Hi sword people! Would you like to receive weekly up-dates on weapons research, sword-fighting, living history and more straight into your inbox? To read previous newsletters and to sign up, go here: exciting-pioneer-6049.ck.page/a8f72e8432
That was a great test. Shows how much we can learn through recreating and reconstructing these weapons accurately and playing around with the different concepts. Always a joy as you share what you have learned. Thank you.
26:30 Authentic Viking era death xD Thanks to all who were involved in this wonderful series and the school itself, it almost makes me jealous to see people having so much fun with martial arts prior to 1570, but Meyer's pants are the best, so I can't complain xP
Roland Warzecha Then I guess it's time for me to start complaining xp There are just too many different interesting periods in history to study martial arts from, but I can try my best, dammit! Does this school have a youtube channel planned for the future, or one up now? It's always great to see people experienced in things out of my usual areas of interest putting up fine, in depth content.
I am confident that we will see a lot more of Arthur's work and of Ásfólk in the future. They have a website www.asfolk.com and FB pages facebook.com/Asfolk
I would be happy to conduct further tests with spears and arrows. Your support would help to run them: www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=166304 However, I do not really understand why striking harder into a shield would make for a useful test. You can destroy everything if only your try hard enough. But what is the point of embedding your blade even deeper in an enemy shield?
I think an interesting question would be, can a stuck blade (if it's deep enough?) also be used to control the shields position or just the other way round because of the leverage?
That shield is almost 4 times as heavy as that sword, and held way closer while still having the ability to apply leverage with your elbow or swordhand. If you get your sword stuck like this you're in big trouble
Maby an opponent thinks different and don't follow my and your logic. Maby he hit as hard as he can. And because I can imagine that people think like this, I would like to know how deep he can possible get into my shild. "You can destroy anything if only your try hard enough" What is here the point? My Question was not, please destroy this shild, but "how deep would a realy hard strike go". There are limits and I asked for these limits and not if such an attack ist usefull or not or how the best atack would be. I know every human is different in strength, but your partner in the Video makes a lot of Videos and he makes very hard strikes, too. It is just good to know, wehre the limits of your equipment is.
Hey by your own knowledge of shields would you think the Zulu shield, simply made of rawhide, be anyway effective against defending against blows from swords or any other weapons?
Well, seems to have worked in the context these shields were made for. But without sound research into the topic and careful reconstruction, I could not tell you.
Roland Warzecha I've seen some Zulu shields, they are at least a centimeter thick and even have fur still on them, so that too skin layer is definitely still there.
It's hard to describe all the awesomeness in this video. In fact I just had a nerdgasm watching this. Curse you guys for wanting me to abandon my late middle ages and get into Vikings o0
Feels very natural, like your previous vikings fight videos. What you're doing is very important and difficult; you have my respect (and thanks!) Also, since it's so thin, would it withstand arrows? I think that's an important thing to consider xD
thank you for your appreciation. Arrows and missiles are indeed to be considered. But something thin yet flexible will not necessarily offer less protection than some more substantial yet also more with more inertial mass. There is only so much a particular weapon or military item can do for you, and apparently, this design and construction worked in the Vikings preferred contexts of combat - which is raiding and guerilla warfare, not full scale battles (which they usually lost!).
Hmm, I understand. Yeah, I've heard that vikings fought by using quick assaults and not sieges, which would then make them rely more on the shield. This accurate shield is very different from what we're used to, so it's even more important to show it to us! Thanks for the answer and have a good day :)
You are most welcome. In regards to resilience, we should consider that it is harder to break a flexible, thin willow twig than a thicker but stiffer hardwood branch.
Great video keep up the great work. I have a question though, so I have made two shield so far using modern methods but when I do the cloth cover I get ripples and bubbles what am I doing wrong? I iron the cloth prior to putting it on the shield and my bother helps me pull the cloth tight all around the shield but we still get ripples and bubbles. I have seen probable every "How to Make a Viking/Round Shield" their is and do exactly what they all show but still get the bubbles an ripples so does anyone know what I am doing wrong or why this is happening, or are a feel ripples and bubbles normal? Thanks
First of, there is no historical evidence for linen on Viking shields. All facings confirmed by archeology were hide facings. Personally, I have never encountered the problem you described when I put textile facings on shields. What glue are you using and how do you distribute it on your shield?
