How heavy were shields

Users who are viewing this thread

it also apears to depend on what wepon is use agenset the sheld that determens how long it would last and wher the sheld is rawhided as the rawhied will prvent some damage to the shelied not much espeshaly a genst a Daine axe or a mace ouch and a good blow with a sward would just get through the rawhide. am i glad we dont use mornigstars in steel or maces ouchh it would result in a lot of broken bones  and a few bits off wood in your eyes and other body partsand many trips to the hospital. i have seen what a blunt dane axe and sward can do but the moast distructive was the moringstar (its surprising what blunted wepons can do if you give them a good swing.
 
just some notes to Lou, not all shields would be rawhided, either with rawhide or leather, some would have had metal fittings around the edges, such as some roman shields, (if im correct, please post if otherwise, anyone?) as well as shields used by some Vikingr or scandanavian shields (not falling into the common trap of all scandanavians are Vikingr). Also, as i remember it, Guy's Morgensternen, whilst techniquly a blunt weapon is a ball with about ten spikes on it, that show was excellent, and then at camp i took my warhammer to the same shield, oh what fun that was, *coughs* i mean purly as historical research, (but, hehe, the warhammer took out some bloody big bits of wood for it's size :smile:  ) 

just remembered for those of you that want to see the damage a Dacian Falx can do to a roman shield, check this out,
                        http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/ranistorum/site_eng/arma.html
for other images just type it to google images.  just remembered

As i understand it, there shields were built to last a bit better than say something like a roman shield, (as many of you have said, romans were able to dispose of shields after they'd been knocked in, because of the sheer amount that the empire could produce). though i know that shields used by the scandanavians werent unbreakable (well obviously, which ones arn't, but im reffering to the honour duels, where by both competators have three shields, the aim is to break the other persons shields, then you have won, and you have your honor, the other thing behind this is that you don't end up killing someone who could be a bloody good fighter and needed in a battle)

As for metal shields, if you look at the Apis of the Greeks, whilst made of wood, a lot if not pretty much all of them were covered in bronze or some form of metal. and whilst being a lot smaller, almost buckler sized some Greek or mercenary shields were entirly brass, bronze, and later iron, the shield actually looks like a type of wide brimmed hat, with a centeral bossed grip.

im sure i was going to say more, but i've once again forgotten what i was going to say.
LOL.

Tancred.
 
Here's a question directed to somebody who does this mediaeval reenactment stuff ,i.e. brasidus:

A one on one fight, between two skilled people, with similar equipment (say, sword and shield) how long does one usually last till one guy is defeated?
 
Usually?
From the first thrown blow 3-5 seconds.

Real fights of any kind are kinda boring comparatively.

Whoever slips up first doesn't get a second chance.

 
Tancred De Burgundy said:
just remembered for those of you that want to see the damage a Dacian Falx can do to a roman shield, check this out,
                         http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/ranistorum/site_eng/arma.html
And I just want to point out that the next picture shows the trouble this guy has at pulling his Falx out of the shield (interestingly it has not been included at the page).
Effectively he has disarmed himself. He would have wounded/killed the Roman if said Roman had leaned into his shield, expecting it to hold the blow. However, I think the general Roman legionary would know the general disposition of the shields he was expected to use, and I would suppose that he would be observant enough to see this guy coming with the amount of powerup he would have to do (again a picture is missing of the guy starting a very powerful overhead strike). So generally I would not expect this to be a very effective way of combatting Romans.
As far as I remember the series of pictures were made to present the strength of the scutum, not that of the falx, stressing the trouble the warrior would have at extracting his weapon.

What seems to have been effective was strikes at the head (from the Dacian Wars on, Roman legionaries and Auxilia had a reinforcing bar on the forehead to prevent such), reach-arounds (cutting at the left forearm behind the shield) and cutting at the exposed right forearm when the legionaries stabbed out (this too prompted some changes, though only temporary and limited to Dacia, that legionaries carried banded forearm protectors on their right arm).
The scuta, however, don't seem to have been reinforced for the Dacian frontier at any point, though we can't know that for sure (lack of sources).

Usually?
From the first thrown blow 3-5 seconds.

Real fights of any kind are kinda boring comparatively.

