If I remember my research correctly (I once decided to make some shields, and wanted period accurate ones), shields of that era were actually quite thin. The wood itself was usually about 8-10mm thick near the center, thinning to around 5mm near the edge. This thickness was supported by archaeological finds, but I seem to remember hints from sagas that some were made thicker. The rims were indeed made of leather or rawhide, although they were actually sewn on through holes drilled in the wood. I've never seen iron handles used for them though.
I'm not actually sure how its made, but here in Denmark we tend to cover the edge with the type of hide they make dog's chew toys out of - its sort of semi transparent. You soak it in water to make it workable, put it on the edge (often attached wit small nails or the like) and once it dries, it becomes tough and hard like plastic or hard rubber. Its much more durable than the regular soft hide I seem to see on reenactment shields from most other places. I don't know why we use this material, or rather I know why, but not if its historically accurate, its just how I was taught to make them. And we do also just use a shaped wooden grip rather than metal. At least where I'm from.
@@LordVictorHalgaard rawhide. I've made rawhide, starting from a hide purchased from a slaughterhouse, still covered in hair and manure and meaty bits on the the inside. I don't recommend it.
My theory around why modern replica shields are thicker is pretty simple: we don't have to march with the things for days on end. From pure battlefield perspective (not dueling, that's a different topic), modern thicker and heavier shields are better than lighter ones, they can withstand more abuse and don't have to be replaced as often. For the amount of time a battle lasts, a kilo or two is well worth the trade-off. The problem comes when it's time to go to war and you can't just pack them inside a car. Add to that that stage combat abuses weapons and shields in ways that they weren't meant for, and abundance of heavy but durable shields suddenly sounds a lot more understandable.
In the Hollywood Golden age of "Knights in Shining Armor" - 1954 - there were three big movies released. They were Ivanhoe, Prince Valiant and Black Shield of Falworth. In each of them the heroes and villains used a shield. But the shield was always sheet steel. I saw all these movies when I was a kid so I grew up always thinking that swordsmen carried these thin sheet steel shields. I thought that as the battle wore on the shield got more and more bent until it was like a crumpled newspaper.
There is a old Norwegian saying, there is no bad weather, only bad clothing. so as a Norwegian i have to give a advice, there is no heavy weapons or shields, just get stronger and a way to get stronger is to train with the shield, like holding it out straight, lift it up and down or whatever exercise you need to do but do it with the shield and after a while it will feel lighter as the shielding hand get used to the weight. I love your show, it's one of the absolutely best on UA-cam and you better never stop 😊
Skall has a major advantage in doing his unboxing videos, in that he gets Cara to do the actual unboxing, so he can provide colour commentary without the distraction! By the way, in the US, bins are generally called 'garbage bins,' or 'trash bins,' to distinguish them from 'recycling bins.' At least, in the parts of the US that I've lived.
6.5 llbs is well within the range of Viking shield weights. That's roughly 3kg, where most Viking era shields could go up to about 7kg. The Clonbrin shield made entirely of hide, apart from the metal boss and only 59 cm in diameter (23") weighed about 1.7 kg. That's about half the weight of your shield. If it was a plank shield, faced with ox hide (as per Athelstan's laws), it definitely would be within that weight range. Edit to add: There appears to be an ideal diameter of shields for an individual's body, which tends to be double the length of your elbow to fist.
To be exact, you want it to be big enough so that if you are holding it flat against your arm, the edge should be around 1-2 centimeters past the edge of your elbow.
About the thin bosses. Nobody is intentionally aiming for the boss, they are aiming for you. If your shield is in the way then they would just aim for another part of the body. Even if you could get through in a few hits, and that was common knowledge, no self respecting warrior is going to waste his time chopping away at a hunk of metal on the off chance he will hurt his opponent's non-dominant hand.
Use both garbage cans and garbage bins in Canada, bins though are what we refer to the more squarish containers and refer to cans as the round cyclinders. Bins are a lot more common though.
Having used a large variety of Viking-sequel modern made shields for reenactors, I can tell you now that 6 lbs, and 24 inches is quite small and quite light. It seems that a lot of reenactors make them to fit their own arm length. My own for example is 30 inches, and weighs over 14 lbs. but as far as I'm aware the common weights ranged from about 2.5 to 12 lbs, depending on the size, thickness of the boss, thickness of the wooden slats, and the number of layers of linen used to hold them all together.
You mentioned that earlier shields were only about 24 inches. I was wondering what you think of the video Roland Warzecha did talking about sword and shield combat? In it he says that you needed a shield to be about 80 - 105 cm to function correctly in many of the binds and arm pinning maneuvers that they do. So 24 inches (60 cm) would be a bit too small.
I think Roland W has posted some medieval art that shows giuge straps being used in battle rather than just for carrying the shield. Getting two hands on the sword while still having the shield hang in front of the left arm. Although I think they were triangular shields rather than round, center-grip.
In the US we call bins either waste bins, "garbage cans," "garbage containers," or if they are the big ones behind an office building you can climb into, a "dumpster."
Bin =Trash bin or can. in the US. Bin could mean any kind of container. We just add trash onto it to qualify what we are talking about. Like the shield BTW.
I've been doing a quick online survey of Italian rotellas held in various museum collections & it appears 60cm was the preferred diameter for these as well.
If you pinch the handle between the webbing of your thumb and forefinger and keep your fingers mostly straight you will have more control over the shield, and reduce fatigue.
What design might you go for do you reckon? You could always have a go with a stencil (or by hand, if you're a painter) and do the gold on black Schola Gladiatoria logo. Perhaps not particularly Norse or Anglo Saxon, but if it's not for reenactment I reckon it would do the job nicely.
I believe Viking shields could be up to 8 or 9 lbs, but they are the ones that are 3 ft in diameter. The centre grip looks odd, but the shield looks awesome!
scholagladiatoria The barrier is about 0.4% carbon. Albion swords are typically made from 0.75% carbon steel, though you can find carbon steel from 0.45% and upward - actually the upper range for most swords would be about 1% outside of more complex tool steels. Some higher-carbon mild steels can obtain slight hardness after a really severe quench.
I think the difference between 'iron' and mild steel, is that iron would have impurities, whereas steel has a crystal structure. Mild steel might be either a complete misnomer, or it could be in reference to a kind of actual steel produced in the middle ages.
A note about painting the shield. If the pattern you paint on the shield allows your opponent to see whether your grip is horizontal or vertical, then your opponent knows how to hit your shield in order to rotate it in your hand and create an opening. I Believe this may be why many Saxon and Frankish shields were either not painted or just painted one solid colour.
Maybe, but they would have to recognize the pattern, (know which is "up") then see it in combat, and then act on it, which doesn't really guarantee victory. I mean if you are focused on trying to beat someone's shield away, they could just hit you back. Also your time may have been better spent looking for existing openings rather that trying to make new ones, since it is much faster to cut at their open leg (then take advantage of that injury), than it would be to smack their shield, then deliver a second blow to the small and probably short-lived opening you have created.
