as defensively, and only later employed a larger round shield as well as shieldwall tactics. Notable proponents appear to be Dickinson and Härke, and this has been taken up in wargaming via WAB's Age of Arthur and in figure lines from Gripping Beast and Musketeer/Footsore.

Of course, there is some pushback against this thesis. One example being from this re-enactor (complete with recreations of both small and large shields): http://thethegns.blogspot.com/2016/03/shields-how-small-is-too-small.html

The key tactical argument from the above post is this:

It is not impossible that smaller shields served some kind of purpose in looser, skirmishing combat. A small shield has a number of advantages; certainly cheaper and easier to manufacture, requiring fewer planks, it also has fewer plank-joins, therefore potentially being stronger. All shields trade off protection against weight, and a smaller shield could allow a warrior to be more manoeuvrable in loose combat, and could conceivably be made thicker and therefore more reliable in battle, while still being light enough to not exhaust the warrior using it. Dickinson and Härke note, however, that as shields grow larger over time, they also grow thicker. There would seem to be no evidence that smaller shields were indeed built more robustly; the opposite seems to be true.   It is, further, worth repeating that a small shield can protect little of the body at any given moment, and certainly cannot be interlocked with neighbours to form a shield-wall.  While it is conceivable that a small shield could be used in a dynamic, 'point-defence' fashion, even for the well trained, such protection would surely be more taxing for the user while also introducing a greater element of chance. Why not just use a larger shield?

This reasoning seems to rule out the mobility advantages of a smaller shield and attributes smaller shields to convenience for burial rites.

Stepping out of the tropes of dark age combat, I recalled ancient Iberian warfare around the time of the Second Punic War which saw the skirmishing caetrati fighting 'sword and board' with small caetra alongside infantry using larger caetra or scuta fighting in phalanx. At least for the Iberians it wasn't a choice of either only small shields or only large shields for their tactics, but a mix of both.

Conceivably an unarmoured Geoguth or Duguth may derive considerable mobility benefits from a small shield. A mail armoured Gedridht could be slower and better protected, although I can see arguments for both larger and smaller shields for this category of fighter depending on whether they fought in line or in a looser fashion.

Is current thinking: A) all small shields; B) all medium/large shields; or, C) a mix depending on fighting style?

I realise, of course, there is much that is murky about this period and sometimes one just has to make a judicious guess.

I ask this because myself and a friend are about to embark on a Dux Britanniarum campaign and there is the perennial question of which figures to purchase and how to equip them. Gripping Beast provide the option of using either bucklers or larger shields.

[Imperial Dave]

a really good question.

My point of view is that the default position for Early Saxons is medium to large shields for line infantry. Even if not employed in a shieldwall type formation, a reasonably large shield is required to give adequate protection in the absence of body armour (which is normal for this period).

I cant remember the source but read somewhere that size of shield in burials isnt necessarily a reflection on the size of the ones actually used in battle but am happy to be corrected by others

[Erpingham]

I cant remember the source but read somewhere that size of shield in burials isnt necessarily a reflection on the size of the ones actually used in battle but am happy to be corrected by others

I think this comes from Dickinson and Harke.  Though I confess I haven't read it all.

The problem with it is it assumes a society which made fully functional small shields for burial purposes but owned big shields for battles.  This would not be just the wealthy (who seem to be buried with bigger shields anyway) but the very moderately endowed.  Given the labour involved in a shield and the materials, is it likely everyone had two shields?

This monograph may be of interest, giving details of the shields from the Sutton Hoo site (and a good run down of what archaeology can tell you about shields if you look carefully).

[Imperial Dave]

thanks for the link Anthony.

I also it comes down to fighting density and styles.

Question, do we have any contemporary evidence for shield size in Northern Europe at the same time?

[Yin Shao Loong]

Thanks for the points and links thus far.

I also it comes down to fighting density and styles.

What is the current thinking on this?

[Erpingham]

Question, do we have any contemporary evidence for shield size in Northern Europe at the same time?

I found this in a piece on Viking shields

For comparison, dimensions of pre-Viking shields: from pagan Anglo-Saxon graves (23 examples) 42 to 92 cm diam. (Dickinson and Härke 1992); Thorsberg moorfind, Denmark (7 examples, Roman Iron Age) 65 to 104 cm diam. (Raddatz 1987); Välsgarde, Sweden (3 examples, Vendel period) 84 to 110 cm diam. (Arwidsson 1986).