Whoever slips up first doesn't get a second chance.
Do you 'play' with first to strike kills, or with dual kills even if one strikes first? I mean in relatively safe environments we (humans) are willing to risk an opening more if it can give us a winning strike. However in a real fight I doubt most people would open themselves to a last ditch attempt at revenge from the fallen (which might not be the most usual thing but one should always expect it).

How do lines of warriors fare? Equally fast? Or does it 'deteriorate' into a push of lines or something like that?
For what I have seen of reenactments seem to indicate rather high killrates where basically all in the first line of boths sides are certain to get killed (which I have a hard time believing as it would be rather hard to get people to be in the first line then).
 
A one on one duel is another matter from large scale combat by its very nature it implies a certain sanguine nature to both participants.

Whether Eastern, or Western most accounts of one on one duels are over very shortly. Notice the duel described by Talhoffer, it has a very few passes and then death.

(which I have a hard time believing as it would be rather hard to get people to be in the first line then).
Are you familiar with the Napoleonic or U.S. Civil war where men would satnd for over a half an hour refilling ranks as cannon splattered large swathes through them??
Warfare brings out inherantly unnatural behaviours.
 
brasidus said:
Usually?
From the first thrown blow 3-5 seconds.

Real fights of any kind are kinda boring comparatively.

Whoever slips up first doesn't get a second chance.

Hmm, thought so. I thought movie-ish duels which take a good part of 5 minutes weren't that realistic.

But although the average might be 3-5, have you ever seen any duels that took a more considerable amount of time to complete?
 
The entire concept is to attack, constantly attack, every defense is really simply a way to create a path to an attack. Binding, winding, pivotting all to put your piece of steel somewhere decidedly unpleasant for your enemy. If at all possible take them out the first hit, its your best defense.

Long bouts are possible, and do happen, especially in harnesfechten (armoured combat) with two good antagonists, and those can often be very long indeed.

This is not a perfect example, but here is a link to some SCA bouts.

http://www.kottr.com/v/sca/videos/

These would be what was historically called a "behourd" tournament where you used wooden or whalebone clubs. Many of the techniques here are ahistorical, and there are rules such as no grappling, and no blows below the knee or hands.
 
brasidus said:
(which I have a hard time believing as it would be rather hard to get people to be in the first line then).
Are you familiar with the Napoleonic or U.S. Civil war where men would satnd for over a half an hour refilling ranks as cannon splattered large swathes through them??
Warfare brings out inherantly unnatural behaviours.
Of course I am... But the ACW is particularly known for its crazy lossrates for some units. However a lot of units didn't suffer much, even for the losers (or those who suffered the worst losses). Also, at that point it was only slightly more safe to stand in the third rank than the first because of the cannons (which were the real killers).
Even in WWI the units that went over the top tended to not get wiped out. They suffered bad losses, but the majority of the soldiers were able to return to their trenches. Localized it mgiht eb really bad, but then in other places the survivability would be much greater. Meaning it would be a chancy game, not a dead fact.

However getting to grips in a melee between two armies of medieval troops would be a different animal alltogeher. There the deeper rows would be fairly safe (unless the enemy pumped arrows/javelins/whatever into the grind). Meanwhile the frontlines seem (from reenactment) to be much more lethal. To the point that standing there was equal to death or debilitating wounding.
That also brings the interesting point of many very long battles not really having that many losses... How is that possible if the melee was wild and deadly from first contact.
I mean if they truly were that deadly, most battles should be over in a matter of minutes, not hours or even days (sometimes).

Btw, the Talhoffer series you presented was cool in that it showed a duel. However, how fast did they go through their moves? And even if it was fast it seems to be more like a minute than 3-5 seconds. And a minute is long (to me at least). Also in a duel each opponent would have a much greater ability to maneuver around each other. Focussing on the other combatant only. In a battle you would have to contend with more than one enemy (even if they seem to be occupied you can't be certain that their weapon might not end up in your face) at a time and not being able to move about too much.

Defensive formations such as shield walls seems terribly redundant if people went crazy in battles. In fact they seem downright stupid.
I know that such formations later vanished, but it still doesn't seem as if losses become proportionally higher in general (until reliable guns came along). So perhaps battles weren't really that deadly for the individual soldier in the front rank, if still somewhat dangerous in general.

