Did the Vikings and Anglo-Saxons fight in Shield-Walls? | Metatron Response
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2022
- In a recent video, the UA-cam channel, the Metatron put forward the idea that the shield-wall was nothing more than an invention of later media rather than an actual battle formation used by the Vikings and other peoples in the Early Middle Ages. This is based on the research of Rolf Warming who makes similar claims. In this video, I take a closer look at the literary evidence for shield-walls, particularly at that found in Old English (Anglo-Saxon) Poetry such as the Battle of Maldon.
Old English/Old (East & West) Norse/Gothic Translations by James Combe:
www.fiverr.com/jamesaccombe/t...
The Metatron's Video:
• Are Viking Shield Wall...
Interview with Rolf Warming:
sciencenordic.com/archaeology...
Anhaga Compounds in Old English:
www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2439...
Shield-Walls in Waldere Article:
www.jstor.org/stable/48578418...
Music Used:
Holmgang - Danheim
Sunday Dub - Kevin MacLeod
Raid the Merch Market:
teespring.com/en-GB/stores/hi...
Go Fund My Windmills (Patreon):
/ historywithhilbert
Join in the Banter on Twitter:
/ historywhilbert
Enter the Fray on Facebook:
/ historywhilbert
Indulge in some Instagram..?(the alliteration needs to stop):
/ historywithhilbert
Send me an email if you'd be interested in doing a collaboration! historywithhilbert@gmail.com
#Viking #History #Documentary
Let me know what you thought, are you persuaded by my arguments from literature that the shield-wall probably was a thing? And would you like to wear a shield-wall on a History With Hilbert T-Shirt?
you forgot to put James' link
@@BenjaminBlodgettDev It's the first one in the description.
Awesome
@@historywithhilbert146 oh its because Im on mobile
I'm just not seeing anything that would imply the shields are interlocking like a phalanx. Seems like this poetic language of shield walls could just be how they described a tight battle line. Am I missing something?
Our Viking group shield wall is formed with the left arm holding the shield parallel to the ground, left elbow near the left edge of the shield and the hand holding the handle at the boss. The person on the left overlaps the right side of his shield with the person to the right. Therefore the elbow of the person on the right also supports the right edge of the person on the left. We have found this to be quite effective and difficult to break, as well as very natural to form. You form a side-by-side line with the shield simply hanging by your left side. On the command "Shields Up!", the arm goes up, with the overlap forming naturally.
Now as to whether they had multiple layered shield walls, with high and low shields, we do not know, we have not had enough people at one time to try that out. But a single row of shields, armed with axes, backed with a row of spearmen, is quite formidable and easy to do, so I can't imagine why they would not do it.
Arrows can still get between the gaps of the round shields. Even easier than arrows getting in the gaps of the round shields is spearmen. Your spearmen are in the back. Theirs are in the front. They'll just move their shielded warriors to their weapons carts to get spears, and their spearmen will have an easier time reaching your shield warriors, since their reach is further than your backline spearmen. Moreso if your shield warriors are holding a spear with one arm while the enemy is able to use both arms. The leverage difference results in your warriors hoping for lucky strikes and multiple mistakes by the enemy.
Using a shield wall makes it easy for the enemy to know your troop movements and how to surround you, since your movements are now none. It's a desperation tactic when you're not using the proper kind of shields to properly defend against arrow fire or are wildly outmatched by their cavalry. You're pinned down and are desperately waiting for reinforcements to unpin your position. Tales of shield wall use as an offensive tactic by the Nords are valiant legends of troops that appeared to be losing to the enemy, but instead used a defensive desperation tactic to cleverly gain the favor of the gods and miraculously win.
@@commode7x Excuse me, but why do you think that the opposite army of the time (if I understand you correctly) wouldn't also be behind a shield-formation? Shooting arrows into the gaps is possible but even easier is it to shoot arrows from those gaps, and then your army of two handedly wielding spearmen would get pretty f***ed, also given that from behind the opposing line there would be javelins or even stones flying in. It's like saying, "because there were gaps in knight's plate armour, that armour was pointless".
With a nordic boss-gripped shield you can displace an opponent's weapon by pressing against the tip or letting the shield swivel sideways or down to force it next to you or into the ground. If done from the right angle and direction the lever is big enough that even with both hands on the spearshaft you couldn't hold against it without disengaging and trying to put against a new attackpoint. But in that time the opponent or his buddy already rammed one of their spears into your gutts.
Also nordic shields were much lighter than roman scutums, so assuming that an army behind a line of overlapping shields would be halted and stuck in a "desperate" defensive position is pretty ridiculous. I'd say you can walk pretty easily with a shield that weighs 3 to 5 kilo. You even have to move forward because nordic shields are not designed to resist repeated, perpendicular blows. The tactic of closed battle formations throughout history was always to hold it's own line as long as possible while moving forward, pressing the enemy and conducting attacks to breach the opponents line. If that line has only offense but no defense (keep in mind: bodyarmour was a rare commodity in that time and area) it's quite easy to do that.
@@stefanfranke5651 Very on point comment I have a historically accurate viking shield I can run long distance and clime with that thing. Its only 3.3kg and 88cm. Verry strong to the hide glued to the planks makes a composite materials if you try to cut into it the weapon will get stuck. Shields dont splinter the hide and glue keeps it all together.