I see your point, however, if you are using a weapon AND a shield, then you can strike the flat of the opponents shield with the edge of yours and attack the resulting opening with the weapon. Both strikes would happen at the same time as you would have the advantage of knowing where the opening you create is going to be. I'm not saying you should beat the shield away, just to rotate it in the hand, doing so would also put your shield between the opponents weapon and your body. I also can't see how the opening would be short lived. If you've got the edge of your shield jammed into the flat of theirs, you would have so much more leverage, the opponents only defence would be to step away. Not a guarantee, (I never said it was) but it could conceivably be an advantage to know on which axis your opponents shield is most easily rotated.
Perhaps if we compare the size of the shield to the size of the population in that period we would observe a contextual larger shield in proportion to their body. I'm just guessing but I'd say your slightly taller than the medieval or dark age man Matt, lol, so you could use a proportionately larger shield?
Could the larger shields be used more to protect from ranged attacks? So in the earlier period they did all the fighting up close but later longbows, crossbows and maybe slings started being used, and I suspect that they would want as large a shield as they could get away with.
a domed design would work well with a center grip shield. one of the biggest drawbacks of the center grip is how easily it'll push when hit on the edges. with a domed design, a spear or a thrust hitting the edge of the shield would more likely glance down the side rather than push into the shield. the shield would also probably last longer in battle too beause more hits will be glancing to the sides than hacking into the wood. my shield is propane.
It could be that the shield bosses were thinner simply due to the process of hammering out the domed shape... stretching the metal like that will thin it out quite a bit. Were the bosses much thicker at the edges where they joined to the shield than at the center?
In the future can you please use also the metric system in your descriptions. I have nothing against using inches or pounds but i think that for those who are used with Kg and Cm it is a bit annoying to do the conversions all the time. Thank you for understanding.
It's a "trash bag" for the "trash can" here in the Southeastern U.S. states. Also, we commonly re-purpose our plastic grocery bags as "trash bags;" I don't know if you use those or do that.
You were talking about how heavy it is and said it wasn't that bad because you don't have to swing it like a weapon, but I have a book with historical weapons found around the world, and there was a German war hammer that wieght 11 pounds, or 5kg. This seemed like a crazy amount of wieght to me, considering it was one-handed and was heavier than a sledge hammer. I guess my point is that 6 1/2 lbs isn't too much. It may be for that kind of shield, but some onehanded weapons wieghed twice as much as that shield (appearently).
11 pounds? That sounds like a ceremonial piece to me - nobody with any sense would have fought with anything that heavy... As for about 6 pounds, that's still kinda heavy - someone else in these comments mentioned that it looked somewhat thicker than the more historically accurate examples, though I wouldn't know enough to say how true that is.
Hey Matt, I'd really love to hear your thoughts on early medieval shieldwalls, when you eventually get the time to do something of the kind. I'd love to hear the perspective of someone with a HEMA background like your own weigh in, since it also seems like you've done some research on the period. Cheers.
Heavier bosses and materials on reproductions makes a lot of sense when you consider most reenactors or HEMA practitioners are going to expect to get a lot of use out of this without noticeable wear. The historical users would probably be accustomed to replacing the planks or pounding dents out of the boss, and would be more concerned with having an easy to carry, agile shield that was durable enough. That's just what I've theorized so far, however!
It was especially easy to guess considering the title of the vid. It´s good to see that you start getting into erlier periods, I wished for that since a long time ago.
How heavy is the boss? It is my understanding that forges of the time could not produce pieces of iron much larger than 1 kg. This is the time of spangenhelms which I also believe were constructed that way due to limitations in the size of iron pieces that could be produced. Also, making the boss thinner would also make for a lighter shield.
The man who teaches us about historical weapons and their use takes a few minutes to figure out he can hold a center grip shield by the center grip. Everyone rolls a 1 on occasion.
scholagladiatoria Where I live (United States) I have only really heard "Bins" Called Trash Cans or Trash Receptacles. And, those bag just called Trash Bags. As for scale of shield. My understanding has been that a good sized shield will be two cubits (as measured by your own body) when it is center grip/boss held. And, when strapped should be one cubit (again by your own bodies measurements). Regarding weight...It could be worse getting something by mail. One 15" buckler that I purchased weighs damn near 6 lbs (not sure if 15 inch still qualifies as a buckler really, but it was advertised as such).
Rim almost certainly looks like leather, not rawhide, which is pretty much useless. From what I know the rawhide was fixed on when wet, then compresses upon drying and gives the shield a lot of stability, whereas leather is probably only of cosmetic value. Can anyone confirm this? I also imagine that if this is just leather, it will be very easily destroyed by attacks blocked with the edge, which does happen eventually. Also from what I heard this size would be on the small end of shield sizes with example of up 1m diameter. Seeing as the shields main purpose was missile defense, that might make sense, but mine is the same size as yours as I much prefer mobility for fighting.
I've been playing Total War Attila lately and I was wondering if they actually had domed shields. They've created less professional style by mixing textures within one unit and one detail is that some of the vikings have domed shields.
Matt, could you explain to me fiore's stance of the queen that has the sword pointing downwards? It seems to me that the stance only allows for baseball bat attacks.
I'm going to watch the second video before I look it up - I think that weight is a little light for a 3'-0" diameter shield. Been a really long time, but I think it should be around 8 pounds. Remember, plywood is lighter then a solid piece of wood.
I have a question :) swords were made a certain way some of the dimensions are from the size of the person using it. Would a shield be designed the same way? Arm length height of the individual etc? Kyle
Could it be that the shields found in graves were thinner because they were specifically designed as grave goods, and the thicker more practical bosses were kept for actual use? I know some cultures used to do stuff like that, where the dead person got miniature or symbolic versions of the stuff they were to take to the afterlife with them, but I don't know if that practise was followed by Franks or Saxons at all.
Ben Kirkby It is possible, but unlike the things made obviously as special burial goods, this doesn't seem to be the case with the spears, axes, swords, knives and shields that they were buried with - they appear to be standard weapons.
At our club we're gonna do some sword & board lessons for fun in the near future, for which we're gonna make some shields of our own. Got any recommendations about stuff like thickness of the plywood, what to use for the handle, etc?
6mm plywood with canvas on both sides with wood glue will give you a very sturdy, light and authentic shield. Wood handels were the norm. Either a board cut and sanded round or a broomstick sanded flat work great. Dog treats are a great source of rawhide to make the edging.
*on a side note, when you do that knife review, can you explain why locking knives are illegal in the UK, here (the NL) locking blades are considered a safety feature.
Thats a small and light shield compared to mine. Mine is almost too heavy. Its 29 3/4in diameter, about 1/2in thickness and weighs over 9lbs lol. It has a steel rim as well. Is this too big? It also came covered in a layer of oil which I thought was a bit odd. The maker is Lord of Battles.
I wouldn't quite say that Skall is an expert at unwrapping. However, he does have one he hires on occasion when the need arises, who goes by the name Cara.
from a blacksmiths point of view, the shield bosses may have been thinner back then due to the blacksmiths lack of materiel, when forging any thing dome shaped its always best to use more then you'd think you need, other wise you will be making it very thin! this might have been more common back then as smithing would have been newer and would have had less knowledge passed down to them compared to us modern black smiths who have centuries of knowledge passed down to us. well thats my guess any way!