I don't know why these things don't add up, I have my ideas of course but since I don't reenact I won't blurt them out as I might have a lot of things wrong about that.
 
Your post covers some big issues that I probably cant fully cover here.

As far as mass battles things vary greatly depending on era, and culture with a HUGE array of variables. In general yes the average person in battle is more concerned with saving thier skin, and as far as the middle ages the average knight was concerned about NOT killing an opponant because then they are monetarily useless to them.

From my knowledge of Talhoffers teaching and my own personal experience I would say that duel was over quite quickly. The entire concept of his system is that if you are not attacking then you have lost. If the combatants were of the Italian school such as Fiore they might spend time doing such circling, I do not think such strategy is compatible with the Liechtenaur technique.

That said, quickly written posts on a gaming forum cannot cover all the bases. Unarmored combat is over much more quickly than armored and we never qualified what we were discussing specifically.
Overall, I would concur that the combat shown there could have taken as much as one minute with the grappling on the ground, but one whole minute is a HUGE amount of time, and I would say not normative. I have done drills where all I have had to do is attack or defend for one minute and that is an eternity.
 
Tarrak said:
Tancred De Burgundy said:
just remembered for those of you that want to see the damage a Dacian Falx can do to a roman shield, check this out,
                         http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/ranistorum/site_eng/arma.html
And I just want to point out that the next picture shows the trouble this guy has at pulling his Falx out of the shield (interestingly it has not been included at the page).
Effectively he has disarmed himself.

The picture also doesn't show that a falx-man would have a spearman next to him, the moment the falx goes through the shield he would wrench the sheild from the legionary, thus making a gap in the shield wall, then if the spearman gets the chance he'd kill the legionary, hopefully though by this point the damage is done and if the shield wall doesn't manage to close fast enough then you've got a hole in the shield wall your 2-3 men down depending how good the spearman is, and also how fast. another tactic was to have both an archer and spearman behind the falxman, pretty much doing the same but the archer can cover both men as well.
 
Ah... a nice little tactic, if it hadn't been because the legionary himself would have buddies to his sides, actively engaging the spearmen. These spearmen would have trouble to change to a new target. A target that might very well pull out of range as soon as the shield is lost (and thus not kill the falxman, or perhaps just enough time to do that).
Also the legionary could do the opposite, and actually pull the falxman closer. It depends on who does what first. If that happened the spearmen, even if they were able to strike, would have one of their own blocking their venue of attack. Meanwhile the legionary would make short work of the defenseless falxman.

Generally warriors did not spend a lot of time on liberating their own equipment from troubles. Such as the Helvetii that didn't take the time to remove the pilumheads from their shields (which can as easily be said of the Germans and Gauls in the same campaign).

Do not forget that getting your weapon caught in something, was not good. Quite a few shields are speculated to be designed to actually snag the enemy weapon so that the attacker would be open to a strike. I don't know if this is a fact, but it has certainly been speculated on a lot, and does seem to have a basis.

Now I ask, where do you get the spearman/falxman combo, as anyting other than the flaxmen stiffening the more general spearmen, while the spearmen provided the falxmen with some defensive strength. But would hardly be much different from anywhere else, and could as easily be accidental. As a lot of cultures had leading individuals in the society lead less well armed persons into combat. Hence giving them a sort of swordman/spearman look to outsiders.
 
matlid le sauvage said:
it also apears to depend on what wepon is use agenset the sheld that determens how long it would last and wher the sheld is rawhided as the rawhied will prvent some damage to the shelied not much espeshaly a genst a Daine axe or a mace ouch and a good blow with a sward would just get through the rawhide. am i glad we dont use mornigstars in steel or maces ouchh it would result in a lot of broken bones  and a few bits off wood in your eyes and other body partsand many trips to the hospital. i have seen what a blunt dane axe and sward can do but the moast distructive was the moringstar (its surprising what blunted wepons can do if you give them a good swing.
Tancred De Burgundy said:
just some notes to Lou, not all shields would be rawhided, either with rawhide or leather, some would have had metal fittings around the edges, such as some roman shields, (if im correct, please post if otherwise, anyone?) as well as shields used by some Vikingr or scandanavian shields (not falling into the common trap of all scandanavians are Vikingr). Also, as i remember it, Guy's Morgensternen, whilst techniquly a blunt weapon is a ball with about ten spikes on it, that show was excellent, and then at camp i took my warhammer to the same shield, oh what fun that was, *coughs* i mean purly as historical research, (but, hehe, the warhammer took out some bloody big bits of wood for it's size :smile:  ) 

just remembered for those of you that want to see the damage a Dacian Falx can do to a roman shield, check this out,
                         http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/ranistorum/site_eng/arma.html
for other images just type it to google images.  just remembered