I'm thinking in the same way that as kids we come up with meme-like plays for football or hockey, rugby or whatever, then in an age where kids ran around and played with wooden swords a little more than we did as kids - then a variety of these would appear with a little variation here and there.
Our?
I suspect that to be able to make warhedges, was the reason for the Knights of Ni to demand that King Arthur should give them shrubberies.
"War-hedge" makes me think of interlocked shields with spears sticking out of it.
Well there is a similar formation among the scottish, I think? That has the word hedge or something in it, but it's a circle?
@@Seth9809 the schiltron?
@@041mikey Yes!
@@041mikey I've heard that formation referred to as the "hedgehog" for some reason.
It's likely irrelevant, I think that animal might not be from Europe.
@@Seth9809 hedgehogs are native to europe I think, we certainly have them in ireland
This was an unexpected crossover! Appreciate your control of the Old English languages and how you went about this. Will be interesting to see if Metatron does a response video as he often does
This is a really well put together response. It really shows the depth of your education and the difference between hard study and real understanding of a field Vs casual study. Nothing against Metatron but he has clearly taken a one off study that sounds pretty flawed and decided because a supposed expert wrote it then it's a sound argument.
I normally like his stuff but sometimes he can be a bit click baity. Can't really blame someone having to deal with the UA-cam algorithm.
@@101Mant I don't think Metatron did it for the clicks. I believe he is genuinely interested in debunking myths and counter misinformation on history and for the most part he does good work, but in that case I think he got a bit overconfident and relied on a few studies and his general knowlege on norse mythology. But beeing an academic (Linguistics tmk) and well versed in research doesn't equal beeing an expert in a given field like Old-Anglistic or Old-Scandinavistic who might has more sources and studies at hand than what you could find in a couple of days of online-research. It's the classic trap you might fall into when you want to counter one exaggerated claim and therefore move to a standpoint that is the extreme opposite.
@@101Mant Yeah his videos and titles especially have been getting more and more clickbaity for a while now
In the context of Scandinavian fighting tactics, I am always dissapointed that the Boar Snout or "Spear Head" tactic isnt brought up. Most armies would face eachother in a standard wall line, but the Scandinavians would often mass their troops in the middle and bum rush the enemy, breaking through and attack the flanks from the back. It was what made their enemies call them aggressive in combat. Would love if Hilbert covered that quite unusual tactic.
Many armies understood the concept of concentrating force on a single point of the line. It's basic maths, if you have a thousand men stretched say five lines deep and you attack a single point with 500 men and keep the other 500 on the wings to threaten the enemy if they move to the center, you can break that five men deep line. Same thing the Thebans did against the Spartans, make one wing of their formation that by the time the Spartans had been used up there was still a majority of Thebans ready to turn the flank ...
Yes, it's called Svinfylking which essentially means Swine array, or Swine grouping, or Swine formation. Swine/svin of course meaning boar or pig. In modern Swedish/Danish/Norwegian the word for Boar is Vildsvin/Villsvin (Wild Swine).
@@rotwang2000 I am not saying that it is innovating. Quite the opposite. Every media is treating a standard shieldwall as if it is something amazing. Problem is that they attribute something everyone did to the Scandinavians without addressing that their tactics was quite unusual. The bum rush tactic werent used much and happened once every few 100 years.
@@johan8969 I recall the discussion two decades ago that the Shieldwall was not mobile because they weren't sufficiently trained to move as a group, as opposed to the "clever" Greek Hoplites who understood philosophy and mathematics, who went to the gymnasium three times a day and therefore could even charge a whole mile in perfect formation and still beat the snot out of the enemy at arrival. Whereas the shieldwall was seen as a maneuver of desperation with most men fighting where they stood with no sense of tactics or finesse.
The opposite concept portrays vikings like special forces doing a WWII style raid with advanced parties murdering guards, killing guard dogs, perform critical sabotage, divert attention and establishing a safe landing ground for the main force to attack unnoticed and then quickly set up a perimeter to catch all those who tried to escape ...
It's sometimes really hard to decipher history, the wedge formation is considered by some to be a suicide formation, but then there is this account of a late Roman wedge and their commander getting all kinds of praise, promotions and rewards for being the first into contact.
We know the broad strokes, but the details will be debated over for a long time ...
@@rotwang2000 Sure... I'm just pointing out that a basic Shieldwall was used by everyone in Europe at this point, yet it is depicted as some mindblowing innovation that defeated the Anglo kingdoms. There is no depth to tactics in most illustrations of Scandinavian combat even though the Boar Snout manoeuvre is one of their trademarks once you look into it.
Didn't Harold Godwinson fight William the Conqueror (himself a Norse descendant) and his cavalry at Hastings using a shield wall?
That's what I was thinking too, like that was the reason the Norman's couldn't break through and thus needed a way for Godwinson to break his wall instead
Yes. The Battle of Hastings was fought to a draw until Harold Godwinson died from a stray arrow.
That is my impression as well. As I remember the battle, the Norman horsemen could not break the huscarls formation. It took Harold Godwinson's arrow in the eye wound and the feign retreat of the Normans to break up the formation.
@@torfinnzempel6123 Such a tragedy, rip anglo saxons
@@torfinnzempel6123 No it was fought to a standstill until the fyrd broke ranks and chased after the Norman cavalry who then wheeled around and cut the Saxons down after they broke formation. King Harold and his Housecarls held the center of Senlac Ridge and the Housecarls never broke rank, they stood like northern iron against the franks never breaking or running, they knew that holding the ridge was key to success of course Harold’s Housecarls where his professional bodyguards/soldiers while the fyrd where semi professionals formed from wealthy farmer’s families instead of a dedicated military class like the Housecarls.
When the Norman cavalry retreated the fyrd thought they where victorious and gave chase and broke the shield wall to do so and that’s why the Saxons lost. We are not sure how Harold died actually as there are several different accounts, an arrow in the eye being like one of three different accounts of his death.
Thank you for making this video! I find the Battle of Maldon to be quite interesting!
I think you're criticisms of the testing method perfectly encapsulate my own misgivings of a lot of common-sense knowledge coming from reenactors that I've encountered. Thank you.
The weapons used dictate the tactics used. Yes they formed shield walls. They probably had several different formations used depending on the conditions.
Makes sense against missile weapons and perhaps against Calvary, such as at Hastings.
@@lmonk9517 yep, though neither the Anglo-Saxon's nor the Nordic/Scandinavians used much cavalry, prefering heavy infantry instead. Of course, Heavy Infantry tend to do very well against cavalry. The battle of Hastings for example was faught to a draw until King Harold died from a stray arrow.
@@torfinnzempel6123 no, Hasting was a draw until the Normals feigned retreat and the Saxons broke from their strong shield wall formation on the hill to chase them. Harold died later as the Saxon line collapsed an he and his bodyguard were surrounded, and probably not from an arrow but killed by mounted knights.
Yeah, but I've seen a lot of sources indicate that the Vikings preferred to use the sword or axe.
The boar's snout is a great compliment for these weapons.
@@Seth9809 Axes are great in use in and on shield walls. If I was a Viking , an axe would be my preferred weapon, but I would carry a spear too and use it first. They found has many spear points has axes in their graves.
I really appreciate these types of analysis and discussion videos - thank you!
17:18 The Germanic obviously had many formations and at least as far back as ancient times. Here from Ceasars Gallic wars book 1, chapter 52 and is described quite similar to how the testudo works:
"Accordingly our men,
upon the signal being given, vigorously made an attack upon the enemy,
and the enemy so suddenly and rapidly rushed forward, that there was
no time for casting the javelins at them. Throwing aside [therefore]
their javelins, they fought with swords hand to hand. But the Germans,
according to their custom, rapidly forming a phalanx, sustained the
attack of our swords. There were found very many of our soldiers who
leaped upon the phalanx, and with their hands tore away the shields,
and wounded the enemy from above. Although the army of the enemy was
routed on the left wing and put to flight, they [still] pressed heavily
on our men from the right wing, by the great number of their troops.
On observing which, P. Crassus, a young man, who commanded the cavalry
- as he was more disengaged than those who were employed in the fight
- sent the third line as a relief to our men who were in distress."
There is also the "boars snout" or "wedge formations" mention several times in various sources.
Caesar also mentions the Helvetii and their allies fighting in a phalanx
Mmh interessting, but it doesnt make sense/ needs to be interpreted, bc testudo wasnt a Melee formation at all.
Germans imitating Romans
There is a poem called Hákonarmálum recorded in Heimskringla by Snorri Sturluson that mentions Skjaldborg. The poem is supposed to be composed by Eyvindr Skáldaspillir in the 10th century and theres a good argument for recognizing if a poem is indeed that old by looking how it is linguistic composed. It would be similiar how modern people would qoute Shakespear as the Saga Writers qoutes Skalds in 9th century and onwards. Snorri often wrote about Skjaldborg in the Viking Age but theres an interesting view emerging amongst historians that the sagas often would reflect the current time they were written in. Snorri did not only wrote about the viking age, but also about the Norwegian Civil war which he was witness to and in the battle of Gøta elv in 1159 he describes a Skjaldborg was formed around king Hákon herðibreið (broad-shoulder). The Battle began at Konungahellu a city up the river were king Hákon was station. The rival king Ingi Kryppill (Hunchback) sailed up the river to the city and lured Hákon out to the sea were a larger fleet awaited them. The fleet of Hákon placed themselves in a small bay north of the mouth of the river and there they formed a shieldwall. Now this was a seabattle and the description of Skjaldborg that Metatron have put forward seems a bit difficult to apply on sea maybe. The interesting thing here is that not only did the norse use the skjaldborg in the viking age, but were still using it in the civil war era (1130-1260).
Shields and spear are very important. In the military museum at Akerhus(in Norway) you can see the different mandatory outfits that the farmers needed to have trough time from the Viking age and it was spear, shield and a axe unless you were very rich (then you would have a sword too suggesting that it was less important). Not before the invention of gunpowder did this change. If you could not muster a spear in a good enough condition you would be fined.
I have seen a video which shows that the spear is much the better weapon in a shield wall and that only when it breaks up would the sword come in to play.
@@lenrichardson7349 not that i have numbers of the effectiveness, but i think the reason is a spear gives more reach, is much easier to fabricate, and use less steel.
The axe is usable in war, but has more utility as it can chop wood if you need to get through a palisade, mend a wooden ship, splinter shield in battle or make firewood.
Both of these weapons does not rely on sharpness to the same degree as a sword and is easier to keep in a ok/good condition.
The spear is probably also better against cavalry and could be thrown in some cases.
