| Author |
Message |
|
William P
|
 Posted: Tue 22 May, 2012 11:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Matthew Bunker wrote: | | William P wrote: |
i cant quite see how one would achieve that conical centre with planks, . |
I think the 'pie slice' method discussed on the other shield thread would work, in fact I think it'd make something more akin to this sort of sub-conical shield than it would the lenticular shields. |
also, does the archaeological evidence support the practice of using the 'pie slice method' or are there only vertical plank based shields
|
|
   |
 |
David Huggins
|
| Posted: Wed 23 May, 2012 12:39 am Post subject: Byzantine shield |
|
|
I have performed re-enctment stle combat with a plywood shield using the pie section removal method described and must admit that I found the shields life-span very short & wholly unsatisfactory, one bout of combat in fact, the shield first buckling and then splitting at the section removal joint.
The shield was linen covered, face and reverse with the usual re-enactment edging of rawhide. Just my own personal experiance and perhaps I was just unfortunate, others I know who have used them find them satisfactory for their own style of re-enactment combat.
best
Dave
and he who stands and sheds blood with us, shall be as a brother.
|
|
 |
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Wed 23 May, 2012 4:54 am Post subject: Re: Byzantine shield |
|
|
| David Huggins wrote: | I have performed re-enctment stle combat with a plywood shield using the pie section removal method described and must admit that I found the shields life-span very short & wholly unsatisfactory, one bout of combat in fact, the shield first buckling and then splitting at the section removal joint.
The shield was linen covered, face and reverse with the usual re-enactment edging of rawhide. Just my own personal experiance and perhaps I was just unfortunate, others I know who have used them find them satisfactory for their own style of re-enactment combat.
best
Dave |
one issue id see with a radially planked shield is that when presented in like it is in a shieldwall, with the face presented to the enemy any cut made to the rim will be always hitting the board more or less in line with the grain unless you do a mostly vertical cut to either side of the shield. whereas when hitting a shield with vertically stacked, parallel planks, if you hit it at the 12 o clock and 6 o clock positions on the rim it will be cuting the wood perendicular to the grain.
also, this might simply be a reasoning against a cover of linen on its own
since we know a majority of shields used leather and rawhide for shield coverings,
however at the same time, that lenticular shield that was struck in that test of shields in that episode of weapons that made britain was also 'plywood and canvas'
(although they never state how thick the shield is, but one might notice that there are sections where the plywood has clearly overlapped) which might explain its strength,and this guys shield is alot more like the conical shields byzantine warriors had (minus the boss), as opposed to the bowl shaped lenticular cross section,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Wed 23 May, 2012 7:25 am Post subject: Re: Byzantine shield |
|
|
| William P wrote: | | one issue id see with a radially planked shield is that when presented in like it is in a shieldwall, with the face presented to the enemy any cut made to the rim will be always hitting the board more or less in line with the grain unless you do a mostly vertical cut to either side of the shield. whereas when hitting a shield with vertically stacked, parallel planks, if you hit it at the 12 o clock and 6 o clock positions on the rim it will be cuting the wood perendicular to the grain. |
Bingo. If anyone had any pictoral or archeological evidence for a radial construction, I'd be happy with it, but at the moment I'm dubious.
| Quote: | also, this might simply be a reasoning against a cover of linen on its own
since we know a majority of shields used leather and rawhide for shield coverings, |
DO we know that? The only late Roman shields that survive, that I know of, are from Dura Europas. SOME had coverings of linen or rawhide (described as "parchment", so really thin), others simply had gesso or paint or a layer of hide glue with (apparently) sinew fibers. From other places, the Gokstad shields had no coverings, just painted planks, and while they're generally written off as "ceremonial" or "made for burial", they still had bosses and stitched-on rims. At least one of the shields found in Nydam bog (I think) was just painted plank, too.
I'm also a little dubious about Byzantine shields being wickerwork. There was certainly no Western tradition for that, all Roman, Greek, and Celtic shields to that point being wood. If wickerwork was an Eastern influence, wouldn't it be likely to show up at Dura Europas? But the shields there are all plank, at least some of them curved. (Oh, not counting the plywood scuta!)
I'm not one to discount pictoral evidence lightly, but I'm still waffling on the outright conical shape. Granted, they DO look like they were deliberately drawn with straight lines, not curved like a lenticular shape! And I don't think the point is a problem, that's the boss--the wood ends at the hand hole and doesn't actually make a point. For lenticular shields (or conical, for that matter), I don't think there is any inherent need to be steaming or bending wood. The shield maker would not be starting from modern planks, after all, so it would be a simple matter to cut and shape each plank to the taper and curvature needed, right from the tree. In a culture that relies heavily on watertight barrels, this would be child's play. And of course modern sheets of plywood are an option for many reenactors, but were not a factor in construction of the original shields!
Valete,
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Thu 24 May, 2012 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
tim dawsons suggestion of them being made of cane was based partly on the evidence of wicker training shields used by the romans (i assume he means pre byzantine roman, imnot too sure what logical steps he takes from there but thats whath told me..
as for shield coverings i was, admittedly thinking of viking age scandinavian shields up until the last of the se of the shield in the form of the scottish targe.
most surviving examples ive seen had leatheromewhere in the cover materials,i havent seen linen, wool etc, on its own on the surviving shields ive read of at least but then again youve likely seen alot more..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Thu 24 May, 2012 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| William P wrote: | | tim dawsons suggestion of them being made of cane was based partly on the evidence of wicker training shields used by the romans (i assume he means pre byzantine roman, imnot too sure what logical steps he takes from there but thats whath told me.. |
Ah, gotcha. Well, that's from Vegetius, who admittedly IS a Late Roman writer, though we never know if he is writing from much earlier sources, or from contemporary information, or if he's just making stuff up out of wishful thinking! We do tend to trust his description of the wicker training shields, since they agree with other references to training in the early Empire. BUT his training shields are double the normal weight--not what you want in a battle shield! Obviously, wicker doesn't have to be that heavy, but using his reference as evidence for Byzantine wicker battle shields, when we KNOW plank was common, is too much of a stretch for me.
| Quote: | as for shield coverings i was, admittedly thinking of viking age scandinavian shields up until the last of the se of the shield in the form of the scottish targe.
most surviving examples ive seen had leatheromewhere in the cover materials,i havent seen linen, wool etc, on its own on the surviving shields ive read of at least but then again youve likely seen alot more.. |
Sure, I was thinking the same thing. Leather or rawhide is a perfectly logical and documentable choice for a shield facing. But the Fayum shield from the first century BC was covered in felt front and back, right over the wood. (Amusingly, most reconstructions use leather!) And as I said, there are quite a few remains that clearly did *not* have leather on them, though many of them are not Byzantine, of course. Just trying to point out that the assumption of a leather or rawhide facing is not a safe one to make!
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic