The boss was for...?

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
13 Spider Bloody Chain

13 Spider Bloody Chain

Grandmaster Knight
Hmm...I've been doing some research for a school project on shields, maille, and full plate.

I'm wondering...what exactly was the boss for? All the books I've read only say what they were made of and how they looked rather than how soldiers used them n battle. From other sources I've heard that the boss does everything from giving soldiers a chance to block heavy blows with something metallic and on their shields (thus preventing their shield from getting chopped into pieces) to give a soldier something to punch with.

What was it for? And how do you know this?
 
Well, with many of these shields, the handle is placed across a hole in the face of the shield, and the boss is there to cover the hand with something sturdy and unbreakable. If one were to put a handle such that it was sticking out from the flat face of the shield (in the case of punch shields, at least) without a hole and boss, the balance of the shield would be off, and it would tend to swing forward.

The latter is from experience, not sources.
 
Precisely.  The boss is to allow you to place the shield's center of gravity inside, or (in the case of curved/convex shelds) behind your hand, rather than in front of it. 
This reduces wrist and arm fatigue and makes the shield more responsive. 

The boss protects your hand while you're sticking it through the center of your shield.  It's also a convenient place to stuff padding so you don't bark your knuckles when your shield gets smacked.  :wink:
 
It was used by the romans to keep the shield as close to the body as possible (the grip would be in the middle, and not behind) because the boss would protect the hand.
 
^ Duh :razz:

But do we know those reasons were the reasons why the ancients decided to put bosses on shields? Or were they beneficial side effects?

The same sort of debate comes up with bodkin heads. Were they originally designed for aerodynamic purposes or armor piercing effectiveness? True, bodkins do go through armor better than a broadhead, but was that why it was invented? Or was it for another reason?
 
Bosses are simply the most obvious tool for the job.  You have a hole in your shield, and your hand is stuck halfway through it.  How do you protect your hand?  You put a metal bowl over it.  Duh.

Bodkins are made to pierce maille.
 
About bodkins (not meaning to go off topic, but you started it), I think broadheads are just as aerodynamic, and may even make the arrow fly more true, since the head almost acts like canards for the arrow.
 
No, the bodkins were much more aerodynamic than broadheads, and it was more or less a coincidence that they ended up being better for armour peircing.
 
aer·o·dy·nam·ics
–noun (used with a singular verb)
the branch of mechanics that deals with the motion of air and other gases and with the effects of such motion on bodies in the medium. Compare aerostatics (def. 1).
[Origin: 1830–40; aero- + dynamics]

I call bull****.  The flights on an arrow are designed to make it fly better.  The arrow head is designed to cause as much damage as possible when it hits the target.  Frankly, bodkins are ****e for inflicting damage.  Here's how the arrow-head damage-enducing hierarchy goes:

- Broadhead arrow sunk into flesh.
(big gap)
- Bodkin arrow sunk into flesh.
(big gap)
- Broadhead arrow that bounced of maille.

The fact that a bodkin could possibly give a marginal increase in how fast or far the arrow can travel is trivial compared to the fact that maille is proof against broadheaded arrows.  You're going to need some pretty damn fine primary sources to back up the claim that the medieval arrowmakers were not only cognisant of aerodynamic principles, but that the fletcher would then use that knowledge to instruct the smith to make arrowheads that cause considerably less damage when they find purchase and then sell the king on that, so that they became the standard.
 
Eogan:  Bodkins are much easier to mass-produce than broadheads, yes?  I'd say that you're right about the aerodynamics part, but I was under the impression that they're simply easier and cheaper to make, and have the added effect of being effective against mail.
 
Merentha said:
Eogan:  Bodkins are much easier to mass-produce than broadheads, yes?
Click to expand...
Are they?  You make a bodkin by beating all four sides so that it has a square profile, no?  Well, only beat the top and bottom, et voila, you have a broadhead.  It may not be as effective as a barbed head, but a metal punch can quickly give it some deformities that will cause some pretty nasty wounds.

The fact is that the primary benefit of the bodkin is its penetrative properties.  Combined with the fact that that maille had recently (within a century or so) supplanted cloth and leather as the de facto armour of the time, especially among the mounted nobility, and you're hard-pressed to argue for any other reason for the preference given to the bodkin.

Occam suggest the bodkin was preferred for its penetrative properties.  That's not to say that aerodynamics, cheapness, or some other quality didn't come into play, simply that you need more evidence than the current fad of trying to prove that every historian that came before you was full of ****e in order for any other supposition to be a serious claim.
 
boss was also to kindof reinforce the hield and make it so that when you attacked with it the shield would pack more of a punch on your opponent......
 
Bodkin heads do as much damage as broadhead... it just depends on wether you want a big hole that will bleed a lot, or a little hole that goes through the body. Bodkin arrows are better for piearcing, while broadhead arrows thunk in and make a big hole. Both work equally, it just depends on what you want to do. Bodkin arrows  are more likely to kill.
 
Halden The Borch shooter said:
Bodkin heads do as much damage as broadhead... it just depends on wether you want a big hole that will bleed a lot, or a little hole that goes through the body. Bodkin arrows are better for piearcing, while broadhead arrows thunk in and make a big hole. Both work equally, it just depends on what you want to do. Bodkin arrows  are more likely to kill.
Click to expand...
Stop, alright?  Narrow points with a clean penetration are far less lethal, all other things being equal.  There's a reason rapiers were never used on the battlefield, they lack stopping power.  Same with bodkins.
 
Merentha just owned you, and he is dead right, a clean cut that a rapier or bodkin or any other narrow, or especially clean cutting weapon causes will not bleed much, because in a clean cut the arteries will close (well not completely, more of a contraction) when severed to reduce bleeding, and ragged cuts will stop or minimize this effect, so Hal, a broad would give a more ragged penetration due to the fact that it is a bigger object being forced through same material. Any questions?
 
Gculk said:
Merentha just owned you, and he is dead right, a clean cut that a rapier or bodkin or any other narrow, or especially clean cutting weapon causes will not bleed much, because in a clean cut the arteries will close (well not completely, more of a contraction) when severed to reduce bleeding, and ragged cuts will stop or minimize this effect, so Hal, a broad would give a more ragged penetration due to the fact that it is a bigger object being forced through same material. Any questions?
Click to expand...

Yeah. Stop being a tard maybe?

I'll concede your point right enough, but you could be nice about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I pray for micro battle management
Replies
5
Views
565
Dejan
Dejan
What is the current state for hosting a server?
Replies
16
Views
849
Dejan
Dejan
Need More Info File read failed! Please try to verify your installation!
Replies
8
Views
775
NormanSteel
NormanSteel
Back
Top Bottom