Same legal requirements for free farmers and town militias in the lands of the HRE and probably most of Europe with the only change that in the late middle ages body armour (mostly breast- and leg harness was compulsory for proper citizens) somewhat superseded (but never eliminated) the shield. The spear is the king of the battlefield from the bronze age right into the age of gunpowder and it was the most prevalent weapon whether you were a knight (lance) or a humble foot soldier.
The farmer is not a Viking. Viking was first a verb.
@@lenrichardson7349 The sword is better than the axe or spear for attacks while on horseback.That is the better combination for evading attack and picking off the enemy, one at a time, while they're scattered. But a shield/spear wall can easily stop and kill a horse. Or multiple horses (I imagine).
Excellent video Hilbert - loved it. Extremely well thought out arguements and point.
Excellent work as ever! I wonder will Metatron do a reaction video...
Excellent video and scholarship, 10/10! Various types of shield formations were well known throughout the warring world and the Vikings had a huge amount of contact with other cultures so they definitely would have taken notes and been familiar with not just one but multiple types of shield-wall configurations.
Thanks for this. Really nice analysis. One thought about a test of hacking at 1 spot on a shield to split it, the viking era shields were held in the fist, rather than strapped to the forearm the way later shields were; and since they were circular, if a warrior noticed that his enemy was hacking at the same spot on his shield in an attempt to split it, all he need do is rotate his wrist a couple of degrees and that spot is now safely protected by his buddies shield in the shield wall. And it is possible to safely and comfortably rotate your wrist upto 90 degrees if need be.
Thanks Hilbert for another interesting, nuanced video!
This is my first time seeing you and I really like your video. So a shield wall with Viking age style shields can be done in certain context but there is a big issue. Its really hard to protect your legs in that formation. In a skirmishing or dueling sense you can avoid leg attacks with footwork but you can't do that when your in a line with interlocking shields. Now you can do like show in the movies where one group kneels down and the others put the shields overtop but now that formation is locked in place. It can only move if the front line crawls on the ground. Unlike the Roman Testudo they could move relatively well in the formation because the Scutum protected the body and legs. If a formation can't move then it will get flanked. Now I believe the kite shield was design to be able to protect the legs in both formations and on horseback. This is also the time we start seeing maillie chausses to add more protection to the legs.
Now I think the Norse did something like a shield wall when they fought in formation but it wasn't as strict or rigid as interlocking shields. The front line of the forces would have their shields out and they probably used it to help block and defend their friends because it was pretty big to do so.
The group is the protection.
Stars can ne parried and Cuts, cant be done with a spear in your throat, if you get that close, you can stab/ slash over it, but so can the enemy
The war hedge could represent a collection of men wielding spears, from behind their shields, hedgehog style. Surely the shields above and in front would be a defence against projectiles, not just a frontal assault by men on foot and cavalry.
Always love seeing more 1st hand sources dived into! Wonderful stuff! My reenactment and martial arts experience gives me certain biases, but I present those and accept them. I think that there were probably individual practices by commanders that were being cross-pollinated, but were more icing on the cake. I think the technology and polities of the periods result in largely the same thing. I feel as though Shield Walls are not what we see in Hollywood film, but something similar. The men stand in ranks with shields, weapons ready, and effectively creates a No Man's Land right in front of them. If a less organized rabble approaches this "Wall of Shields" they will be overwhelmed. Another organized force will do the same, and they'll pick away at each other until something happens to break the stalemate.
I personally don't think they interlocked shields as a general thing, but maybe did in certain situations / under direction by commanders. A detail we'll never really know, but can be fun to play out in reenactment / reconstruction / martial arts!
Nice nuanced approach to the topic, good work again Hilbert :) I have a question though: although there is some historical evidence that suggests the shield wall may have been a thing, when did our modern concept of it begin? I.e., what sources are pop culture like the TV show Vikings or Last Kingdom drawing upon?
Very interesting video. I have been persuaded by your arguments. I also did understand the point you're making about war culture: as in conventions and norms when fighting, even when they don't make the most sense. However, when fighting mainly with spears, the shieldwall seems like a reasonable formation.
And in a shield wall a spear is held over hand, to thrust over the top of an opponents shield aiming for the neck or shoulder
I always enjoy your work.
Very persuasive. Excellent work
There the most obvious and famous recording of a shield wall.
During the battle of Hastings the Anglo Saxons formed a shield war atop Senlac hill, the Normans recorded that they couldn't penetrate the wall because they weren't used to fighting against a proper shield wall.
The Normans either accidentally routed and regrouped or deliberately pretended to rout in order to goad the Anglo Saxons to break formation and chase the "fleeing" Normans.
Thx for yet another interesting video
Great information, as always from you. Thank you again!
Gilbert, hats off!! Brilliant analysis!
Fascinating indeed and extra points for the beautiful language lesson!
Thank you! The Rolf Warming/Society for Combat Archaeology theses have been taken at face value by far too many people. In my experience it comes from combat-focussed reenactors who are primarily concerned with being good at single combat. As such they assume the way they fight is how the Vikings must have fought. They also tend not to target faces which is a key failing.
As you say, spears would be the primary weapons and you would be poking at eachother from some distance.
Here's another Welsh poetic reference for you by the way from Y Goddodin:
A man went to Catraeth with the dawn,
About him a fort, a fence of shields.
Harshly they attacked, gathered booty,
Loud like thunder the noise of the shields.
A proud man, a wise man, a strong man,
He fought and pierced with spears,
Above the blood, he slew with swords.