Is the size of the shield related to how it was used? Seems reasonable to assume that shields of this size were used for personal protection, while the larger diamet shields were more useful in shield walls. You'd get more overlap and thus a stronger wall. They'd also move the shield less while in formation, so the added bulk wouldn't be much of an issue..
Robert Tauzer i am by no means some one who knows much about this but a wiki search tells me it was used even to the 16-17th century, so i do not think it did die out when you say it did
havtor007 I was talking about larger shields, not like ones in video. Wiki says about aspis /hoplons that they were used in "ancient Greece", the rise and fall of hoplite warfare was tied to the rise and fall of the city-states.
Robert Tauzer en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_wall now to this headline:Decline The shield-wall as a tactic has declined and has been resurrected a number of times. For example, in the Greek and Macedonian phalanxes, as the Dory spear gave way to the sarissa, it became impossible to carry a large shield and so it was abandoned. Likewise, in the Late Middle Ages, the shield was abandoned in favour of polearms carried with both hands, giving rise to the pike square tactics. In the revival of military thinking and tactics that was a part of the Renaissance, military theorists such as Niccolò Machiavelli in his The Art of War advocated a revival of the Roman legion and Sword and shieldmen. But as in the phalanxes before, well-drilled pikemen displaced the shieldmen. The pike square remained in use on the European battlefields of the 16th and 17th centuries, but with the increasing importance of the handgun, it was replaced by the line and column formations in the 18th century. This is text copy and pasted from the page But more over why do you refuse to believe vikings used it? Also do not look up phalinx as that is a specific name for a type of shield wall
havtor007 Oh you mean about shield wall? Well yes, we have talked about big and small shields and how they were used I did not specifically disagree with anything. Shield wall was common tactic in many countries for long time. Vikings did become famous by using of their swords but have used spears and axes as well. Specific hoplite formation and they way of fighting have indeed been made obsolete for long time, how much later shields were similar and were they made specific with spear wall in mind I am not totally sure. Hoplite warfare can only be done against other hoplite formation, not as general way of protecting against cavalry or other infantry at battlefield. Hoplite battles were pre arranged, they had rules, had very few casualties (usually less then 5%) and were feat of bravery and discipline, more ceremonial way of warfare if you wish. Greeks have not executed their enemies /enslaved nations or burned cities lake later became more common, so it was different way indeed.
scholagladiatoria, referring to shield size, correct me if I'm wrong... But shouldn't a Dark Age round shield be sufficient size to protect you from the shoulder to the groin? Or halfway down the thigh? That's what i usually see in depictions and artworks. Also i'd have thought the shields would be quite hefty. Just a thought :)
Daniel Frey that is because there were a lot of suits of armour for children. Quote Matt Easton: "The average height of male Anglo-Saxon skeletons from London is 5 foot 8 inches (Museum of London stats) - when I was growing up in London it was 5 foot 9 inches. So no, they weren't much smaller, just a tiny bit :-)". So actually people back then weren't all that much smaller than today. I am sure scholagladiatoria will support me on that claim
What i'm asking is, each shield would've probably been more or less proportionate to the size of the wielder right? So how does one explain round shields as large as 120cm in diameter? PLUS, i doubt these were designed with comfort and "mobility" in mind to start with. They're SHIELDS. made to protect the body. You're not going to be able to protect much with a small shield. Not only that, but you don't need much mobility when you're fighting in a shieldwall, as was the common formation in fights.
I'm wondering, could it be that the historical bosses were so thin for two reasons. Firstly I'm thinking it made the iron easier to work meaning a smith could create more bosses in a given work day. Secondly a weaker boss would require replacing more often leading the smith to generate more repeat business. I'm thinking of the modern Apple Computers principle here in that as long as the boss holds up to one or two good battles before breaking it's unlikely to be considered not fit for purpose but at the same time each soldier would be returning all the more often to have his shield repaired/replaced?
But it's also possible that they didn't break. I mean nobody is intentionally aiming for the boss, they are aiming for you. If your shield is in the way then they would just aim for another part of the body. Even if you could get through in a few hits, and that was common knowledge, no self respecting warrior is going to waste his time chopping away at a hunk of metal on the off chance he will hurt his opponent's non-dominant hand.
You mentioned being taught about the Viking migration and such in your university and I was just wondering where you went to school and what degree you have. Thanks!
Hey Matt. When talking about that sheilds were pretty small back in the days, do you also consider the fact that people also were a lot smaller back in the days? IIRC the average hight in the middle ages was 160 something?
Lars Egner The average height of male Anglo-Saxon skeletons from London is 5 foot 8 inches (Museum of London stats) - when I was growing up in London it was 5 foot 9 inches. So no, they weren't much smaller, just a tiny bit :-)
Lars Egner It seems, that during the industrial revolution the average height of people took a dip. They were taller before that, and taller afterwards. :)
scholagladiatoria I heard the romans were quite a bit smaller though. I think there was stories about how much taller the celts were than the romans, and how that could possibly affect the morale of roman soldiers.
scholagladiatoria But this is a viking shield, and the first hit on google "The average height of men in Norway in the Viking era, based on skeletal measurements, was 176cm (5ft 9in), with a range from 170-181cm (5ft 7in to 5ft 11in), which was taller than other Europeans during this time." www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/daily_living/text/health_and_medicine.htm
I think that is, unleast for viking shield, a little small, and heavy :/ vikings shield are suppose to be very manipulable and easy to carry on raids, as a fact some of them were thinner on the edges so they weight less. For the size, Warcheska video on vikings combat style. And descriptions of the sagas, finally the archeological evidence.
I just about to say, modern industrialized steel usually has lower than 1% of a carbon content, whereby mild steel and carbon (spring) steel usually have 0.25% and 0.45% carbon contents respectively, therefore, as your dialog box says, mild steel and carbon (spring) steel have about a 0.2% difference between their carbon contents. High speed tool steel, which is considered to has the highest carbon content, as 0.95%., whereas some special purpose allow, such as ferro carbon titanium, which is not considered to be a type of steel, has more than 1% of a carbon content, and cast iron (quite raw iron), which is considered to be a type of steel either, has more than 1% of a carbon content as a result of being exposed to carbon during its smelting process.
Great video. Always been fascinated by shields and their use.looking to buy one from this company for display purposes. Happy you cleared up the flt shield vs conical (ish) shield design!
Wow! There's a correction to be made, Matt! The rule of thumb limit between mild steel and "other" is around 0.1-0.15% of Carbon, not 1%. 1% of carbon is in the range of japanese white paper steel, and the common steel for straight razors! And mild steel isn't exactly like iron. Even the few carbon it's got in it makes some difference, for exemple pure iron work hardens much less than even mild steel.
Pure iron would not have existed back then (using the equipment they had), so for them, they would have referred to something that wasn't steel as "iron" even though it wouldn't be pure elemental iron.
Although it's completely unrelated to the shield. A thought came to mind yesterday, and I was wondering whether or not it is practical. Scholagladiatoria has reviewed the Pata sword, and i was wondering if it would be possible to do the same with a mace head. To explain, Could you put a mace head on a full-hand gauntlet and use it practically?
