Shields: an historical question

[tetramorph]

This is a question for you historians out there (@gronanofsimmerya, maybe you could help me here?):

How did men really wear those classic looking shields: you know, the ones that look like the shields on a coat of arms -- flat top, slowly tapering sides to a pointy bottom?

Did they wear them:
a.) top, flat-side across the lower arm (like they show in romantic portrayals)?
b.) top, flat-side facing out of the fist with taper going down to point at the elbow?
c.) point at the fist growing larger towards flat side at the elbow?
d.) other?

Thanks hive mind!

[krusader74]

Have a look at British and Foreign Arms and Armour by Charles Henry Ashdown. At the bottom of the document is the index. There's an index entry for Shields: Assyrian, Bronze Age, etc. For each given era, there's a link to a description of shield construction, how it was used, and pictures. Hope this helps!

[Stormcrow]

Shields are heavy! You can hold one in a battle for less than five minutes before your arm drops from exhaustion, unless you've trained. When you hold it, assuming you're holding it in your left hand, you want the top-right corner to point somewhat upward, to protect your face. The pointy bottom part will point a little rightward, protecting your legs. Your left arm will be pointing around forty-five degrees up. There's a forearm strap near the elbow and a hand-grip; whatever arrangement will lead to the correct placement of the shield while you put as little strain on your arm as possible is the correct placement of your arm. The idea is to cover as much of your body as possible while being able to swing your weapon arm over the shield to hit your enemy. Forget about thrusting, forget about swinging around the side; you want to keep your weapon above your head, pointing down over the front of the shield to act as a further barrier to head-blows, and you want to keep your weapon arm back so you're not exposing it to attack. Whenever you attack, you're opening your head-defense, so it's absolutely vital you are able to move your shield to block with as little movement as possible.

[krusader74]

Oct 23, 2017 13:43:04 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Shields are heavy!

There were exceptions. It all depends on the time period and culture in question. For example, regarding the late 10th century Saxons, Ashdown says,

It was not a heavy shield, in no way comparable to those of some other nations.

Similarly, while we generally think of shields being large, some were actually small. Depends on when, where, and how it was being used. For example, regarding a French knight going on a pilgrimage circa 1370 AD, Ashdown says "the shield is small, notched in the right-hand corner for the lance rest," like so:

Oct 22, 2017 6:28:50 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

How did men really wear those classic looking shields

If you were a noble (10th level lord?), you'd have your shield bearer carry it for you. Ashdown talks about "the battle of the three kings," saying:

One king is habited in a ringed byrnie ... and defends himself with a shield having a spiked umbo. His armour-bearer carries another shield, but is quite unarmed, his duty merely being to defend his master. The Phrygian cap and simple tunic he wears are probably those of everyday life. The second king has no defensive armour and no armour-bearer, unless the figure seen behind him in a grotesque attitude fulfils that office.

Here is the (c. 1000 AD) illustration:



And when you're not using it, you'd carry it like this:

[Stormcrow]

Oct 23, 2017 15:56:16 GMT -6 krusader74 said:

Oct 23, 2017 13:43:04 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

Shields are heavy!

There were exceptions. It all depends on the time period and culture in question. 

But the type asked about by the original poster has a limited range of sizes. When I fought in the SCA, I made a shield of that type as light as could possibly be made out of as light a wood as I could get, and I could barely hold my shield in a block position for five minutes. Other fighters I knew carried much heavier shields for much longer and were sure to take advantage of the opening when I could no longer hold mine up.

You simply never use those muscles in that way for anything else. If you haven't trained to do it, it's hard. That's what I meant by shields being heavy. They may seem light if you just heft one once, but try blocking a flurry of attacks and you soon learn just how heavy they can be.

[krusader74]

Oct 23, 2017 19:51:46 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

But the type asked about by the original poster has a limited range of sizes.

I agree 100% with your point that size and weight constrain how someone wears a shield. But I disagree that the constraints in the OP put much limitation on the size or weight of the shield. The only constraints in the OP seemed to be:

• time: Medieval (inferred),
• place: Europe (inferred),
• shape: "flat top, slowly tapering sides to a pointy bottom," which I call "kite-shaped" for short,
• decoration: "coat of arms,"

but not size or weight, and there was still quite a large variation in these qualities, even given those constraints. Surveying a whole bunch of resources, not just Ashdown, I found:

Shield Type	Weight (lbs.)
Medieval Kite-Shaped	5-10
Small Buckler	2
Ancient Greek	15
Ancient Roman	22
Modern Non-Ballistic Shield	6
Modern Ballistic Shield ("Body Bunker")	16 or 20

(I'm including ancient and modern shields in this list to provide broader historical context -- it shows that the large weight range for shields hasn't really changed much in 3,000 years.)