In the strife, with hard weapons on heads.
In the court the warrior was humble,
Before Erthgi great armies would groan.
Really excellent! With the technology of the day the shield wall makes perfect sense, especially for the Anglo-Saxons. Man for man the Vikings were probably on average better warriors, so working together in the shield wall would grant the advantage to the Anglo-Saxons, verses the one on one that would have taken place otherwise. I am probably prejudiced as Cornwell is my favorite author and the Last Kingdom series would loose a lot it not for the shield wall.
It's super useful to have a language expert in this space !!
Great video, looking forward to Metatron's response to your response :)
Great research. Your words make sense. 🙏🏻
Myself, my husband, and some of our friends do reenactment and do demonstrations of Viking Age fighting at events. Your point about the difference in techniques is spot on. In one on one fighting the techniques used are COMPLETELY different to how you fight in an actual formation. There are also a ton of benefits to being in a wall style formation, not the least being that you are MUCH better protected that being on your own.
People knew from at least 1000+ years before the viking age that fighting in close formation was basically essential in any large scale battle. The Greeks did it. The Romans did it. The Germanic people would have picked it up I am sure!
@@blakewinter1657 the Romans are the exeption, they fought as individuals, closing in to stike around (over under) the shield wall.
Sounds like a bunch of fat Americans in costumes making up their own battle tactics. Please upload videos of it so I can laugh
I know it's very popular these days to just completely disregard the sagas as a valid source and while i have my opinios about them being alot more reliable than they are made out to be, however unreliable they may or may not be they were still written by people with experience of medieval Northern-European warfare, people who personally saw, lead and fought in battles and they mention the word "Skjaldborg" or shield wall timen and time again, both Egils saga and Njáls saga even make some effort to describe them.
Stupid to disregard completely I think. Lol. Academics in Scandinavia generally don't do that I think. But one has to be source critical o/c. But I mean, sagaes always said that norsemen went to North America, and based on the descriptions there, archaeologist actually found a settlement. And North America is huuge, even if you only count the North Atlantic part of it. Most sagas are probably less "fantastical" than that particular saga..
Generally the sagas are thr kinda source that can point a direction but you really need atleast one other source to really count on it kinda like wikipedia tbh lol. Mostly an ok source but when it isnt it super isnt
Very excellent and informative
Another excellent video! 👍🏻👌🏻👏🏻🏆🥇
Övermod is overconfidence/arrogance in Swedish :)
Hello Hilbert. I got an interest in this from wargames at university. I had watched such as Michael Wood on TV as a kid. I switched from Napoleonic to get a game. Back then figures were generally 25mm. This meant I could make my own by using rubber molds. One I used as a similar figure was Roman Auxiliary.
The rules dictated tighter packed Saxons than Vikings, and which dictated the pose. This was to reflect weapon choice and mobility. Vikings could form wedge like the Norman cavalry of later time.
As a kid I picked fruit from hedges near the moors. My impression was not solid but prickly.
War hedge reminds me more of a wedge of spears.
Shield wall makes me think of packed in Saxons at Hastings.
As metal got expensive we switched to 15mm allowing the switch to Hoplite, Macedonian and later Roman, so encountering the formations and weapons you describe.
You may have a look at Wargames Research Group and Society of Ancients?
I would argue we barely even need literary or pictographic evidence to conclude that they fought in shield walls, we just need the shield itself. The only purpose for a shield that size is to form a wall.
I haven't seen Metatron's video so I don't know how strict his definition of "shield wall" is. Was the phalanx a shield wall? Did the romans deploy a shield wall?(Not testudo, the standard formation) I would say those are both shield walls and thus so are the norse and anglo-saxon formations.
If he's referring to a thing you sometimes see on the screen where the men in the second - and sometimes even third - rank join their shields to the wall, I would agree with him. Unless you have a bionic arm you're not gonna be able to hold your shield that far from your body for more than a couple of seconds.
Metatron is referring to the tv/media shield wall formation.
Also metatron talks in his video about the shield form Wich it's not only for defensive formation as you said but also for fighting one vs one
@@vippixel8942 as mentioned there are two very different ones shown in media and TV. Also in a one vs one scenario holding your shield forward has many advantages, you know the direction of attack so you can close off more of the angles by having it closer to the enemy. In a skirmish or battle attacks can come from multiple directions and their may be mission fire, holding and using it as you might jn single combat is a really bad idea as it opens you up to attacks from other angles. You also are unlikely to have the room to move in around. The fact you can use it differently under circumstances outside a battle doesn't mean you suddenly stop using it in sensible ways in a battle.
I also see no hints that scandinavians used their shields like a roman testudo but not because it would be too straining to hold it over your head for a while. In fact nordic shields (or germanic shields in general) are meant to be held at an outstretched arm for the length of a fight. They were mostly made of thin planks of light wood like pine or lime with rawhide glued to the front and back only weighing roughly 3 to 4 kilos. That's light enough for a trained man to hold for an extended timespan but they were too light to take hard, perpendicular blows without beeing damaged or destroyed. Arrows might penetrate deep enough to ijure the wearer if he wouldn't stretch out his arm wide enough (the iron boss prevents the hand getting hit). In contrast to the roman scutum the purpose of this shield is to be engaged dynamically, glancing off attacks to the side by simply letting it swivel into the direction you want to displace the enemie's weapon. You can bind the opponents weapon with it and even hit the opponent with the rim. It's not at all a passive barrier to take repeated blows but rather your second defensive and sometimes offensive weapon.