While you could put a macehead on the end of a gauntlet, it probably wouldn't be too effective. First of all you would lose the sort of lever action you get with a handle. You would also lose any finesse and/or reach with the weapon. You could make the same impression if you simply picked up a rock. To sum it up, I would say that you need a more dexterous weapon if you want to create some kind of gauntlet style weaponry. Although there were caestus used, but essentially they just weaponized the glove itself. And even then, they weren't exactly used on the battlefield.
In California we call it a garbage can. Whether it is the big one outside or the small one beside your bed, we just call it a garbage can, and the bags we call garbage bags. You may have done this video already, but how heavy or how massive, and what gauge of steel should a helmet be, at minimum, in order to effectively protect the head from steel sparring? And what is perhaps the cheapest trustworthy mask/helmet for beginners? And an historical helmet with arming cap and padding is sufficient for club practice? I am asking for myself as well as the people I'm serving in my club as the president at my university, and I am trying desperately to get us scraggled and pulled together as we get up to speed in safety.
On the topic of shields shape, It seems that franks around the IXth century used lenticular shields (don't know about Anglo-saxons though) as you can see on the "Stuttgarter Psalter" (it's its german name, I don't know its name in english). But I've never heard about franks or anglo-saxons using lenticular shieds during the migration era
The seventh century Sutton Hoo shieled had edging clasps that suggest some doming of the shield, but whether it was fully lenticular is a point of debate, and of course the seventh century is at the tail end of the early/migration period of Anglo-Saxon history, and the shield seems to be unusually large for the period so again it might not be a typical example of the shape. Later Anglo-Saxon art (roughly contemporary with the Stuttgart Psalter) also seem to show lenticular shields (although I have heard suggestions it may also be an artistic convention to show an obliquely held flat round shield.)
As an uneducated guess, having a wooden shield with a relatively thin boss on it might mean that the shields were disposable upon receiving enough damage. It could also mean that they weren't revered like the sword was, and they were simply used like any other tool.
Up to 3 shields could be destroyed in a duel, so yes ! But a sword is disposable as well when your life is at stake (although Vikings probably valued their sword over their life, but that's a different story !)
Not a bad looking shield for the price, I'd say, but you'll have to let us know how it performs. Could this be a prelude to you doing some videos more focused on armor, as you've mentioned in the past? Personally, I've been more interested in armor than weapons, lately. Also, some things you said made me think a bit about shields in general. Keeping in mind that I know next to nothing about shields, A couple of thoughts: First, maybe the historical bosses were thinner and the shields smaller to keep them lighter. A shield, like a sword, would have been carried far more than it was used, and if your shield did happen to get badly damaged in a battle, (by virtue of being less robust for its also being thinner and lighter) there would presumably be plenty of other shields for you to choose from lying on the ground in the aftermath. Surely you could find one that you liked if your own had been beaten up to a point its integrity was rendered suspect. Second, on a related note, perhaps the shield was not expected to take as many blows as we like to think of it taking. It would do a man little good to try and bash through his enemy's shield, and that may mean that shields didn't actually absorb a lot of impacts. Perhaps they were used more to close a line, so that you could better predict where your opponent would swing, and more effectively parry and riposte with your sword. Just my thoughts; worth every penny you paid for them!
Shield to weight ratio seems very off. A shield of that weight should have a much wider diameter. The handle should be bare wood, from what I understand it should be able to swing around in your hand freely.
Below .45% carbon is mild. High carbon is between .7% to 1.5%...and anything above 1% is going to be wayyyy to brittle for most things. Med carbon is .45% to .6%. You get the idea. Notice the decimals.
A question that often came to my mind when people talk about historcal correctness concerning weapon dimensions. Is the fact that medieval people were much smaller than we are taken into account? Are HEMA weapons created today scaled propotionaly with the dimensions of humans?
Could the shield bosses (probably not spelling that right) be thinner simply because it's easier to hammer the thinner metal into that half sphere shape?
+Girlish Goat You spelled it correctly, no worries. And yes, in a budget reproduction like this the thickness(or thinness perhaps, in this context) is probably dictated largely by the fact the thinner sheet is cheaper and faster & easier to produce into shield bosses. At least that's my guess as someone who has a metal artesan's degree. Thin shield bosses like this could even be pressed into many distinct shapes nowadays without having to spend time forging/cold hammering them, which is a lot more efficient time-wise than getting the forge going and having to hammer each piece out.
If I remember my research correctly (I once decided to make some shields, and wanted period accurate ones), shields of that era were actually quite thin. The wood itself was usually about 8-10mm thick near the center, thinning to around 5mm near the edge. This thickness was supported by archaeological finds, but I seem to remember hints from sagas that some were made thicker. The rims were indeed made of leather or rawhide, although they were actually sewn on through holes drilled in the wood. I've never seen iron handles used for them though.
I'm not actually sure how its made, but here in Denmark we tend to cover the edge with the type of hide they make dog's chew toys out of - its sort of semi transparent. You soak it in water to make it workable, put it on the edge (often attached wit small nails or the like) and once it dries, it becomes tough and hard like plastic or hard rubber. Its much more durable than the regular soft hide I seem to see on reenactment shields from most other places.
I don't know why we use this material, or rather I know why, but not if its historically accurate, its just how I was taught to make them.
And we do also just use a shaped wooden grip rather than metal. At least where I'm from.
@@LordVictorHalgaard rawhide. I've made rawhide, starting from a hide purchased from a slaughterhouse, still covered in hair and manure and meaty bits on the the inside. I don't recommend it.
Matt, you could always paint the Schola Gladiatoria lion on it. Maybe hang it in the background of some videos, provided you can find the space.
" Schola Gladiatoria lion" FOR THE IRON THRONE!! =D
Him:" 99.9% of you guys are propabpy already noticing it"
Me:"Of course. Its a giant nipple."
i realize Im kinda off topic but does anyone know of a good website to stream newly released tv shows online?
@Grant Owen I watch on Flixzone. You can find it by googling :)
@Maximus Winston Yea, been watching on flixzone for months myself :D
@Maximus Winston thanks, I went there and it seems like a nice service :) Appreciate it !!
@Grant Owen Glad I could help xD
Seriously guys, let's get this man a sombrero.
My theory around why modern replica shields are thicker is pretty simple: we don't have to march with the things for days on end.
From pure battlefield perspective (not dueling, that's a different topic), modern thicker and heavier shields are better than lighter ones, they can withstand more abuse and don't have to be replaced as often. For the amount of time a battle lasts, a kilo or two is well worth the trade-off. The problem comes when it's time to go to war and you can't just pack them inside a car.
Add to that that stage combat abuses weapons and shields in ways that they weren't meant for, and abundance of heavy but durable shields suddenly sounds a lot more understandable.
In the Hollywood Golden age of "Knights in Shining Armor" - 1954 - there were three big movies released. They were Ivanhoe, Prince Valiant and Black Shield of Falworth. In each of them the heroes and villains used a shield. But the shield was always sheet steel.