Oh I didn't know that their is no historical evidence for linen thanks for telling me that. I am using a wood glue since that's what a large percent of people in the videos I've seen use and seems to work for them. I use my hand first to get it kinda even then use a card to get it as even as possible.
In the age of these shields, there never was anything like a "battle hammer." Probably because it was considered a useless approach to bring a huge hammer to flail at shields: as promising as trying to smash a wasp with a boulder.
Awesome demonstration! Thanks for your information and to those that donated their skills for this. Is there a possibility of testing the shield as a weapon itself? Maybe against a ballistics gel analog?
the cut into the shield was one using the false edge? and you talked about blunt edges destroying shields easily so the single edged swords would have been pretty bad for the shields as they would damadge the shield and would not get stuck
When looking at the construction of this type of shield I can understand why each combatant in the traditional "Holmgang" was allowed three shields each.
Yes, absolutely. And it also makes you wonder, how offensively shields were actually used to catch swords. I would not be surprised if special duelling shields were intentionally build without edge strips and maybe only partial facings in the center, or no facing at all? Will be interesting to find out in future tests.
i guess no facing at all makes them too vunerable maybe? i remember a documentary from Mike Loades where they shot a thin shield with an arrow and the arrow just went through the shield, nearly without any resistance. granted there are no arrows in a duel and most strikes (/thrusts) wont be at an 90° angle, but still 5mm wood is very very flimsy
+Glimmlampe1982, as you point out correctly, a duel has very different combat requirements than a skirmish or a siege. Thus, one would pick up the appropriate shield for the job, given there is a choice. Whether or no unfaced thin shields live up to duelling requirements, needs to be tested. Keep in mind that in single combat, a deep cut into your shield is not your problem - it is your advantage!
I guess Arthur will run such a test at one point. These are his shields and we were actually allowed to abuse and destroy them. But schedule did not allow for more tests - and I preferred to do this one first, as it has a martial context I could subscribe to.
Genuine question, why does this look so similar to I.33 sword and buckler? Is it just because that's the closest depiction we have to the proper era, or do is there some other documentation for this?
Well, nobody knows what it actually looks like. All we can do is: - Learn the concepts that make martial arts work (a huge effort for each individual to begin with!) - Closely examine extant original weaponry with a practitioner’s eye. - Research historical context as thoroughly as possible (which includes comparison to related contexts that are better documented). Apparently, conclusions would likely change with every single new source or insight that is being discovered or revealed. Plus, work never stops and is unlikely to ever provide the full picture. (None of which will keep me from continuing my work!)
Thrand, how many times were you about to piss yourself there? I would have been so terrorfied! Also, how much did those shield strikes to the head/torso hurt from a scale of 1-10? They seemed to hurt. Very nice video by the way :) I love arthurs shield grain technique!
Not Thrand, but we did not hurt each other in the demos, of course. Thrand is just a great performer! I wasn't actually striking with the shield edge, rather pressing at a controlled pace. As for using sharps: This requires skill, responsibility and trust. But of course we had a safety precaution: Thrand delayed lowering his blade to get into a starting position for his strike which gave me ample time to turn the shield edge in the way of his rising blow.
Roland, looking at the orange and black shield, could it be said that perhaps the shield was painted in this way because of the wood grain? the orange area is in line with the grain, allowing the shield to catch swords, and the black area is perpendicular, and will deflect swords. The paint seems to help visualize which areas are for which purpose. Also, are there any noteworthy passages in the historical sources which go into detail about different areas of the shield? One would assume the flat is used against projectiles, and the edge against swords. I would also like to see a test in which a stuck sword is broken free from a shield. It appears lumberjacks use a twisting motion to free their axes from wood, this may be the intuitive starting point. It would be interesting to see your analysis.
I hope to be able to conduct according tests in the future, too. As for the painting: Interesting line of thought, but the shield bearer himself would never see the painting of his own shield.
That had crossed my mind. The paint may not have served any such purpose historically, but I'm sure you could use the different colored sections of the shield to steepen the learning curve in your own teachings. I also wonder if there are any historical examples of paint or other types of wood-grain indicating markers on the _underside_ of a shield? With Viking arms and armor generally not being very decorative, at least when compared to the prior-and-successive migration and medieval eras respectively, perhaps there was a purpose to this particular appearance that has been overlooked or misinterpreted as just fancy design.