The shields weren't heavy though, and arrows were very much a problem for the region.
It would be interesting to investigate the Scottish schiltrons are they an evolution of the earlier shield wall to combat the cavalry of the medieval battlefield?
Thanks very much for the video,sir
Great video, thank you.
Thanks for watching!
@@historywithhilbert146 I agree and you reading and going through the old English was a nice touch.
Wow excellent analysis, thanks for this great video. So did they use shield walls? Almost certainly, the alternative would be what...just a scattered hoard of men? Or exclusive use of the boar's snout? However it is still possible that the specific form a shield wall takes has been misunderstood. Close-order line formations are pretty much the basic building block of pre-WW1 warfare. But does a tightly packed line of men with shields = shield wall? Probably yes according to the "Vikings" (and their contemporaries), though I suppose they call it the "War Hedge" in this case.
But what about the interlocking shields and overhead shields that creates a domed wall, which is portrayed in Vikings and The Last Kingdom, etc? We know interlocking shields were used by greeks and romans, do we know if this was used by the norse and anglo-saxons? And is THIS formation a shield-wall, or something else? I think it starts getting into semantics at a certain point, as to what qualifies as a shield-wall. But again, just a close-order line formation probably counted as a shield wall (or "war hedge") to the people back then.
While there in close order, that's not tightly packed like a rugby scrum, instead every one has 3 or 4 feet of spaceing in order to fight and move easily.
@@SuperFunkmachine good point, though idk if there are any sources that describe exact spacing? But yeah there’s a big different between standing in a line with a couple feet of space around you, and standing shoulder to shoulder
@@damonhawkes2057 I'm projecting 17 century pike square spaceing backwards, there's no earlier written sources.
Its not to say that spacing has to be fixed, you could have the rear rank fill in and be shoulder to shoulder with shields fixed at the cost of being locked in to the wall an unable to fight freely.
@@SuperFunkmachine yeah absolutely a good point, the realities of maneuvering wouldn’t have changed at a fundamental level.
BRO! Please tell me how you got the letters to switch around like that when going from Anglo-Saxon to Modern English!!! @ 5:22
Question: later helmets had sort of 'stoppers' below the eye holes, angled pieces of metal, so an arrow or spear that luckily found it's way there would be deflected to a higher part of the helmet / out of the way fully. Did the Anglo-Saxons, Germanic warriors or Norse ever try that or is that something that wasn't found on the helmets we did discover?
I think culture is highly important and isn't included enough when looking at history. The level of testing and science that we are used to today. You will see in a lot of trades a respect for the past but gains we have made in just my lifetime increase what can be done. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't have been very good at what they did since there is so much of what we do that has so much more complex reasons than what meets the eye. It's nice to hear someone bringing it up.
I’m pretty hyped on this I always thought my name designated medieval peasantry but now I have a claim to fame. I’m an anhaga a member of the fyrd! Also Isn’t haga related to to hag as in witch?
1. If I remember it correctly saxo gramaticus also mentions shield walls 2. Also I believe there is an islandic saga somewhere where odin tells how he knows how to walk behind the row of shields of his allies and cast spells against his enemies so that they lose the battle. I am too lazy to look this up right now.
A Viking man can impress women by demonstrating how he takes his longship up a canal to deliver seeds which can be planted in fertile places.
He must shorely worship Freyr in this instance
... Wow. Your so clever.
@@iceetmarne3571 Thanks
(*You're)
People don't explain to each other things that they already both know. Saying the Vikings didn't use shield walls because none of the poems describe how they work, is somewhat akin to saying that Georgian England didn't quarry stone, because Wordsworth never described how it was done.
I always thought of it in terms of a battle formation. Like the phalanx.
I thought you provided multiple examples of historical descriptions of fighting behind a wall of shields.
One of your better videos, from what you've shown I think it's pretty conclusive that it's clear from text that we're talking close order.
And while Bayeux shows overlapping shields, Oseburg is another story.
The image you show is a reconstruction, as the originals are pretty far degraded. And I cannot really find an imagine of one of the original pieces that looked like that. Please tell me if you know where to find these.
My thoughts.
I was thinking of Lindys video on the spear, that it would have less range in the 'throwing' grip. And as there is no room on the side for the spear. I assumed one would have to use a 'throwing' grip. However, you can kind of just hold your arm higher, although it won't have as much force.
Also from the Bayeux tapestry, the shields aren't locked, just overlapping, one behind the other. Which makes it not so static.
And given Tacitus' account of a wedge a thousand years earlier, perhaps we should imagine one central man with a left and a right wing. The people of the left wing having their shield behind that of the person on their right, and the opposite on the other wing.
About the overhand use of the spear, I beg you to watch the Thegn Thrand videos about it, cause lindybeige unfortunately didn't understand the use of such grip. There are also good Hirdmenn channel video about it.
Because projectiles at the time have trouble penetrating the shields. During antiquity we had artillery engines to counter shield walls and medieval period too we had cannons. A shield wall is very vulnerable to portable artillery (as long as it’s well protected artillery). The artillery will force the enemy to engage
@@Me-yq1fl cannons are invented around 900 a.d. but not available in Europe yet. The lack of armor piercing artillery is why the Anglo saxons used shield walls. In antiquity they had artillery for this
I'm hoping Jackson Crawford and Simon Roper weigh in on this eventually!