I saw all these movies when I was a kid so I grew up always thinking that swordsmen carried these thin sheet steel shields. I thought that as the battle wore on the shield got more and more bent until it was like a crumpled newspaper.
There is a old Norwegian saying, there is no bad weather, only bad clothing.
so as a Norwegian i have to give a advice, there is no heavy weapons or shields, just get stronger and a way to get stronger is to train with the shield, like holding it out straight, lift it up and down or whatever exercise you need to do but do it with the shield and after a while it will feel lighter as the shielding hand get used to the weight.
I love your show, it's one of the absolutely best on UA-cam and you better never stop 😊
I like that you include a substantial history lesson along with the unboxing. I learn something new every time I watch one of your videos.
Skall has a major advantage in doing his unboxing videos, in that he gets Cara to do the actual unboxing, so he can provide colour commentary without the distraction!
By the way, in the US, bins are generally called 'garbage bins,' or 'trash bins,' to distinguish them from 'recycling bins.' At least, in the parts of the US that I've lived.
6.5 llbs is well within the range of Viking shield weights. That's roughly 3kg, where most Viking era shields could go up to about 7kg. The Clonbrin shield made entirely of hide, apart from the metal boss and only 59 cm in diameter (23") weighed about 1.7 kg. That's about half the weight of your shield. If it was a plank shield, faced with ox hide (as per Athelstan's laws), it definitely would be within that weight range.
Edit to add: There appears to be an ideal diameter of shields for an individual's body, which tends to be double the length of your elbow to fist.
To be exact, you want it to be big enough so that if you are holding it flat against your arm, the edge should be around 1-2 centimeters past the edge of your elbow.
About the thin bosses. Nobody is intentionally aiming for the boss, they are aiming for you. If your shield is in the way then they would just aim for another part of the body. Even if you could get through in a few hits, and that was common knowledge, no self respecting warrior is going to waste his time chopping away at a hunk of metal on the off chance he will hurt his opponent's non-dominant hand.
West coast Canada, we call them trash cans or garbage cans and that sort of bag is a "black garbage bag".
West coast US as well.
In the us the garbage bags I see from John Cena aren't black lmao
Use both garbage cans and garbage bins in Canada, bins though are what we refer to the more squarish containers and refer to cans as the round cyclinders. Bins are a lot more common though.
Having used a large variety of Viking-sequel modern made shields for reenactors, I can tell you now that 6 lbs, and 24 inches is quite small and quite light.
It seems that a lot of reenactors make them to fit their own arm length. My own for example is 30 inches, and weighs over 14 lbs. but as far as I'm aware the common weights ranged from about 2.5 to 12 lbs, depending on the size, thickness of the boss, thickness of the wooden slats, and the number of layers of linen used to hold them all together.
You mentioned that earlier shields were only about 24 inches. I was wondering what you think of the video Roland Warzecha did talking about sword and shield combat? In it he says that you needed a shield to be about 80 - 105 cm to function correctly in many of the binds and arm pinning maneuvers that they do. So 24 inches (60 cm) would be a bit too small.
Post archaeological average shield size found, like to see data for size range.
I want to strap them on the side of my car like the viking ships :D
my man!
I think Roland W has posted some medieval art that shows giuge straps being used in battle rather than just for carrying the shield. Getting two hands on the sword while still having the shield hang in front of the left arm. Although I think they were triangular shields rather than round, center-grip.
I cant believe you have a full suit of armor that you still haven't revealed!
Great addition to the collection!
THE SUSPENSE IS KILLING ME WHAT IS IT? IS IT A MAID? IS IT A NEW LAPTOP? I DON'T KNOW
In the US we call bins either waste bins, "garbage cans," "garbage containers," or if they are the big ones behind an office building you can climb into, a "dumpster."
Bin =Trash bin or can. in the US. Bin could mean any kind of container. We just add trash onto it to qualify what we are talking about. Like the shield BTW.
the title kinda destroys the surprise doesn't it?
Don't forget to show us when you've completed your shield work. Just a quick extra on another video would do.
I've been doing a quick online survey of Italian rotellas held in various museum collections & it appears 60cm was the preferred diameter for these as well.
wiskadjak Cool :-)
Please somehow include the dimensiond, weight and so on in metric units aswell. Would be much appreciated.
If you pinch the handle between the webbing of your thumb and forefinger and keep your fingers mostly straight you will have more control over the shield, and reduce fatigue.
/me looks at video title
I am going to guess its a Viking Shield?
Yeah, he should have called it Unboxing a Sombrero and then SURPRISE when it turns out to be a shield after all :D
*****
It's a germanic shield. :o
What design might you go for do you reckon? You could always have a go with a stencil (or by hand, if you're a painter) and do the gold on black Schola Gladiatoria logo. Perhaps not particularly Norse or Anglo Saxon, but if it's not for reenactment I reckon it would do the job nicely.
I believe Viking shields could be up to 8 or 9 lbs, but they are the ones that are 3 ft in diameter. The centre grip looks odd, but the shield looks awesome!
scholagladiatoria The barrier is about 0.4% carbon. Albion swords are typically made from 0.75% carbon steel, though you can find carbon steel from 0.45% and upward - actually the upper range for most swords would be about 1% outside of more complex tool steels.
Some higher-carbon mild steels can obtain slight hardness after a really severe quench.
I think the difference between 'iron' and mild steel, is that iron would have impurities, whereas steel has a crystal structure.
Mild steel might be either a complete misnomer, or it could be in reference to a kind of actual steel produced in the middle ages.
A note about painting the shield. If the pattern you paint on the shield allows your opponent to see whether your grip is horizontal or vertical, then your opponent knows how to hit your shield in order to rotate it in your hand and create an opening. I Believe this may be why many Saxon and Frankish shields were either not painted or just painted one solid colour.
Maybe, but they would have to recognize the pattern, (know which is "up") then see it in combat, and then act on it, which doesn't really guarantee victory. I mean if you are focused on trying to beat someone's shield away, they could just hit you back. Also your time may have been better spent looking for existing openings rather that trying to make new ones, since it is much faster to cut at their open leg (then take advantage of that injury), than it would be to smack their shield, then deliver a second blow to the small and probably short-lived opening you have created.
I see your point, however, if you are using a weapon AND a shield, then you can strike the flat of the opponents shield with the edge of yours and attack the resulting opening with the weapon. Both strikes would happen at the same time as you would have the advantage of knowing where the opening you create is going to be. I'm not saying you should beat the shield away, just to rotate it in the hand, doing so would also put your shield between the opponents weapon and your body. I also can't see how the opening would be short lived. If you've got the edge of your shield jammed into the flat of theirs, you would have so much more leverage, the opponents only defence would be to step away.
Not a guarantee, (I never said it was) but it could conceivably be an advantage to know on which axis your opponents shield is most easily rotated.
Ant. Exe you've not fought with a viking shield have you... a very easy way to counter what you are saying is to rotate your shield
"what do you reckon this is?"
*looks at the title* o.o
oh its a viking
Perhaps if we compare the size of the shield to the size of the population in that period we would observe a contextual larger shield in proportion to their body. I'm just guessing but I'd say your slightly taller than the medieval or dark age man Matt, lol, so you could use a proportionately larger shield?