Also, noticing how the grain runs parallel to the wielders forearm when holding the shield, is this trait present in all of your replica shields? It seems intuitive to design a shield this way if the intention is to lodge enemy swords in itself as much as possible
I always seem to have observed that vikings had 2 distinctly separate expressions of design: one group being highly decorative/ceremonial items and the other being more strictly functional.
Surely your opponent would also be aware that his sword could be caught and therefore take appropriate steps not to because he'd trying to get you to do the same thing. How does this design hold up to spear and arrow impacts ?
It is the nature of a fight that there is a counter to each and every technique. I have yet to run tests with arrows and spears, but as this is an authentic design, it apparently worked in the historical context. Period art (e.g. the so-called Frank's casket) shows arrows penetrating extended shields but stopping them before they could do any harm.
20:15 and later after watching that trapped sword..., I don't know if you get me without any drawing, but could be a good idea (of course is not historically correct, and we know that iron was still quite expensive in Viking era , but funny and insidious idea ) to make a metal circle with with even teeth like cogwheel as and reinforcement around the shield, but with smaller radius than full radius of the shield and "naked" wooden/leather edges around the shield as a trap for sword, middle of the shield could be still quite strong . the only problem is that wooden edge couldn't survive probably more than one battle, or the second idea could be separate and detachable external wooden circle mounted to shield with metal reinforcement circle but of course all construction could be heavier. just some my crazy thoughts :)
One of the Birka shields does feature multiple edge clamps, one next to the other, at least in a part of its shield edge. But this is extremely rare in the Viking period. As you pointed out, it would alter mass distribution and weight. Apparently, it was not a favourite method, judging by the archeological record. Shields would much rather be very agile and light weight and repaired when required, which is confirmed by archeology, too. Repair is easy with authentic shields as Arthur von Eschen found out.
You can think of a shield as an extention of the body. It needs to obviously be fast, thus light weight and thin. Somethinh of the same weight but thicker is also slower, this cuts trough air. Hide ontop of it is just like bulletproof glass, anything hard laminated with anything soft will dramatically increase flexibility and bending strenght and can increase impact resistance and piercing resistance too. Wood already being flexible, the only way I can see how they could have improved this is adding a thin metal rim on the edge. Keep in mind the spartans used the same model but made out of bronze. Heavy and slow as hell. Thus reducing its effective defensive capabilities and making it almost useless in offense.
Roland Warzecha are the shieldspainted with milkpaint? I believe they used to do that. Im sure the romans did. It makes the wood even stronger and keeps it well protected. It also dries out the wood constantly due to the lime in it and as you know drier wood is harder wood. So was just wondering if your shields got it too
As for Viking shields, hardly any traces of paint have survived. There is some on the Gokstad shields from Norway and some fragments from a Hiberno-Norse burial on the Isle of Man. Milk paint is a viable option, egg tempera, as well.
"When youre going to play. Bring a sword. When youre going to war bring an axe." Would like to see the result on that shield after contact with a battle axe.
Its an old norse saying that when you play you bring your sword and when you go to war you bring your axe. :) So my point is that on a battlefield axes were much more common than swords. Looking at the shield I get the feeling it wouldnt stand up a real battle situation against battle axes. In the demonstration it works fine. But Im a bit confused. Why would the norse make a shield so specialized against a specific weapon when other types of weapons were much more common? Lets say this is a true representation of a generic norse shield, then how would a norse warrior counter an attack from an axe wielding opponent? The shield is basicly constructed to "split" and Catch a blade. An axe is then a perfect match as it is constructed to split things. If an battle axe came down on a shield like that I get the feelling would just crumble or split the planks from side to side and probably even take the owners arm with it (ouch). Any insights on this?
These are all the right questions: If shields were constructed in this fashion - and all archeological evidence supports exactly that - then how were they used? I guess we are in agreement that in the day they knew what they were doing, right? At any rate, I would be interested in the source of that saying that you quote. I have not come across it, yet. In regards to your questions: Splitting a shield might well be possible to a certain degree, if the shield was static and preferably mounted on some kind of scaffold. This is, of course, not the case in combat. So even if destroying the opposing shield was your aim, it is a lot less easy than one might picture. Most energy would be transferred into moving a shield, rather than causing much damage. But anybody who understands tempo would know that the time it takes to deliver a particular attack is at the attacked party's disposal, too. This is how *all* counters work in martial arts. So when trying to destroy a shield, one cannot at the same time defend against a simultaneous counter attack. Unless, of course, the axe wielder would use his own shield to screen off the opposing hand weapon. And this is well possible if you play out the full reach of your shield. But then you are back to square one of what I suggest, namely fighting with the shield in order to open attack lines for the hand weapon to exploit. And in this scenario, voluntarily burying your weapon in an opposing shield is not at all a good idea. In other words, if you did so, it does not matter if it is a sword or an axe, because you will disarm yourself, and if only for a short instance. And the deeper your weapon cuts into the shield, the worse.
Hi sword people! Would you like to receive weekly up-dates on weapons research, sword-fighting, living history and more straight into your inbox? To read previous newsletters and to sign up, go here: exciting-pioneer-6049.ck.page/a8f72e8432
That was a great test. Shows how much we can learn through recreating and reconstructing these weapons accurately and playing around with the different concepts. Always a joy as you share what you have learned. Thank you.
You are most welcome - and, yes, it really pays of to do sound research and build accurate replicas.
Wow... This really has changed a lot of my views on combat with arms... Bloody impressive!
I am delighted you found it useful.
26:30 Authentic Viking era death xD
Thanks to all who were involved in this wonderful series and the school itself, it almost makes me jealous to see people having so much fun with martial arts prior to 1570, but Meyer's pants are the best, so I can't complain xP
Actually, it is confirmed by period art work and archeology that some Vikings had baggy pants, too!
Roland Warzecha Then I guess it's time for me to start complaining xp
There are just too many different interesting periods in history to study martial arts from, but I can try my best, dammit!
Does this school have a youtube channel planned for the future, or one up now? It's always great to see people experienced in things out of my usual areas of interest putting up fine, in depth content.
I am confident that we will see a lot more of Arthur's work and of Ásfólk in the future. They have a website www.asfolk.com and FB pages facebook.com/Asfolk
The Shild looks so thin.... how deep would a realy hard strike go? Would it protect against Spears, and Arrows? Please test it out^^
I would be happy to conduct further tests with spears and arrows. Your support would help to run them: www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=166304 However, I do not really understand why striking harder into a shield would make for a useful test. You can destroy everything if only your try hard enough. But what is the point of embedding your blade even deeper in an enemy shield?
I think an interesting question would be, can a stuck blade (if it's deep enough?) also be used to control the shields position or just the other way round because of the leverage?
That shield is almost 4 times as heavy as that sword, and held way closer while still having the ability to apply leverage with your elbow or swordhand.
If you get your sword stuck like this you're in big trouble
Maby an opponent thinks different and don't follow my and your logic. Maby he hit as hard as he can. And because I can imagine that people think like this, I would like to know how deep he can possible get into my shild.
"You can destroy anything if only your try hard enough"
What is here the point? My Question was not, please destroy this shild, but "how deep would a realy hard strike go". There are limits and I asked for these limits and not if such an attack ist usefull or not or how the best atack would be. I know every human is different in strength, but your partner in the Video makes a lot of Videos and he makes very hard strikes, too. It is just good to know, wehre the limits of your equipment is.
why are you hitting the shield hard though? if you hit the shield hard you likely lose control of the weapon.
Hey by your own knowledge of shields would you think the Zulu shield, simply made of rawhide, be anyway effective against defending against blows from swords or any other weapons?
Well, seems to have worked in the context these shields were made for. But without sound research into the topic and careful reconstruction, I could not tell you.
Roland Warzecha I've seen some Zulu shields, they are at least a centimeter thick and even have fur still on them, so that too skin layer is definitely still there.
Roland , where did you get your fine sword used in this video? How long is the blade?
Thank you for your response.
It's hard to describe all the awesomeness in this video. In fact I just had a nerdgasm watching this. Curse you guys for wanting me to abandon my late middle ages and get into Vikings o0
Hahaha - I just love your enthusiastic comments, Beko!