There's going to be a significant difference in how someone wears a 5 lb. shield versus a 10 lb. shield. I don't have any shields to experiment with. But I do have weight plates (2.5#, 5#, and 10#, 4 ea.), and there is quite a difference when you do the same exercise after doubling the weight!

I remember reading about another SCA member who conducted an experiment to determine how long a shield would last in combat. He made a 6 lb. Medieval kite-shaped shield, attached it to a post, then bashed it with a 9 lb. sword. The shield lasted 2 hours. One problem with these experiments is that they only furnish one data point. And so we need to invoke something like the mediocrity principle to draw a conclusion. But what if the same experiment were repeated a dozen times, would we get the same result? And how long would the shield last if we vary the parameters -- 10 lb. shield vs. 5 lb. sword? Can't really say based on the one data point we have.

Incidentally, replicas of Medieval kite-shaped shields can be purchased on Amazon and they're typically 6 lbs. and range in price from US$50-100. #NotAnEndorsement

On an entirely different note: I have rehosted the public domain images from my last post, in order to get rid of the annoying error messages. Sorry about that. Hopefully, everyone can see those images now.

[Stormcrow]

You're missing my point. Any shield heavier than a trashcan lid that has to be held in a certain position during a life-or-death struggle is going to get very, very heavy very quickly. Unless you train your muscles to hold shields like that, you just can't maintain it. How you hold a shield is all about keeping it in the right position and having to move it as little as possible.

[krusader74]

Oct 25, 2017 7:45:22 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

... Unless you train your muscles to hold shields like that, you just can't maintain it.

Yes, and the Medieval "Fighting Man" did precisely that. He spent most of his life -- age 7 to 21 -- training his muscles to use armor and weapons in combat. I think we agree on that. Quoting from Training a Knight:

Becoming a page was usually the first step most took in the path to knighthood. Training began at a very young age. At 7, the son of a medieval nobleman or knight would be sent off to serve as a page in a lord's castle. There, he would learn horsemanship, archery and swordsmanship, and perform various other duties around the castle.

Squires would begin training as early as 10 years, but the majority would be attached to a knight for training at age 14. A squire's training concentrated on strength, fitness and skill with various weapons. Individual training was only part of the regimen, as knights also needed to know how to fight as part of a team of skilled horsemen. The squire would care for the knight's horse, clean the stables, polish the knight's armor and maintain his weapons. They would learn the chivalric codes of conduct and listen to epic tales of Roland, Charlemagne, Arthur, Percival and Lancelot.

After years of training, and usually around the age of 21, the squire would go through the dubbing ceremony. In the early Middle Ages, this was simply done with a brief, open-handed blow to the neck followed by an admonition to conduct himself with courage, bravery, skill and loyalty. After the 11th century, the Church expanded this ceremony to incorporate seeds of religious chivalry-needed to fight the Crusades-and promised in return, they would be guaranteed a place in heaven for their loyalty.

[Deleted]

What the hell kind of sword weighs nine pounds? The only real sword I've ever handled that even came close to that was a Landsknecht flamberge of the 16th century, which was long after kite shields disappeared.

[Deleted]

As for "how do you handle shields," round shields often were gripped in the center like the pictures.

In the 12th and early 13th century as the Norman kite shield turned into the heater, the first ones were as long as a kite but flat on top. From all archaeological evidence, they were gripped in the corner with one hand, and the main weight was borne by the guige, a strap around the neck. The shield could be released as needed.
i.pinimg.com/736x/c2/9e/2f/c29e2f43cf71cbf46345e11eacf5fa71--knights-templar-the-picture.jpg

Later as the shield got smaller into what we consider the "heater" shape of the late 13th and 14th century, the shield was held by a grip in dexter chief and an arrangement of straps held it on the arm at an angle with the elbow near sinister base. Note that the guige still existed, and may have been used to take a considerable part of the weight.

[tetramorph]

@gronanofsimmerya, thanks, that is straightforward and I get it.

krusader74, and Stormcrow, thanks for y'all's contributions as well.

[Scott Anderson]

I wonder how much of this is why peasant levies and irregular troops used pole arms instead of a sword and shield.

[Stormcrow]

Most pole arms were a lot cheaper than swords, being metal points at the end of wooden poles, though some were more complicated than that. Most peasants weren't well trained in close combat, so instead they relied on massed pole arms to do damage to an enemy not in close combat. You mostly just stand in formation and put your weapon in position. Maybe you walk or run in formation. But as a peasant, that's about all the skill you have or need; you're no hero.