Could the larger shields be used more to protect from ranged attacks? So in the earlier period they did all the fighting up close but later longbows, crossbows and maybe slings started being used, and I suspect that they would want as large a shield as they could get away with.
a domed design would work well with a center grip shield. one of the biggest drawbacks of the center grip is how easily it'll push when hit on the edges. with a domed design, a spear or a thrust hitting the edge of the shield would more likely glance down the side rather than push into the shield. the shield would also probably last longer in battle too beause more hits will be glancing to the sides than hacking into the wood. my shield is propane.
It could be that the shield bosses were thinner simply due to the process of hammering out the domed shape... stretching the metal like that will thin it out quite a bit. Were the bosses much thicker at the edges where they joined to the shield than at the center?
In the future can you please use also the metric system in your descriptions. I have nothing against using inches or pounds but i think that for those who are used with Kg and Cm it is a bit annoying to do the conversions all the time. Thank you for understanding.
It's a "trash bag" for the "trash can" here in the Southeastern U.S. states. Also, we commonly re-purpose our plastic grocery bags as "trash bags;" I don't know if you use those or do that.
You were talking about how heavy it is and said it wasn't that bad because you don't have to swing it like a weapon, but I have a book with historical weapons found around the world, and there was a German war hammer that wieght 11 pounds, or 5kg. This seemed like a crazy amount of wieght to me, considering it was one-handed and was heavier than a sledge hammer. I guess my point is that 6 1/2 lbs isn't too much. It may be for that kind of shield, but some onehanded weapons wieghed twice as much as that shield (appearently).
11 pounds? That sounds like a ceremonial piece to me - nobody with any sense would have fought with anything that heavy...
As for about 6 pounds, that's still kinda heavy - someone else in these comments mentioned that it looked somewhat thicker than the more historically accurate examples, though I wouldn't know enough to say how true that is.
Yeah, most battle used war hammers were around 1-3 lbs, and 3 lbs is still pretty heavy for a war hammer
11lbs sounds more like a Kata-hammer to me. It's meant to practice with and build stabilizer muscles.
Hey Matt, I'd really love to hear your thoughts on early medieval shieldwalls, when you eventually get the time to do something of the kind. I'd love to hear the perspective of someone with a HEMA background like your own weigh in, since it also seems like you've done some research on the period.
Cheers.
Heavier bosses and materials on reproductions makes a lot of sense when you consider most reenactors or HEMA practitioners are going to expect to get a lot of use out of this without noticeable wear. The historical users would probably be accustomed to replacing the planks or pounding dents out of the boss, and would be more concerned with having an easy to carry, agile shield that was durable enough. That's just what I've theorized so far, however!
Lenticular shields were domed and were common with the Anglo-Saxons.
It was especially easy to guess considering the title of the vid. It´s good to see that you start getting into erlier periods, I wished for that since a long time ago.
How heavy is the boss? It is my understanding that forges of the time could not produce pieces of iron much larger than 1 kg. This is the time of spangenhelms which I also believe were constructed that way due to limitations in the size of iron pieces that could be produced.
Also, making the boss thinner would also make for a lighter shield.
The man who teaches us about historical weapons and their use takes a few minutes to figure out he can hold a center grip shield by the center grip. Everyone rolls a 1 on occasion.
Leave Matt alone
scholagladiatoria
Where I live (United States) I have only really heard "Bins" Called Trash Cans or Trash Receptacles. And, those bag just called Trash Bags.
As for scale of shield. My understanding has been that a good sized shield will be two cubits (as measured by your own body) when it is center grip/boss held. And, when strapped should be one cubit (again by your own bodies measurements).
Regarding weight...It could be worse getting something by mail. One 15" buckler that I purchased weighs damn near 6 lbs (not sure if 15 inch still qualifies as a buckler really, but it was advertised as such).
Rim almost certainly looks like leather, not rawhide, which is pretty much useless. From what I know the rawhide was fixed on when wet, then compresses upon drying and gives the shield a lot of stability, whereas leather is probably only of cosmetic value. Can anyone confirm this? I also imagine that if this is just leather, it will be very easily destroyed by attacks blocked with the edge, which does happen eventually. Also from what I heard this size would be on the small end of shield sizes with example of up 1m diameter. Seeing as the shields main purpose was missile defense, that might make sense, but mine is the same size as yours as I much prefer mobility for fighting.
I've been playing Total War Attila lately and I was wondering if they actually had domed shields. They've created less professional style by mixing textures within one unit and one detail is that some of the vikings have domed shields.
Other than the metal center this looks like ti would be quite easy to make. I could probably forge the center with a torch and some sheet steel.
Matt, could you explain to me fiore's stance of the queen that has the sword pointing downwards? It seems to me that the stance only allows for baseball bat attacks.
Same here I love small shields they are better for dueling imo.
Waiting to see if Thrand chimes in here :P
:D
ThegnThrand Knew you couldn't resist anything to do with shields ;)
Rollo Red
I made some replies on his second video about shield size :D
I'm going to watch the second video before I look it up - I think that weight is a little light for a 3'-0" diameter shield. Been a really long time, but I think it should be around 8 pounds. Remember, plywood is lighter then a solid piece of wood.
I have a question :) swords were made a certain way some of the dimensions are from the size of the person using it. Would a shield be designed the same way? Arm length height of the individual etc?
Kyle
Could it be that the shields found in graves were thinner because they were specifically designed as grave goods, and the thicker more practical bosses were kept for actual use? I know some cultures used to do stuff like that, where the dead person got miniature or symbolic versions of the stuff they were to take to the afterlife with them, but I don't know if that practise was followed by Franks or Saxons at all.
Ben Kirkby It is possible, but unlike the things made obviously as special burial goods, this doesn't seem to be the case with the spears, axes, swords, knives and shields that they were buried with - they appear to be standard weapons.
If I remember correctly, viking's bosses (excavated from graves) thickness was up to 5 mm at center. I don't think thay made thicker ones.
At our club we're gonna do some sword & board lessons for fun in the near future, for which we're gonna make some shields of our own. Got any recommendations about stuff like thickness of the plywood, what to use for the handle, etc?
6mm plywood with canvas on both sides with wood glue will give you a very sturdy, light and authentic shield. Wood handels were the norm. Either a board cut and sanded round or a broomstick sanded flat work great. Dog treats are a great source of rawhide to make the edging.
*on a side note, when you do that knife review, can you explain why locking knives are illegal in the UK, here (the NL) locking blades are considered a safety feature.
Thats a small and light shield compared to mine. Mine is almost too heavy. Its 29 3/4in diameter, about 1/2in thickness and weighs over 9lbs lol. It has a steel rim as well. Is this too big? It also came covered in a layer of oil which I thought was a bit odd. The maker is Lord of Battles.
I wouldn't quite say that Skall is an expert at unwrapping. However, he does have one he hires on occasion when the need arises, who goes by the name Cara.
And now I wish Sean Bean would have used that kickass shield of his when he played Boromir...
