Viking Shield Work

["Terry L. Neill" <Neilltl@ptsc.slg.eds.com>]

Poster: "Terry L. Neill" <Neilltl@ptsc.slg.eds.com>

For all you Holmgangr fighters out there, here is a recent discussion from the
Old Norse Net:

        - Anarra



>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 01:08:09 +0100 (MET)
>From: keth
>To: oldnorsenet
>Subject: RE: study of small holes in shields?
>
>Eric wrote:
>
>>Greetings Peter,
>>
>>
>>>Has anyone done a study of the small holes in Viking shields?  It would
>>>seem that the handles (usually of strong leather) would leave small holes
>>>in the shields found with the Viking ships.
>>
>
>>Your assumptions are right and not only would the handles ( which could
have
>>been carved wood or metal as well ) leave small holes where they were
riveted
>>on but reinforcing bands of metal and other decorations would have been
>>riveted it on as well.
>
>I did some reading about viking age shields. It turns out that they evolved
>during the viking age. They were usually round with a diameter of around
>97 cm and very light, made of wood, usually painted in bright colors that
>had symbolic significance. The viking shield was not so much used to
receive
>heavy impacts, but rather to divert the direction of a blow, and its use
>was connected with the viking art of fencing, which consisted of different
>kinds of jumps. At least that is what it says in KLMN. Neither can I find
>any references to multiple handles. So it appears as if they had only one
>handle -- the one behind the boss. After the viking age the shields became
>heavier, to disappear around A.D. 1500.
>
>
>Keth




>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 97 01:34:19 UT
>From: Alaric
>To: oldnorsenet
>Subject: RE: study of small holes in shields?
>
>Greetings Keth,
>
>      You wrote:
>
>>I did some reading about viking age shields. It turns out that they
evolved
>>during the viking age. They were usually round with a diameter of around
>>97 cm and very light, made of wood, usually painted in bright colors that
>>had symbolic significance.
>snip<
>>After the viking age the shields became heavier, 
>>to disappear around A.D. 1500.
>
>      That is exactly my point, everyone today thinks that when you have a 
>shield you have to make it heavy and ultra strong and then stand there in a
>line or waiting your opponent to bash at you and to let your shield take the
>blow.  This is not how the Vikings and earlier Germanic and Celtic peoples 
>fought, they would have literally danced and jumped around their opponents 
>much like what we see in the martial arts today and this is how I have always
>done it and believe me it tires out most people real quick when they try to
>keep up ( really aggravating as well ).  Of course the shield wall would have
>been the first by the Vikings and Germanic peoples of earlier legend. 
>
>       When one fights like this the blows to your shield are not as hard as
>they would be if you were trying to stand in place and take an opponents blow
>head on because you are deflecting the blows off at an angle and away from 
>you.  There are Irish and Viking stories of warriors dancing around each other
>trying to get the advantage on their foes and literally jumping clean over 
>their opponents while they were standing in an effort to get behind them or
>escape.  There is a story of a Norseman who while sliding on ice ducked a blow
>and cut off the leg of the person trying to strike him then going a little 
>further he killed yet another potential slayer then escaped.  
>
>( I'll look for a reference for it, although I'm sure anyone familiar with the
>sagas and other literature knows about this story. )
>
>       As for the shape of the Viking shield, I wonder why they say it evolved
>during the Viking age, the round shield like this was common amongst the 
>Germanii who fought Rome for the longest time, and has always been in Germanic
>culture.  
>
>Although the Rus were known to have used large rectangular shields much like
>the Romans. The Arab traveler Ibn gives an eye witness account to this ( as
>well as Byzantine writings about the Rus and the Varangian guard ), the 
>shields were taller than he was, but of course the Swedes were usually much
>larger than the Danes and Norse so this might account for larger shields.  
>There have also been grave sites uncovered ( in Russia ) with these kind of
>shields within. 



>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 97 02:05:47 UT
>From: Alaric
>To: oldnorsenet
>Subject: RE: study of small holes in shields?
>
>Greetings Everyone
>
>I wrote in my last message:
>
>>Of course the shield wall would have been the first by the Vikings and 
>>Germanic peoples of earlier legend.
>
>      This should have said "would have been used first" instead of the above.
>
>      Trying to cut down on the confusion.
>
>      Eric



>Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 14:56:11 +1100 (EST)
>From: charles 
>To: oldnorsenet
>Subject: Shields
>
>I agree with Alaric about the use of shields. In close combat the benefit 
>of having a shield in a single hand is the ability to keep your opponent 
>at arms length, by the simple expedient of pushing them away - something 
>you cannot do so easily when you are more thoroughly attached. It is also 
>possible to poke a spear or sword through a shield, which can pin the arm 
>if it is held against it.
>
>Using a heavy shield is extremely taxing when your opponent is attempting 
>to get their weapon around it - you have to keep moving it around, as 
>fast as they  move their (much lighter) sword/axe/spear point. Light 
>shields give you much better protection because of this.
>
>There are, on the other hand good reasons for having a two-point arm 
>grip. It is easier to simply carry a shield this way. In addition, when 
>mounted (eg Norman knights...) it means you have a hand free for your horse.
>
>just my 2 marks
>
>charles

=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org