I made a shield (with pics)

I made this shield recently, interested in people's opinion.

It's 22 inches across, weights 7 1/2 lbs, and can take a real beating.

It's made out of plywood as you can see, but the whole thing is covered with sheet metal and the boss is 16 gauge steel.

I know it's kinda heavy, but it feels good and I can wave it around easy enough.

Plywood? Man that must weigh a ton.

Buxton said:

Plywood? Man that must weigh a ton.

Click to expand...

Holy cow man! it's totally the opposite. it's the metal sheeting that weights most. the plywood is only about 1/2 inch thick.

What do you think medieval shields were made of?  Plywood isn't a modern invention.  7.5 lbs isn't that bad, either.  My heater is 13lbs, and it doesn't take long to build up the stamina and, more importantly, technique for extended use.  The trick is to always keep your shield against your body, unless you're actively using it- well, at least for heaters, it is.

I'd recommend 2 things:
1. Edging.  Most blocked shots will hit the edge of the shield, which is the weaekst part.  A steel rim around the edge is a Very Good ThingTM.  You seem to be handy with metal, so you could make your own, or you could go the "cheater" route and buy some aluminum shelf-edge from the hardware store.

2. 22" is an awkward size for a centre-boss round shield.  Centre boss shields don't have quite the speed or accuracy of strapped shields, so the two ways to compensate are to either make the shield much smaller, so that it can move quickly:


or big enough that you don't have to move it, as with the Roman scutae and norse round shields.

Norse round shields seem to be around the 30-35" range.  They were also apparently from 2" up to 4" thick!  In the SCA, the usual guideline for a centre-boss round shield it to put your fists together so that your forearms are in a straight line and measure from one elbow tip to the other.  I'm 6'3", and that's only 32" on me, so it's likely the norse went slightly larger than that.

One trick for carrying a centre-boss round shield for extended periods is to stand with your left foot forward, with knee bent, and rest the shield on your knee, allowing the top to hang away from your body so that your arm is straight and the shield meets your leg at a 90° angle. 

For readding, I found this site:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chrisandpeter/shield/shield.html

Eogan said:

What do you think medieval shields were made of?  Plywood isn't a modern invention.  7.5 lbs isn't that bad, either.  My heater is 13lbs, and it doesn't take long to build up the stamina and, more importantly, technique for extended use. 

Click to expand...

A 1/2 inch plywood shield is about equal to a 2 inch thick board shield, that they would have in medieval times...or so I've heard.

I'd recommend 2 things:
1. Edging.  Most blocked shots will hit the edge of the shield, which is the weaekst part.  A steel rim around the edge is a Very Good ThingTM.  You seem to be handy with metal, so you could make your own, or you could go the "cheater" route and buy some aluminum shelf-edge from the hardware store.

Click to expand...

Yeah, if it had an edge it wouldn't need the sheeting at all. When I made it I wasn't able to right off, so I just covered it...hmm, I just figured out how I could though...
I've had shields get the edges smashed up pretty good.

And I would never use that chincy aluminum. 

2. 22" is an awkward size for a centre-boss round shield.  Centre boss shields don't have quite the speed or accuracy of strapped shields, so the two ways to compensate are to either make the shield much smaller, so that it can move quickly:

Click to expand...

Firstly, I made this to be able to carry on my back with a strap, which it does nicely. Secondly, all the other shields that I've made have been the strap-on kind, and I wanted a variation. And thirdly, I fight a lot, so I wanted one that I could really use, And when I fight I move around a lot, so I like to be able to take my shield with me. And another thing: I wanted to be able to pick it up and drop it quickly, without the bother of straps.

But yes, I totally get what you're saying 

Norse round shields seem to be around the 30-35" range.  They were also apparently from 2" up to 4" thick!  In the SCA, the usual guideline for a centre-boss round shield it to put your fists together so that your forearms are in a straight line and measure from one elbow tip to the other.  I'm 6'3", and that's only 32" on me, so it's likely the norse went slightly larger than that.

Click to expand...

those shield must have weighted a ton! 2" to 4" thick and made presumably, out of hardwood = heavy.

I have never seen a single example of a shield two, let alone four inches thick. I could go with 2 cm, which is almost an inch, in thickness as a maximum. More than that, and I want pictures.

Kissaki said:

I have never seen a single example of a shield two, let alone four inches thick. I could go with 2 cm, which is almost an inch, in thickness as a maximum. More than that, and I want pictures.

Click to expand...

Hmm.. my bad for not clarifying what I was reading.  At the top, the site lists the "thickness" of the boards in the Gokstadt shields as "6 - 10 cm", which is in the 2-4" range;  however, what they meant was the board width.

Table 2, measurements of actual shields from actual digs, at the bottom of the page seems to suggest variance from ~0.5-1.4cm thickness, which actually seems a little smal to me.

Llew, what sort of fighting do you do?

It looks like you use it by holding the metal bar with your non-sword arm. But wouldn't it be easier to hold and use if you riveted leather straps on to slide your arm through? Then your whole arm carries the weight of the shield and also gives you a broader base to stabilize the shield when under attack.

Boosh said:

It looks like you use it by holding the metal bar with your non-sword arm. But wouldn't it be easier to hold and use if you riveted leather straps on to slide your arm through? Then your whole arm carries the weight of the shield and also gives you a broader base to stabilize the shield when under attack.

