How heavy were shields
- Thread starter Ingolifs
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Tancred De Burgundy
Recruit
My flat-top kite weighs at about 5-6lbs, made from 8mil plywood, measuring 22inches at the widest and 42" in length.
My Round shield weighs again at about 5-6lbs, again 8mil ply, and about 30" in diameter, steel handforged boss, and an iron and wood bar-grip. though she will weigh less next week as she has to be cut down to size for the new regs *sobs* she was known as The BEAST, but now she'll be normal. a gift from Guy De Burgundy, thanks bro
My Round shield weighs again at about 5-6lbs, again 8mil ply, and about 30" in diameter, steel handforged boss, and an iron and wood bar-grip. though she will weigh less next week as she has to be cut down to size for the new regs *sobs* she was known as The BEAST, but now she'll be normal. a gift from Guy De Burgundy, thanks bro
Merlkir
my round strapped viking (sort of ) shield weighs about 3,3 kg which is quite heavy. But it's solid wood and the boss and edgind is pretty thick.
) shield weighs about 3,3 kg which is quite heavy. But it's solid wood and the boss and edgind is pretty thick.
SI would be more confusing, since I have no idea what that means. Converter? Here's your converter: 1Kg = 2.2lbs.
Merlkir
Ezias said:2.225 if you want to be really precise -- and technically kg is mass and not weight
Don't get what you mean by the newtons. Newton is a unit for force. Like gravitation force. So you get force like this. F = m*a . Where "m" is weight in kgs (or mass if you want to use that ridiculous lbs
) and a is acceleration in m/s. If you wish, you can explain weight as a force that pushes down to the Earth. Therefore you use Earth's gravity acceleration. (which is 9,81...m^2/s) so by my count it's more like the force one kilo makes is F = 1 * 9,81 = 9,81 N ./slight OT
I thought you meant the mysterious SI, which magically keeps accumulating in your inventory in ADOM. Not even Thomas Biskup knows what it is.Elrond said:whatever, its getting more confusing
sorry,ı forget explain what is SI =)
SI(system international) is a system about units,and it accept (is it the right word) some units for ex. meter,gram ,newton
@ezias and eogan : thanks for informations...
When a historical movie was made in Romania, they used real equipment. Armors were armors, swords were swords etc. I had the opportunity to check those wears, including a shield. It was wooden with some metal on it. For me (as a child) it was a little heavy 2-3 kilos I think (it was a long long time ago)... and a two handed sword... well I could't really lift it. 
I don't wanna think about metal shields...
I don't wanna think about metal shields...
Ezias
Veteran
Merlkir said:Don't get what you mean by the newtons. Newton is a unit for force. Like gravitation force. So you get force like this. F = m*a . Where "m" is weight in kgs (or mass if you want to use that ridiculous lbs
/slight OT
Weight is a type of force -- it is the amount of force that we exert on the substance beneath us due to the pull of gravity. And that Force is dependednt on the mass of the objects
In the english system the mass unit is the slug and the wight the pund; in SI the mass is kg and weight the newtonTarrak
Sergeant
I thought SI was Standard Imperial... So naturally I was about to complain about that.
I have wondered something. Why was the Republican shield so much heavier than the Imperial? It isn't all that much bigger, is it a lot thicker?
As far as I know it had three layers of woodstrips, did the Imperial only have two?
I have wondered something. Why was the Republican shield so much heavier than the Imperial? It isn't all that much bigger, is it a lot thicker?
As far as I know it had three layers of woodstrips, did the Imperial only have two?
Kekkuli
Recruit
shield must be made of wood, or no man can carry it long time. other thing is a buckler, it can be made out of metal, but not too broad or it will be like anvil ^^ and usually shield really were wooden, you may easily think that those cool looking warshields etc are metal hehe...but i think you are all really well-learnt in these medieval things.
Ezias
Veteran
Kekkuli said:
No one would be able to carry a full-sized norman shield if it was all metal, true. But as you said, smaller shields could be primarily metal and be used fine.
My main comment though is that once on a television show (I beleive it was Conquest, but not sure) they were discussing shields and their evolution. They mentioned how earlier shields were made of wood and yadda yadda yadda, but also said that as the plate armor got stronger shields oftentimes became smaller and I think, but dont quote me on this, that they said that they were made of metal as well. This was due to the increased protection of plate -- large shields were no longer necessary to ensure one's safety.
But wouldn't be possible that some persons could have used medium sized metal shields (or even big)? Although I don't think the shields were made entirely by metal...
brasidus
Sergeant at Arms
Tarrak said:I thought SI was Standard Imperial... So naturally I was about to complain about that.
I have wondered something. Why was the Republican shield so much heavier than the Imperial? It isn't all that much bigger, is it a lot thicker?
As far as I know it had three layers of woodstrips, did the Imperial only have two?
Not much to go one since we only have one or two of each, but at that point how thick are the strips you are using? Ect.
Later Imperials were "Marius's Mules" and carried thier gear.
Also all shileds are pretty much ablative. Most people would go through life never using thiers in combat, but once you did, even if you only took one hit you chuck it and get another, just like a motorcycle helmet.
Tarrak
Sergeant
So the Imperial shields do seem to have been thinner? Was that the point?
But then one wonders if perhaps the thicker Republican shield could be because the citizen himself had to pay for it, and thus wasn't really interested in discarding it right away after a little nick. So from an economical PoW he would prefer his shield to last a long while, at the expense of weight.
But we do have more than just the shields, as far as I remember Polybius does mention that the Romans didn't punch with their shields as it was too heavy or soemthing like that. While later, I think Tacitus, says the opposite.
But then one wonders if perhaps the thicker Republican shield could be because the citizen himself had to pay for it, and thus wasn't really interested in discarding it right away after a little nick. So from an economical PoW he would prefer his shield to last a long while, at the expense of weight.
But we do have more than just the shields, as far as I remember Polybius does mention that the Romans didn't punch with their shields as it was too heavy or soemthing like that. While later, I think Tacitus, says the opposite.
brasidus
Sergeant at Arms
The point is that it is NOT easy to get a killing blow on a person who does not want to be hit, especially if they are armored. A shield, or anything that in some way deterrs that blow even a little is usually more than sufficient.
Also a shield really only neds to be heavy if you plan on using it over and over, like a reenactor. Again, the Imperial troops of the 1st century carried most of thier gear on the march, unlike thier predecessors.
One other reason I might posit was that the infrastructure and logistics of the Empire was such that most equipment was practically disposable, and easily replaced. It only had to get you through the battles you were in until you could get to the rear and get it replaced.
Also a shield really only neds to be heavy if you plan on using it over and over, like a reenactor. Again, the Imperial troops of the 1st century carried most of thier gear on the march, unlike thier predecessors.
One other reason I might posit was that the infrastructure and logistics of the Empire was such that most equipment was practically disposable, and easily replaced. It only had to get you through the battles you were in until you could get to the rear and get it replaced.