My pleasure :)
Except for Luigi. Poor Luigi :D
Experience the dark side
Feels very natural, like your previous vikings fight videos. What you're doing is very important and difficult; you have my respect (and thanks!)
Also, since it's so thin, would it withstand arrows? I think that's an important thing to consider xD
thank you for your appreciation. Arrows and missiles are indeed to be considered. But something thin yet flexible will not necessarily offer less protection than some more substantial yet also more with more inertial mass. There is only so much a particular weapon or military item can do for you, and apparently, this design and construction worked in the Vikings preferred contexts of combat - which is raiding and guerilla warfare, not full scale battles (which they usually lost!).
Hmm, I understand. Yeah, I've heard that vikings fought by using quick assaults and not sieges, which would then make them rely more on the shield. This accurate shield is very different from what we're used to, so it's even more important to show it to us! Thanks for the answer and have a good day :)
You are most welcome. In regards to resilience, we should consider that it is harder to break a flexible, thin willow twig than a thicker but stiffer hardwood branch.
Great video keep up the great work.
I have a question though, so I have made two shield so far using modern methods but when I do the cloth cover I get ripples and bubbles what am I doing wrong? I iron the cloth prior to putting it on the shield and my bother helps me pull the cloth tight all around the shield but we still get ripples and bubbles. I have seen probable every
"How to Make a Viking/Round Shield" their is and do exactly what they all show but still get the bubbles an ripples so does anyone know what I am doing wrong or why this is happening, or are a feel ripples and bubbles normal? Thanks
First of, there is no historical evidence for linen on Viking shields. All facings confirmed by archeology were hide facings. Personally, I have never encountered the problem you described when I put textile facings on shields. What glue are you using and how do you distribute it on your shield?
Oh I didn't know that their is no historical evidence for linen thanks for telling me that.
I am using a wood glue since that's what a large percent of people in the videos I've seen use and seems to work for them. I use my hand first to get it kinda even then use a card to get it as even as possible.
so what happened when someone turned up to a fight with a battle hammer or something. Did the guy with a sword and shield put his shield down?
In the age of these shields, there never was anything like a "battle hammer." Probably because it was considered a useless approach to bring a huge hammer to flail at shields: as promising as trying to smash a wasp with a boulder.
Awesome demonstration! Thanks for your information and to those that donated their skills for this. Is there a possibility of testing the shield as a weapon itself? Maybe against a ballistics gel analog?
Thrand is the man to ask in this regard. Would be very interesting to see.
Nice work as always Roland. You really need to write a book on sword and shield.
In the works: facebook.com/pg/Dimicator-266934476773420/photos/?tab=album&album_id=344361789030688
A thinner shield like this seems like it changes the dynamic of viking shield fighting somewhat. In a good way though.
Very much so.
the cut into the shield was one using the false edge? and you talked about blunt edges destroying shields easily so the single edged swords would have been pretty bad for the shields as they would damadge the shield and would not get stuck
Then again, in combat, it is the man you have to attack, not the shield.
When looking at the construction of this type of shield I can understand why each combatant in the traditional "Holmgang" was allowed three shields each.
Yes, absolutely. And it also makes you wonder, how offensively shields were actually used to catch swords. I would not be surprised if special duelling shields were intentionally build without edge strips and maybe only partial facings in the center, or no facing at all? Will be interesting to find out in future tests.
i guess no facing at all makes them too vunerable maybe? i remember a documentary from Mike Loades where they shot a thin shield with an arrow and the arrow just went through the shield, nearly without any resistance.
granted there are no arrows in a duel and most strikes (/thrusts) wont be at an 90° angle, but still 5mm wood is very very flimsy
+Glimmlampe1982, as you point out correctly, a duel has very different combat requirements than a skirmish or a siege. Thus, one would pick up the appropriate shield for the job, given there is a choice. Whether or no unfaced thin shields live up to duelling requirements, needs to be tested. Keep in mind that in single combat, a deep cut into your shield is not your problem - it is your advantage!
Roland Warzecha Is there any indication from burials whether or not the shields were made for dueling or battle?
i am curious about the danger of missile weapons: rocks, arrows, thrown javlins...