[Deleted]

It may be a bit early for D&D, but the ever awesome Maciejowski Bible has some good illustrations of early kite/heater type shields.

Here, you can see the strap around each knight's neck supporting the shield


In this illustration, you can see the back of the shield on the knight with the blue helmet. He's using his arm to hold the reins. Also, notice the foot soldier with the kettle had to seems to be holding a similarly shaped shield with a center handgrip.


Finally, here's a good image of the strapping arrangements on the tall guy (he's Goliath)


All that being said, a lighter shield with a center boss handgrip would probably be the most effective in a dungeon environment.

[tetramorph]

Thanks, @hedgehobbit , that does help a lot.

All and @gronanofsimmerya: I take it, then, that the "Paladin in Hell" illustration gets it wrong?

[Scott Anderson]

According to a guy I like to read who plays GURPS and also makes medieval swords and shields, he agrees - the lightweight round viking shield with the center boss is the best for long durations. Because they are very light, they do splinter but sometimes will take the splintering weapon along with them.

[Deleted]

Yes, sadly, Dave got it wrong in his "Paladin in Hell" picture.

[Starbeard]

I'm 80% positive there's an episode of The Adventures of Robin Hood (Richard Greene) that features two characters engaged in a climactic duel, fighting with one-handed morning stars and small metal kite shields held the way Dave Sutherland draws it in "Paladin in Hell," using the pointed tips to prod at each other like lion tamers. Totally out picking their noses in left field in terms of accuracy, but man it was cool.

I can't seem to find it though, so it may be another olde medieval movie or program I'm thinking of.

[Deleted]

Nov 15, 2017 16:58:24 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

I'm 80% positive there's an episode of The Adventures of Robin Hood (Richard Greene) that features two characters engaged in a climactic duel, fighting with one-handed morning stars and small metal kite shields held the way Dave Sutherland draws it in "Paladin in Hell," using the pointed tips to prod at each other like lion tamers. Totally out picking their noses in left field in terms of accuracy, but man it was cool.

I can't seem to find it though, so it may be another olde medieval movie or program I'm thinking of.

Are you maybe thinking of the final battle in the film Ivanhoe?

(it's on youtube under "Ivanhoe 1952 Final Battle")

[Starbeard]

Dec 4, 2017 11:32:46 GMT -6 @bard2941 said:

Nov 15, 2017 16:58:24 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

I'm 80% positive there's an episode of The Adventures of Robin Hood (Richard Greene) that features two characters engaged in a climactic duel, fighting with one-handed morning stars and small metal kite shields held the way Dave Sutherland draws it in "Paladin in Hell," using the pointed tips to prod at each other like lion tamers. Totally out picking their noses in left field in terms of accuracy, but man it was cool.

I can't seem to find it though, so it may be another olde medieval movie or program I'm thinking of.

Are you maybe thinking of the final battle in the film Ivanhoe?

(it's on youtube under "Ivanhoe 1952 Final Battle")

No, but that's a terrific duel! The one I'm thinking of was strictly on foot.

[Deleted]

Dec 4, 2017 11:39:12 GMT -6 Starbeard said:

Dec 4, 2017 11:32:46 GMT -6 @bard2941 said:

Are you maybe thinking of the final battle in the film Ivanhoe?

(it's on youtube under "Ivanhoe 1952 Final Battle")

No, but that's a terrific duel! The one I'm thinking of was strictly on foot.

I'm going to have to watch some of those old Adventures of Robin Hood episodes on youtube and hope to find it then -- I'm intrigued.

[Starbeard]

If you find it, let me know. I'm pretty sure it was from The Adventures of Robin Hood, but it could have been from something else (though probably still a TV show). It may also be that I'm misremembering the weapons, and maybe only one person had a ball & chain, or maybe both had hand axes or something—either way, it wasn't a traditional sword & board fight.

Otherwise, what I do recall 100% is that it was a classic duel on foot from start to finish, with concerned onlookers cheering the hero on, it was filmed in black and white, and the heater shields were clearly being held Paladin-in-Hell style and being used to prod at the opponent.

[Deleted]

In "Prince Valiant" one of the characters in the big duel at the end is doing that, but Val had a round shield.

[jcstephens]

Nov 8, 2017 19:48:09 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Yes, sadly, Dave got it wrong in his "Paladin in Hell" picture.

Rather than say "the artist screwed up", it's more fun to come up with an explanation in the finest Marvel No-Prize manner. Perhaps this paladin is some sort of "Secret Style" martial arts aficionado. Not good judgement, but neither is invading Hell without backup!