As i understand it, there shields were built to last a bit better than say something like a roman shield, (as many of you have said, romans were able to dispose of shields after they'd been knocked in, because of the sheer amount that the empire could produce). though i know that shields used by the scandanavians werent unbreakable (well obviously, which ones arn't, but im reffering to the honour duels, where by both competators have three shields, the aim is to break the other persons shields, then you have won, and you have your honor, the other thing behind this is that you don't end up killing someone who could be a bloody good fighter and needed in a battle)

As for metal shields, if you look at the Apis of the Greeks, whilst made of wood, a lot if not pretty much all of them were covered in bronze or some form of metal. and whilst being a lot smaller, almost buckler sized some Greek or mercenary shields were entirly brass, bronze, and later iron, the shield actually looks like a type of wide brimmed hat, with a centeral bossed grip.

im sure i was going to say more, but i've once again forgotten what i was going to say.
LOL.

Tancred.

yes rob i undre stand this (as the words i have higlighted in red i am refuring to)
 
Ezias said:
It's also why battles could last forever -- didnt hastings take a large chunk of teh day? or am i just imagining things?

Actually, Hastings is an exception to the rule. Most medieval battles in fact didn't last long.
 
Iguana-on-a-stick said:
Ezias said:
It's also why battles could last forever -- didnt hastings take a large chunk of teh day? or am i just imagining things?

Actually, Hastings is an exception to the rule. Most medieval battles in fact didn't last long.

Examples/proof?  I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd jsut like to have additional information before accepting what you say.  If you start to believe and "know" things just because someone that you have no background for (and many you do) then your head will be filled with thousands of contradictions and nonsense.  :smile:
 
Yeah, I should have looked up citations. Thing is, I got lazy. The statement is a quote from my university professor, which makes it somewhat harder to find substantiation.

But Hastings started early in the morning and ended at nightfall, around 20.00 hours, so it lasted a very long time indeed. Most other medieval battles lasted only a couple of hours. Agincourt for example lasted less than an hour once the first arrows were fired. (though I'm not saying this battle is typical either.)
 
I guess we'd also have to attempt to define what long is -- is 3 hours a long time? or does it have to be 10? or 3 days???  Obviously not 3 days, but I think you get the idea :smile:    Currently we're using long as a relative term, when to really have an accurate discussion we'd have to put a concrete line on what long is.
 
True. Let's give it a try: One hour is short. Several hours is normal. At least half a day (5-6+ hours) is long. Hastings lasted from dawn till dusk in October, giving us... 10 hours or so? 12? A long time, in any case.

*disclaimer: this definition is made up on the spot
 
That sounds like a pretty good shot to me. Makes sense to me as well.  Anyone else care to weigh in?

And I would agree that any battle lasting all day is a long one :smile:
 
Anyone else care to weigh in?

Sure. Any cursory study of medieval battles points to one undeniable conclusion: Medieval battles tended to last quite awhile. Unfortunately, when judging the 'likely' length of battles, too often do modern minds use the only frame of reference they have; modern warfare.

Medieval warfare is not modern warfare, and bears virtually no resemblance to the latter at all. Medieval warfare was a rather slow process. The forming of lines could take a many minutes. The fighting could last for an hour or two. Followed by withdrawals and re-aligning of troops, followed by more fighting, etc. These were not people that shot at each other from behind buildings, dropped a few bombs and called it a day (and I am not trying to devalue what modern military men and women have to go through). From taking the field to finally leaving the field, battles would generally last for many hours.

So, the question isn't how long battles lasted, but rather how long did the fighting actually occur. And that's a much more difficult, sometimes impossible, question to answer satisfactorily.

 
Back
Top Bottom