Laws against knives locking are just silly and dangerous. You could cut your finger off stabbing someone with that.
from a blacksmiths point of view, the shield bosses may have been thinner back then due to the blacksmiths lack of materiel, when forging any thing dome shaped its always best to use more then you'd think you need, other wise you will be making it very thin! this might have been more common back then as smithing would have been newer and would have had less knowledge passed down to them compared to us modern black smiths who have centuries of knowledge passed down to us. well thats my guess any way!
the stuff on the boss is probably heat scale from the forging if it is not rust
In america we tend to call bins, trash cans or garbage cans. Bin liner = Can liner. The terms change from area to area though
Is the size of the shield related to how it was used? Seems reasonable to assume that shields of this size were used for personal protection, while the larger diamet shields were more useful in shield walls. You'd get more overlap and thus a stronger wall. They'd also move the shield less while in formation, so the added bulk wouldn't be much of an issue..
Yep. You talk about hoplons and phalanx formation. That type of warfare mostly died out when Rome rises and their more mobile legions were introduced.
Robert Tauzer i am by no means some one who knows much about this but a wiki search tells me it was used even to the 16-17th century, so i do not think it did die out when you say it did
havtor007 I was talking about larger shields, not like ones in video. Wiki says about aspis /hoplons that they were used in "ancient Greece", the rise and fall of hoplite warfare was tied to the rise and fall of the city-states.
Robert Tauzer
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_wall
now to this headline:Decline
The shield-wall as a tactic has declined and has been resurrected a number of times. For example, in the Greek and Macedonian phalanxes, as the Dory spear gave way to the sarissa, it became impossible to carry a large shield and so it was abandoned.
Likewise, in the Late Middle Ages, the shield was abandoned in favour of polearms carried with both hands, giving rise to the pike square tactics.
In the revival of military thinking and tactics that was a part of the Renaissance, military theorists such as Niccolò Machiavelli in his The Art of War advocated a revival of the Roman legion and Sword and shieldmen. But as in the phalanxes before, well-drilled pikemen displaced the shieldmen.
The pike square remained in use on the European battlefields of the 16th and 17th centuries, but with the increasing importance of the handgun, it was replaced by the line and column formations in the 18th century.
This is text copy and pasted from the page
But more over why do you refuse to believe vikings used it? Also do not look up phalinx as that is a specific name for a type of shield wall
havtor007 Oh you mean about shield wall? Well yes, we have talked about big and small shields and how they were used I did not specifically disagree with anything. Shield wall was common tactic in many countries for long time. Vikings did become famous by using of their swords but have used spears and axes as well. Specific hoplite formation and they way of fighting have indeed been made obsolete for long time, how much later shields were similar and were they made specific with spear wall in mind I am not totally sure. Hoplite warfare can only be done against other hoplite formation, not as general way of protecting against cavalry or other infantry at battlefield. Hoplite battles were pre arranged, they had rules, had very few casualties (usually less then 5%) and were feat of bravery and discipline, more ceremonial way of warfare if you wish. Greeks have not executed their enemies /enslaved nations or burned cities lake later became more common, so it was different way indeed.
scholagladiatoria, referring to shield size, correct me if I'm wrong... But shouldn't a Dark Age round shield be sufficient size to protect you from the shoulder to the groin? Or halfway down the thigh? That's what i usually see in depictions and artworks. Also i'd have thought the shields would be quite hefty. Just a thought :)
Daniel Frey that is because there were a lot of suits of armour for children. Quote Matt Easton: "The average height of male Anglo-Saxon skeletons from London is 5 foot 8 inches (Museum of London stats) - when I was growing up in London it was 5 foot 9 inches. So no, they weren't much smaller, just a tiny bit :-)".
So actually people back then weren't all that much smaller than today.
I am sure scholagladiatoria will support me on that claim
What i'm asking is, each shield would've probably been more or less proportionate to the size of the wielder right? So how does one explain round shields as large as 120cm in diameter? PLUS, i doubt these were designed with comfort and "mobility" in mind to start with. They're SHIELDS. made to protect the body. You're not going to be able to protect much with a small shield. Not only that, but you don't need much mobility when you're fighting in a shieldwall, as was the common formation in fights.
I'm wondering, could it be that the historical bosses were so thin for two reasons. Firstly I'm thinking it made the iron easier to work meaning a smith could create more bosses in a given work day. Secondly a weaker boss would require replacing more often leading the smith to generate more repeat business. I'm thinking of the modern Apple Computers principle here in that as long as the boss holds up to one or two good battles before breaking it's unlikely to be considered not fit for purpose but at the same time each soldier would be returning all the more often to have his shield repaired/replaced?
But it's also possible that they didn't break. I mean nobody is intentionally aiming for the boss, they are aiming for you. If your shield is in the way then they would just aim for another part of the body. Even if you could get through in a few hits, and that was common knowledge, no self respecting warrior is going to waste his time chopping away at a hunk of metal on the off chance he will hurt his opponent's non-dominant hand.
I've called "bins" as "trash can".
wastebasket every once in a while
Yeah, trash can, bin, garbage can
In Hawaii they're called Mahalos. At least that is what is on all of them.
I call it both bin and 'the trash' in america, but I personally also say 'innit' and 'bloody' without a bit of accent or affectation.
Mülleimer.
You mentioned being taught about the Viking migration and such in your university and I was just wondering where you went to school and what degree you have. Thanks!
DracoLogan24 I have a BA hons from University College London (UCL) in medieval history and archaeology.
Hey Matt. When talking about that sheilds were pretty small back in the days, do you also consider the fact that people also were a lot smaller back in the days? IIRC the average hight in the middle ages was 160 something?
Lars Egner The average height of male Anglo-Saxon skeletons from London is 5 foot 8 inches (Museum of London stats) - when I was growing up in London it was 5 foot 9 inches. So no, they weren't much smaller, just a tiny bit :-)
Huh, i learn something new every day. Thanks.
Lars Egner
It seems, that during the industrial revolution the average height of people took a dip. They were taller before that, and taller afterwards. :)
scholagladiatoria
I heard the romans were quite a bit smaller though.
I think there was stories about how much taller the celts were than the romans, and how that could possibly affect the morale of roman soldiers.
scholagladiatoria But this is a viking shield, and the first hit on google "The average height of men in Norway in the Viking era, based on skeletal measurements, was 176cm (5ft 9in), with a range from 170-181cm (5ft 7in to 5ft 11in), which was taller than other Europeans during this time." www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/daily_living/text/health_and_medicine.htm
I think that is, unleast for viking shield, a little small, and heavy :/ vikings shield are suppose to be very manipulable and easy to carry on raids, as a fact some of them were thinner on the edges so they weight less.
For the size, Warcheska video on vikings combat style. And descriptions of the sagas, finally the archeological evidence.
I just about to say, modern industrialized steel usually has lower than 1% of a carbon content, whereby mild steel and carbon (spring) steel usually have 0.25% and 0.45% carbon contents respectively, therefore, as your dialog box says, mild steel and carbon (spring) steel have about a 0.2% difference between their carbon contents. High speed tool steel, which is considered to has the highest carbon content, as 0.95%., whereas some special purpose allow, such as ferro carbon titanium, which is not considered to be a type of steel, has more than 1% of a carbon content, and cast iron (quite raw iron), which is considered to be a type of steel either, has more than 1% of a carbon content as a result of being exposed to carbon during its smelting process.