Well said, Hilbert! I'm sure you're right!
This was very interesting
I think the discussion is more asto, did they interlock shields or not and do we have direct evidence of this.
Obviously though, as can be told from their own words, they formed a close order formation with shields.
I love me some metatron but I certainly agree with you here, Hilbert
aye can you talk about the Zapatista or National Liberation Army ?
Intersting, as a german speaker i understand bits and pieces of old english here and there.
I was always told that hogback stones are in the shape of longhouses.
I think there’s two more points I haven’t seen in this discussion. 1 is training, training levy’s or non professional soldiers in a shield wall is much easier than Roman separated styles of fighting, and the weapons used are not suited to more individualistic styles. 2 is what is the alternative? Fighting individually is much more risky to the individual, what other method would you use in large engagements? A spread out force could not break a shield wall and the boar snout formation seems to be designed to break up defensive formations like a shield wall.
Offensive choice of tactics might differ from defensive choice of tactics. Terrain-divorced (naval) defensive tactic of choice might differ from terrain-wedded, even if ad-hoc re-defined (after yielding a stream-bank). Cheers!
20:00 - That's a very celtic way of saying that. "Cheer up, carry your face above, lad. Raise up your fookin' spears, m8s. Over your fookin' heads."
excellent video! i commented on Metatron`s video that he was also ignoring pictorial evidence like the Bayeux tapestry. In it you see clearly the use of shield walls by both the normans and the saxons. Metatron made an excuse saying the battle of hastings was the late viking age and that normans and saxons werent vikings. He also said that kite shields and round shields are different and therefore it didnt count as evidence. I think he is clearly wrong and you are right, not only counting the fact there is evidence that round and ktie shields were used at the same time by both sides of the battle of hastings.
Would be silly for norse or anglo-saxons not use "shield walls" for their advantage... like... BRUH
The classic reenactment shieldwall is rarely an advantage, its an objectively bad formation.
@@bloodypine22
Nah, looks cool I would use it
I think it's preposterous that the shield wall tactic would of been casually disregarded by _armed combatants using shields_ but at the same time your average viking raid probably didn't require much ground level tactics against an abbey full of priests of village full of peasants, as such the rampaging viking trope is more commonly depicted in historical bias.
interesting video, I like this topic
There are images of Pictish warriors in line with their square shields held in front and their spear’s held overhead.
Have you ever seen a Pennsic field battle?
Pennsic War is a yearly event run by a fighting group called SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism)... you might find it helpful/useful/interesting. :)
Humans instinctually gather together against a stronger foe. Though ancient, battling vikings had common sense. Of course they turtled. They were a team.
Just a quick question, how would someone fight effectively with a hand axe in a shield wall? I’d imagine it would be pretty awkward to fight with one
You're honestly more on defense at that point. Basically youre gonna spend time hooking oncoming spears so that hit your shield and stick, leaving them open for your buddy to kill them. You aren't dueling in a formation, it's a team effort.
Hack can be as effective as stabbing, also as it has the force to break trough an helmet etc. But one of the main advantage of an axe vs shield is hooking the enemies shield/leg etc exposing him to your neighbor or the Daneaxe/spear from the second line.
It's a painful axiomatic truth that Old Norse battle descriptions can be painfully terse.
”Men Ribbungane braut hol på huset over dei og stakk inn med spyd, og dei fall der med manndom”.
Basically, the rebel group broke into the house, stabbed with a spear and they manly fell. They're not lacking in brevity, that's for sure.
317 Noregs kongesoger: Bind 2. 1979: 114.
Med manndom.... I like that expression. Like, "in a manly fashion".
I would have to see some of this in Beads early Anglo Saxon history.
Good video, and a persuasive argument. Apologies if others have already made this point, but, when Metatron (whose videos I also enjoy) says that we would expect contemporary sources to give a specific explanation of what a shield wall was, I think his argument is illogical. If the shield walls WERE commonly used - and your own video makes a fair argument that this was the case, then I would NOT expect any find many explanations. A sizeable percentage - perhaps even the vast majority - of the male population would already have fought in or trained for such formations, therefore there would be no point 'explaining' to such an audience what a shield wall actually consisted of. When today we read a news report of a car crash after someone failed to stop at traffic lights, we don't generally get an explanation of what 'traffic lights' are and how they work. That's not because traffic lights are a myth it's because almost all of us simply know what they are and how they work.
So while a scarcity of detailed explanations of shield walls wouldn't in itself prove they existed, it actually doesn't at all support the idea that they DIDN'T. In fact, your video has provided a fair bit of support for the idea that they DID exist, and that it was well-known and well utilised - hence no need to explain in detail what they were every time they were mentioned.
The poet-warrior is a very common trope in the sagas, so I don't see why you would think poets did not see battle.
In fact, I think it's more common that they had, than hadn't.
I'm convinced!
Also whacking into a shield? For the tests? Makes a big difference how the shield is built. Was the shield properly covered in reinforced linen or leather? If you don't make the shields properly, they will split. If you make them right, then they can take a number of direct axe blows (see the testing done by Hurstwic). And as you ponit out, in shieid wall combat, they would mostly have been stabbing with spears (and perhaps the reason dane axes were popular was to combat shield walls).