[Erpingham]

Also this, from a little later,

Secondly, the few eighth-century shield remains which have been discovered testify that Frankish shields of the period were indeed round or oval, although the known specimens were somewhat less than 80 cm. in diameter, ranging from 52 to 70 cm.

Earlier Merovingian shields have also been found but I don't seem to be able to locate any detailed reports.

[Imperial Dave]

Thanks for the points and links thus far.

I also it comes down to fighting density and styles.

What is the current thinking on this?

To be honest, not sure myself although possibly the shieldwall, closer density model proposed for mid and later periods probably still holds true to a degree and maybe the earlier period is more aligned to 'standard' tribal infantry models. I would still propose that shields would need to be and probably were of a medium size rather than a buckler like size. More than happy to be countered by those with more up to date knowledge

[Imperial Dave]

Also this, from a little later,

Secondly, the few eighth-century shield remains which have been discovered testify that Frankish shields of the period were indeed round or oval, although the known specimens were somewhat less than 80 cm. in diameter, ranging from 52 to 70 cm.

Earlier Merovingian shields have also been found but I don't seem to be able to locate any detailed reports.

Question, do we have any contemporary evidence for shield size in Northern Europe at the same time?

I found this in a piece on Viking shields

For comparison, dimensions of pre-Viking shields: from pagan Anglo-Saxon graves (23 examples) 42 to 92 cm diam. (Dickinson and Härke 1992); Thorsberg moorfind, Denmark (7 examples, Roman Iron Age) 65 to 104 cm diam. (Raddatz 1987); Välsgarde, Sweden (3 examples, Vendel period) 84 to 110 cm diam. (Arwidsson 1986).

thanks for the links. 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?

[Erpingham]

The interesting one for me is the Frankish one.  Unfortunately, I've no idea of the sample size.  But it does compare reasonably closely to the A/S size range (A/s has some smaller and some larger, perhaps indicating a larger or more diverse sample).  But we know the Franks used shieldwalls at least on occassion.  So can we reject shieldwalls just on the basis of shield size?

[Imperial Dave]

we cant reject it but smaller shields make it more difficult to form effective shieldwalls especially if the users lack other body armour

[aligern]

Perhaps both were available and the smaller shields were used by young chaps who threw javelins, operated on the foanks, or rven dropped back to reinforce tge rear and that when burial required arms a choice was made of what shiekd to give.
There is some evidence that there were two different A/S weapon sets , a thick spear and a light spear javelin, or two light spear/ javelins. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the thick spears correlated with larger shields, swords and being older or higher stateus.
There also, of course other available weapons, franciscas , angons and varying sizes of seax.
My suggestion would be that dense units have the larger shields and stouter spears and more mobile units fad smaller shields and nore chuckable weaponry.
There is the shield on the Repton stone which is being used mounted and shows a smallish shield. Of course it would nake sense for such a warrior to have a different larger shield for dismounted work.
Franks casket shields look a decent size and well dished.
Roy

[Mick Hession]

Shield bosses from Dublin Viking graves from the 9th century mostly follow Scandinavian models indicating larger shields, but a minority include much smaller bosses that don't occur elsewhere. Dublin graves also include many spearheads that are much smaller than Scandinavian patterns, indicating that at least some individuals probably adopted local fighting styles,some of the time.

These burials happened over a 60-70 year period so both styles co-existed. They were also of relatively high status individuals, it is believed, so it's not simply a matter that poorer warrior used lighter equipment.

However in Irish literature Norse shield walls seem prevalent in pitched battle so local methods may have been a preference for raiding warfare only. In pitched battle  individuals who possessed lighter Irish equipment either swapped their gear (unlikely IMO) or fitted in to the shield wall like everyone else.

So not directly relevant for A/S warfare but an interesting parallel, I think.

Cheer
Mick

[Andreas Johansson]

Perhaps shield size made little difference for rear ranks anyway?

[Erpingham]

There is the shield on the Repton stone which is being used mounted and shows a smallish shield. Of course it would nake sense for such a warrior to have a different larger shield for dismounted work.
Franks casket shields look a decent size and well dished.

This is where we have to tread carefully. Here is the Brailsford cross. 


Similar position to Repton but supposedly later and on foot.  Does this mean small shields in Derbyshire?  Or artistic convention?

What about the Middleton Cross?  Is this a buckler or was there just not space in the composition for a full sized shield?



Or these Vikings?



I suspect we may see in art a reduction in shield size to avoid dominating the composition in some cases.  But it may mean that small shields were part of the mix over a wider area and timespan.