Click to expand...

No.  That style of shield is designed to be held like that.  Its known as a centerboss shield, and tends to be more mobile than a heater.  I personally prefer it to a heater if I have to use a shield, because I find it easier to pin my opponent's weapon or shield with it.

Eogan said:

Kissaki said:

I have never seen a single example of a shield two, let alone four inches thick. I could go with 2 cm, which is almost an inch, in thickness as a maximum. More than that, and I want pictures.

Click to expand...

Hmm.. my bad for not clarifying what I was reading.  At the top, the site lists the "thickness" of the boards in the Gokstadt shields as "6 - 10 cm", which is in the 2-4" range;  however, what they meant was the board width.

Table 2, measurements of actual shields from actual digs, at the bottom of the page seems to suggest variance from ~0.5-1.4cm thickness, which actually seems a little smal to me.

Click to expand...

Ah, that sounds more reasonable. 0.5-1.4 cm thickness sounds about right -- remember these shields were not family heirlooms, and were usually discarded after one battle regardless of condition. Sort of like motorcycle helmets: if it's scratched, don't use it anymore.

Well, considering they spent several months a year on sea, and a hell of a lot of time rowing their ships, they were a bunch of strong bastards. The fact that they wielded shields of such encumbrance - and their trademark massive battle axes - testaments further to this.

Click to expand...

But those are not the facts. Fact is, no shield has been found with that thickness, and massive battle axes was not their trademark (can't use battle axes along with shields). Their trademark was indeed the axe, but there was nothing massive about that.

Few armies today have as brutal exercize programs as they did.

Click to expand...

Care to elaborate?

(most) Real shields were extremely light weight, and there is evidence of plywood construction in some cultures. Actually, there is evidence for every kind of contruction you can think of if you look somewhere. It is also true that at least the wooden/leather parts of shields were considered disposable. There is one battle in which extra shields were passed forward from the rear.

Here is a site with some excellent information on how shields were actually used, This is an interpretation based on iconographic evidence and the Talhoffer Dueling shields.
It's the most accurete as yet.

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_sword_technique.htm
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_sword_video.htm


On the other hand, SCA combat is very very fun, but should never be considered the least bit historically accurate. (But I still love it, because I like hitting people with sticks.)

Quite a bit of SCA influence there, yes. For example, this is what you guys call "wrapping", I believe (second video):

B cuts to A's head.

For clarity, A and B switch sides in the frame.

A (on the right) and B (on the left) begin as above. A thrusts to B's head and then pulls the attack to cut low.

As the thrust comes in, B steps out with his right foot and steps back on his left foot, removing A's target. B delivers a false edge cut to A's head.

Click to expand...

This, however, has no historical precedent. It is purely an SCA invention, and I fail to see how it would do more than annoy an opponent.

Kissaki said:

Quite a bit of SCA influence there, yes. For example, this is what you guys call "wrapping", I believe (second video):

Click to expand...

Um, no. This isn't SCA style. This is Talhoffer Style.  Talhoffer was from the 1400s.

First, he doesn't make contact in the video. Second, if you do this as a draw cut to an unarmored target, it works.

Third, there is a good bit of historical precedence for this kind of attack. The Romans did a good bit of this kind of attack to the back of the knee. You move in and hook your sword around the knee, and pull back, cutting all the tendons.

Eogan said:

Kissaki said:

I have never seen a single example of a shield two, let alone four inches thick. I could go with 2 cm, which is almost an inch, in thickness as a maximum. More than that, and I want pictures.

Click to expand...

Hmm.. my bad for not clarifying what I was reading.  At the top, the site lists the "thickness" of the boards in the Gokstadt shields as "6 - 10 cm", which is in the 2-4" range;  however, what they meant was the board width.

Table 2, measurements of actual shields from actual digs, at the bottom of the page seems to suggest variance from ~0.5-1.4cm thickness, which actually seems a little smal to me.

Llew, what sort of fighting do you do?

Click to expand...

but still, those thingys were big.

What kind of fighting do I do? ehem...not SCA, for one thing. Basically we just go at it with metal practice swords or wooden ones.
I'm in the process of making a suit of armor so it's safer to go full contact. 

@Kissaki, Arguing over the Vikings is all fine and dandy, but not in this thread, ok?

Llew2 said:

@Kissaki, Arguing over the Vikings is all fine and dandy, but not in this thread, ok?

Click to expand...

You mean about the fighting techniques? Very well, but I think you'll note that I was only commenting on material already present in this thread.

Kissaki said:

Well, considering they spent several months a year on sea, and a hell of a lot of time rowing their ships, they were a bunch of strong bastards. The fact that they wielded shields of such encumbrance - and their trademark massive battle axes - testaments further to this.

Click to expand...

But those are not the facts. Fact is, no shield has been found with that thickness, and massive battle axes was not their trademark (can't use battle axes along with shields). Their trademark was indeed the axe, but there was nothing massive about that.

Few armies today have as brutal exercize programs as they did.

Click to expand...

Care to elaborate?

Click to expand...

That was what I was talking about.

The thickness of shields was the issue. I think that's pretty relevant to your topic.