I am confident we will see future tests. You are welcome to support such projects: www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=713383
Would have loved to see an overhand cut tested on these shields.
I guess Arthur will run such a test at one point. These are his shields and we were actually allowed to abuse and destroy them. But schedule did not allow for more tests - and I preferred to do this one first, as it has a martial context I could subscribe to.
Roland Warzecha apologies, if I sounded ungrateful or something. Hope you didn't take my comment the wrong way. Great work as always. :)
No worries! Have a great day.
Genuine question, why does this look so similar to I.33 sword and buckler? Is it just because that's the closest depiction we have to the proper era, or do is there some other documentation for this?
Well, nobody knows what it actually looks like. All we can do is:
- Learn the concepts that make martial arts work (a huge effort for each individual to begin with!)
- Closely examine extant original weaponry with a practitioner’s eye.
- Research historical context as thoroughly as possible (which includes comparison to related contexts that are better documented).
Apparently, conclusions would likely change with every single new source or insight that is being discovered or revealed. Plus, work never stops and is unlikely to ever provide the full picture. (None of which will keep me from continuing my work!)
Thanks for the reply and your work! Love your videos. :)
Whooooo! Trand!!! I love your Test Videos!
Thrand, how many times were you about to piss yourself there? I would have been so terrorfied!
Also, how much did those shield strikes to the head/torso hurt from a scale of 1-10? They seemed to hurt.
Very nice video by the way :) I love arthurs shield grain technique!
Not Thrand, but we did not hurt each other in the demos, of course. Thrand is just a great performer! I wasn't actually striking with the shield edge, rather pressing at a controlled pace. As for using sharps: This requires skill, responsibility and trust. But of course we had a safety precaution: Thrand delayed lowering his blade to get into a starting position for his strike which gave me ample time to turn the shield edge in the way of his rising blow.
Roland, looking at the orange and black shield, could it be said that perhaps the shield was painted in this way because of the wood grain? the orange area is in line with the grain, allowing the shield to catch swords, and the black area is perpendicular, and will deflect swords. The paint seems to help visualize which areas are for which purpose. Also, are there any noteworthy passages in the historical sources which go into detail about different areas of the shield? One would assume the flat is used against projectiles, and the edge against swords. I would also like to see a test in which a stuck sword is broken free from a shield. It appears lumberjacks use a twisting motion to free their axes from wood, this may be the intuitive starting point. It would be interesting to see your analysis.
I hope to be able to conduct according tests in the future, too. As for the painting: Interesting line of thought, but the shield bearer himself would never see the painting of his own shield.
That had crossed my mind. The paint may not have served any such purpose historically, but I'm sure you could use the different colored sections of the shield to steepen the learning curve in your own teachings. I also wonder if there are any historical examples of paint or other types of wood-grain indicating markers on the _underside_ of a shield? With Viking arms and armor generally not being very decorative, at least when compared to the prior-and-successive migration and medieval eras respectively, perhaps there was a purpose to this particular appearance that has been overlooked or misinterpreted as just fancy design.
Also, noticing how the grain runs parallel to the wielders forearm when holding the shield, is this trait present in all of your replica shields? It seems intuitive to design a shield this way if the intention is to lodge enemy swords in itself as much as possible
What do you mean Viking armament was not particularly decorated? The archeological records confirms the opposite.
I always seem to have observed that vikings had 2 distinctly separate expressions of design: one group being highly decorative/ceremonial items and the other being more strictly functional.
Surely your opponent would also be aware that his sword could be caught and therefore take appropriate steps not to because he'd trying to get you to do the same thing. How does this design hold up to spear and arrow impacts ?
It is the nature of a fight that there is a counter to each and every technique. I have yet to run tests with arrows and spears, but as this is an authentic design, it apparently worked in the historical context. Period art (e.g. the so-called Frank's casket) shows arrows penetrating extended shields but stopping them before they could do any harm.
I have no words except: AMAZING!
You just put a smile on my face!
That was really neat.