Great video. Always been fascinated by shields and their use.looking to buy one from this company for display purposes. Happy you cleared up the flt shield vs conical (ish) shield design!
Paint a prancing golden "cat easton" surrounded by two branches of golden olive
CONTEXT in large red rune-like letters.
"CONTEXT"
"I'll make a future video about this"
"HOWEVA", in rune :D
I think painting the shield with a big bold CONTEXT is the best way to go. So Matt can defend behind CONTEXT when attacked
maybe the shields they took with them in the grave where ceremonial and so they spent less material on em (talking about the boss part) .... ?
Wow! There's a correction to be made, Matt! The rule of thumb limit between mild steel and "other" is around 0.1-0.15% of Carbon, not 1%. 1% of carbon is in the range of japanese white paper steel, and the common steel for straight razors! And mild steel isn't exactly like iron. Even the few carbon it's got in it makes some difference, for exemple pure iron work hardens much less than even mild steel.
Pure iron would not have existed back then (using the equipment they had), so for them, they would have referred to something that wasn't steel as "iron" even though it wouldn't be pure elemental iron.
Was like "I hope it's ps4"
Nice shield tho! You should get your golden lion on it
Although it's completely unrelated to the shield. A thought came to mind yesterday, and I was wondering whether or not it is practical. Scholagladiatoria has reviewed the Pata sword, and i was wondering if it would be possible to do the same with a mace head. To explain, Could you put a mace head on a full-hand gauntlet and use it practically?
While you could put a macehead on the end of a gauntlet, it probably wouldn't be too effective. First of all you would lose the sort of lever action you get with a handle. You would also lose any finesse and/or reach with the weapon. You could make the same impression if you simply picked up a rock. To sum it up, I would say that you need a more dexterous weapon if you want to create some kind of gauntlet style weaponry. Although there were caestus used, but essentially they just weaponized the glove itself. And even then, they weren't exactly used on the battlefield.
IsaacAmrenZhouTai Ah, I see. Well thank you for shedding some light on the topic for me.
In California we call it a garbage can. Whether it is the big one outside or the small one beside your bed, we just call it a garbage can, and the bags we call garbage bags. You may have done this video already, but how heavy or how massive, and what gauge of steel should a helmet be, at minimum, in order to effectively protect the head from steel sparring? And what is perhaps the cheapest trustworthy mask/helmet for beginners? And an historical helmet with arming cap and padding is sufficient for club practice? I am asking for myself as well as the people I'm serving in my club as the president at my university, and I am trying desperately to get us scraggled and pulled together as we get up to speed in safety.
It could be the domed or convex shield was more useful in a shield wall, whereas the thinner and flat shields were good in a skirmish.
Your typical file is less than 1% carbon, usually .95%. Typical spring steel is between .4% and .65%. I think mild steel is more like .2%.
Has the video on Concave Carolingian shields been made yet?
On the topic of shields shape, It seems that franks around the IXth century used lenticular shields (don't know about Anglo-saxons though) as you can see on the "Stuttgarter Psalter" (it's its german name, I don't know its name in english).
But I've never heard about franks or anglo-saxons using lenticular shieds during the migration era
The seventh century Sutton Hoo shieled had edging clasps that suggest some doming of the shield, but whether it was fully lenticular is a point of debate, and of course the seventh century is at the tail end of the early/migration period of Anglo-Saxon history, and the shield seems to be unusually large for the period so again it might not be a typical example of the shape. Later Anglo-Saxon art (roughly contemporary with the Stuttgart Psalter) also seem to show lenticular shields (although I have heard suggestions it may also be an artistic convention to show an obliquely held flat round shield.)
Cant wait for the more in-depth videos!
As an uneducated guess, having a wooden shield with a relatively thin boss on it might mean that the shields were disposable upon receiving enough damage. It could also mean that they weren't revered like the sword was, and they were simply used like any other tool.
Up to 3 shields could be destroyed in a duel, so yes ! But a sword is disposable as well when your life is at stake (although Vikings probably valued their sword over their life, but that's a different story !)
Jesus, my AK-47 is six and a half pounds. And why the hell are there knife laws in the UK?
Love your sword display.
Not a bad looking shield for the price, I'd say, but you'll have to let us know how it performs. Could this be a prelude to you doing some videos more focused on armor, as you've mentioned in the past? Personally, I've been more interested in armor than weapons, lately. Also, some things you said made me think a bit about shields in general. Keeping in mind that I know next to nothing about shields, A couple of thoughts:
First, maybe the historical bosses were thinner and the shields smaller to keep them lighter. A shield, like a sword, would have been carried far more than it was used, and if your shield did happen to get badly damaged in a battle, (by virtue of being less robust for its also being thinner and lighter) there would presumably be plenty of other shields for you to choose from lying on the ground in the aftermath. Surely you could find one that you liked if your own had been beaten up to a point its integrity was rendered suspect.
Second, on a related note, perhaps the shield was not expected to take as many blows as we like to think of it taking. It would do a man little good to try and bash through his enemy's shield, and that may mean that shields didn't actually absorb a lot of impacts. Perhaps they were used more to close a line, so that you could better predict where your opponent would swing, and more effectively parry and riposte with your sword.
Just my thoughts; worth every penny you paid for them!
Shield to weight ratio seems very off. A shield of that weight should have a much wider diameter. The handle should be bare wood, from what I understand it should be able to swing around in your hand freely.
Below .45% carbon is mild. High carbon is between .7% to 1.5%...and anything above 1% is going to be wayyyy to brittle for most things. Med carbon is .45% to .6%. You get the idea. Notice the decimals.
A question that often came to my mind when people talk about historcal correctness concerning weapon dimensions. Is the fact that medieval people were much smaller than we are taken into account? Are HEMA weapons created today scaled propotionaly with the dimensions of humans?
"Very quick service" - they must not use the Royal Mail then xD
Or Australia Post.
Could the shield bosses (probably not spelling that right) be thinner simply because it's easier to hammer the thinner metal into that half sphere shape?
+Girlish Goat
You spelled it correctly, no worries. And yes, in a budget reproduction like this the thickness(or thinness perhaps, in this context) is probably dictated largely by the fact the thinner sheet is cheaper and faster & easier to produce into shield bosses.
At least that's my guess as someone who has a metal artesan's degree. Thin shield bosses like this could even be pressed into many distinct shapes nowadays without having to spend time forging/cold hammering them, which is a lot more efficient time-wise than getting the forge going and having to hammer each piece out.
Too small ! :O
(and too thick, hence the weight)
(and it looks nothing like rawhide)
Only website I ever came across that has surmountable prices on proper shields, going to have to buy one now I guess ^^
We would call that black bag a garbage bag here in Canadia. Bins we would either call trash can, garbage can, or the garbage.
Cans. That's what we call "bins" in the USA.
Do you think that most historical shields were smaller because the people were shorter on average?
What us the difference between a viking shield and a rotrlla?