Whenever I hear those kinds of takes on ancient and pre-gunpowder warfare, I can't help but wonder what kind of alternative methods they're proposing. There's some, like champions dueling or the no-man's-land theories, but I find it very naive to think that people would avoid close contact with an enemy how those theories suggest. If they're not suggesting that, then how would you go about making the best use of shields and spears in hand-to-hand combat?
This was exactly what I was thinking. What alternative is there, really?
What's the no- man's land theory?
@@Lanval_de_Lai basically that the formations would not actually make contact with each other, or at least avoid doing so, leaving an empty space between opposing formations. I've only ever heard it be brought up as a possible alternative to how ancient warfare was conducted compared to how it was portrayed in art and literature rather than anyone actually believing it as a hard and fast rule. I guess the idea is that people are unlikely to actually walk into spears? Or maybe that infantry formations did less close fighting than one would assume? I don't know, but I don't think anyone actually thinks it's true.
@@fematrailer Oh thanks! Now I understand :)
@@fematrailer yep. This explanation holds no water. To counter this, one simply has to look at 18th and 19th century warfar and say, no one actually fought like is described because it makes no sense for people to line up in tightly packed lines and shoot at each other at point blank ranges for hours at a time. We know people did it, because they trained for it.
You can get people to do any number of dangerous and potentially stupid things if you teain them hard enough, for long enough, and then tie their ego to doing it.
It is very hard to imagine the Vikings, who were primarily armed with spears and shields and who emerged in the post-Roman migration period, not using some kind of basic line for defense and perhaps also attack. An infantry line if they're largely armed with shields and spears effectively becomes what we would think of as a shield wall. But the way it is presented in certain TV shows like The Last Kingdom (with multiple tiers of shields) strikes me as something the Romans might have experimented with, but the Vikings wouldn't have done.
I do question the practicality of what I've heard whereguys with Dane axes would stand in the second line and wield their axes over the shoulders of the first line of shieldbearers.
How else is someone supposed to fight with shield and spear in formation? Charge at each other chaotically like it's a Hollywood film? Can't believe Metatron would argue this, shieldwalls are as old as organised warfare between nations itself.
I feel like hedge could be construed as 'line' hence maybe wihagan means 'battle lines'?
A hedge isn't just a line. It's a closely woven structure of densely packed shoots and branches. Like a shield wall....
Nice work, sir. *laughs in war-hedge
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Roman Testudo formation one that was known, written about, but not necessarily widely used? Could this be the case for the Shield Wall; that being it was used, attested to but not a widely used formation?
I believe it was used for protection from missile fire, but never for actually direct combat. So troops moving up to a wall during a seige, but not just moving around the battlemfield or fighting.
@@101Mant Makes sense!
Maybe, however my feeling is that it is an essentially defensive formation, it doesn't seem to lend itself to a charge or mobile attack. It isn't the only formation but it would be secure if unwieldy
The idea that Roman infantry tactics were never defused throughout Northern Europe is very suspect IMO. As for no specific explanation of the shieldwall being included in the poetic sagas, they aren't tactical manuals. Outside of classical military studies manuals such as Vegetius's 'Epitoma rei militaris' how often is the phalanx explained in Roman or Greek poetry?
In my opinion the text does not make that much sense if you see Scyldburh as a round formation around their leader: the leader is dead and his friend flees on the leader's horse and only THEN the men in the circle notice the leader is gone? Your explanation makes more common sense to me, but take into consideration my experience on whatever battlefield is zilch, nada and nothing.
Scyldburh sounds a lot like the Swedish "Sköldborg" which = Shield castle
oh lol you explained it
I think it's just their way of describing soldiers with shields forming a line in tight formation, which is pretty standard in any ancient or medieval warfare. There is nothing indicating that the shields are interlocking or that soldiers in the second line put their shields over their head like we see in the vikings TV show for example.
When every warrior has a different weapon (spears, swords axes) and different levels of armor (from no armor to the best armor available) it makes sense to describe them with what they all carry : a shield
Hedge warrior... Is this the possible origin of the term "hedge knight?" Like a knight without a horse fighting on foot in the formation?
I believe hedge knight was an insult, because a hedge knight was usually considered a poor knight who travelled from place to place for employment, so it would be joked that they slept under hedges because they were little more than armed vagabonds
Speculating absurdly here - any chance "hedge knight" derives from anhaga as much as the commonly accepted etymology?
I know that you talked about linear warfare, but I want to add some things.
1. People spread out across the field are nigh impossible to command. Controlling a block of many men was already a large challenge, but to imagine that an officer could control those men jf they were spread out across 300 meters of land is absurd.
2. Cav was still a thing at the time, and scattered men with no cohesion or communication are perfect targets for cavalry.
The battle of Clontarf in 1014 the biggest Viking battle in history took place against the Irish and it's recorded in Irish literature of the Vikings locking shields together in formations during combat. Furthermore the Vikings traders were as far as Greece and even Arabic tribes, so there's no way that they didn't study other warriors tactics. Especially the Romans. They would've been well aware of the Roman shields being used in formation for combat.
The battle of Clontarf is not even close to being the largest "viking battle" in history.
@@prinz5816 it is one of the bloodiest for sure.
Have you other example of fierce battle lead but norses during these time ? Please, share with us :)
Have you the direct reference? Could be very interesting to share :)
Seems silly to assume shieldwalls weren't a thing for the Norse since almost all armies that had shielded infantry from the Achaeminids to the Romans used shieldwall formations to hamper enemy advance.
sounds right