20:15 and later after watching that trapped sword..., I don't know if you get me without any drawing, but could be a good idea (of course is not historically correct, and we know that iron was still quite expensive in Viking era , but funny and insidious idea ) to make a metal circle with with even teeth like cogwheel as and reinforcement around the shield, but with smaller radius than full radius of the shield and "naked" wooden/leather edges around the shield as a trap for sword, middle of the shield could be still quite strong . the only problem is that wooden edge couldn't survive probably more than one battle, or the second idea could be separate and detachable external wooden circle mounted to shield with metal reinforcement circle but of course all construction could be heavier. just some my crazy thoughts :)
One of the Birka shields does feature multiple edge clamps, one next to the other, at least in a part of its shield edge. But this is extremely rare in the Viking period. As you pointed out, it would alter mass distribution and weight. Apparently, it was not a favourite method, judging by the archeological record. Shields would much rather be very agile and light weight and repaired when required, which is confirmed by archeology, too. Repair is easy with authentic shields as Arthur von Eschen found out.
Fascinating.
You can think of a shield as an extention of the body. It needs to obviously be fast, thus light weight and thin. Somethinh of the same weight but thicker is also slower, this cuts trough air. Hide ontop of it is just like bulletproof glass, anything hard laminated with anything soft will dramatically increase flexibility and bending strenght and can increase impact resistance and piercing resistance too. Wood already being flexible, the only way I can see how they could have improved this is adding a thin metal rim on the edge. Keep in mind the spartans used the same model but made out of bronze. Heavy and slow as hell. Thus reducing its effective defensive capabilities and making it almost useless in offense.
I cannot comment on Spartan shields but agree with the rest of what you say.
Roland Warzecha are the shieldspainted with milkpaint? I believe they used to do that. Im sure the romans did. It makes the wood even stronger and keeps it well protected. It also dries out the wood constantly due to the lime in it and as you know drier wood is harder wood. So was just wondering if your shields got it too
As for Viking shields, hardly any traces of paint have survived. There is some on the Gokstad shields from Norway and some fragments from a Hiberno-Norse burial on the Isle of Man. Milk paint is a viable option, egg tempera, as well.
"When youre going to play. Bring a sword. When youre going to war bring an axe."
Would like to see the result on that shield after contact with a battle axe.
What are you trying to say?
Its an old norse saying that when you play you bring your sword and when you go to war you bring your axe. :) So my point is that on a battlefield axes were much more common than swords. Looking at the shield I get the feeling it wouldnt stand up a real battle situation against battle axes. In the demonstration it works fine. But Im a bit confused. Why would the norse make a shield so specialized against a specific weapon when other types of weapons were much more common? Lets say this is a true representation of a generic norse shield, then how would a norse warrior counter an attack from an axe wielding opponent? The shield is basicly constructed to "split" and Catch a blade. An axe is then a perfect match as it is constructed to split things.
If an battle axe came down on a shield like that I get the feelling would just crumble or split the planks from side to side and probably even take the owners arm with it (ouch). Any insights on this?
These are all the right questions: If shields were constructed in this fashion - and all archeological evidence supports exactly that - then how were they used? I guess we are in agreement that in the day they knew what they were doing, right? At any rate, I would be interested in the source of that saying that you quote. I have not come across it, yet.
In regards to your questions: Splitting a shield might well be possible to a certain degree, if the shield was static and preferably mounted on some kind of scaffold. This is, of course, not the case in combat. So even if destroying the opposing shield was your aim, it is a lot less easy than one might picture. Most energy would be transferred into moving a shield, rather than causing much damage. But anybody who understands tempo would know that the time it takes to deliver a particular attack is at the attacked party's disposal, too. This is how *all* counters work in martial arts. So when trying to destroy a shield, one cannot at the same time defend against a simultaneous counter attack. Unless, of course, the axe wielder would use his own shield to screen off the opposing hand weapon. And this is well possible if you play out the full reach of your shield. But then you are back to square one of what I suggest, namely fighting with the shield in order to open attack lines for the hand weapon to exploit. And in this scenario, voluntarily burying your weapon in an opposing shield is not at all a good idea. In other words, if you did so, it does not matter if it is a sword or an axe, because you will disarm yourself, and if only for a short instance. And the deeper your weapon cuts into the shield, the worse.
I dare to say these fights and your moves are specificly staged to have the sword be bound in the shield.
Thrand is surprisingly short.compared to Roland.
Why they didn't call it The Yankee Doodle Rd Viking Martial Arts School is beyond me.
Jesus, that's a sword eating shield :'D