My club makes their kites shields out of marine plywood and covers the edges with doggie chew. I will prob go this method myself but thought I would ask how are these shields supposed to have been made back then? (I dont think the Normans had much access to marine ply back then, but I have been wrong before...). Do we know, if so please tell me.
Oh and were these shields flat or curved outwards from side to side?
And for the top of the shield I know they were tear shaped (curved on top) and I am pretty sure they evolved into a flatter top making them more like a triangle, can someone correct me if I am wrong on that?
Thanks.
Norman kite shield construction
-
Egfroth
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4577
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Ballarat, Victoria, Australia
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Wyrmspleen the Incoherant:
My club makes their kites shields out of marine plywood and covers the edges with doggie chew. I will prob go this method myself but thought I would ask how are these shields supposed to have been made back then? (I dont think the Normans had much access to marine ply back then, but I have been wrong before...). Do we know, if so please tell me.
You're right, as far as we know. The ones that have been found (rather later in period, unfortunately - there seem to be none earlier than the late 12th century)are made of two or three planks glued (?) edge to edge. Must have been damned good glue . . .
The Seedorf shield is one of the better known ones, but I've never really tried to find out much about how it was made, covered, edged, etc.<B>
Oh and were these shields flat or curved outwards from side to side?
</B>There has eben an inteersting argument on the Australian Living History List about this very issue of late. The evidence we have (mostly from carvings) seems to indicate that shields of the time were either flat or gently curved.<B>
And for the top of the shield I know they were tear shaped (curved on top) and I am pretty sure they evolved into a flatter top making them more like a triangle, can someone correct me if I am wrong on that?
Thanks.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope. You're right. The changeover to flat-top occurred in the last couple of decades of the 12th century, though by no means all shields became flat-topped straight away. There were even round-topped kites still in use as late as the 15th century.
------------------
Egfroth
"I hope all your chooks turn to Emus and kick your dunny down."
see my webpage at www.geocities.com/egfrothos
My club makes their kites shields out of marine plywood and covers the edges with doggie chew. I will prob go this method myself but thought I would ask how are these shields supposed to have been made back then? (I dont think the Normans had much access to marine ply back then, but I have been wrong before...). Do we know, if so please tell me.
You're right, as far as we know. The ones that have been found (rather later in period, unfortunately - there seem to be none earlier than the late 12th century)are made of two or three planks glued (?) edge to edge. Must have been damned good glue . . .
The Seedorf shield is one of the better known ones, but I've never really tried to find out much about how it was made, covered, edged, etc.<B>
Oh and were these shields flat or curved outwards from side to side?
</B>There has eben an inteersting argument on the Australian Living History List about this very issue of late. The evidence we have (mostly from carvings) seems to indicate that shields of the time were either flat or gently curved.<B>
And for the top of the shield I know they were tear shaped (curved on top) and I am pretty sure they evolved into a flatter top making them more like a triangle, can someone correct me if I am wrong on that?
Thanks.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope. You're right. The changeover to flat-top occurred in the last couple of decades of the 12th century, though by no means all shields became flat-topped straight away. There were even round-topped kites still in use as late as the 15th century.
------------------
Egfroth
"I hope all your chooks turn to Emus and kick your dunny down."
see my webpage at www.geocities.com/egfrothos
Aside from the fact that the Norman kite shields are being used as tables in some of the scenes on the Bayeux Tapestry, I haven't seen anything to solidly conclude that they are flat. Haven't looked all that hard though.
If anyone would be willing to forward me a few of the core emails from the discussion, I would really appreciate it.
~Wil
------------------
Norðhere- 11th century living history & reenactment in Western Canada
If anyone would be willing to forward me a few of the core emails from the discussion, I would really appreciate it.
~Wil
------------------
Norðhere- 11th century living history & reenactment in Western Canada
-
Sean Powell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 9908
- Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2002 1:01 am
- Location: Holden MA
Take regular plane cut boards (not quarter-sawn). Allign the boards so the section where the trunk used to be is the side facing the enemy. Carefully plane the mating edges. Dowel-pin and glue them edge to edge. Plane and sand to the smoothest, flatest shape you possibly can and cut your shield...
...now leave it outside in the rain for a month and maybe add some salt-water spray. I'll be damed if the thing dosen't cup into a curved shield weather you want it to or not.
This is the bane of all furniture makers and why there is a "top" and "bottom" when laying wood planks for a deck. The guys who built the deck on my house didn't have a clue and it collects puddles in the center of half the boards. The puddling water accelerates the cupping effect.
Given the better balance of a curved shield I'd be surprised if the shield were ment to be flat but I'd be doubly surprised if an extant flat one could be found.
Happy Woodworking,
Sean
...now leave it outside in the rain for a month and maybe add some salt-water spray. I'll be damed if the thing dosen't cup into a curved shield weather you want it to or not.
This is the bane of all furniture makers and why there is a "top" and "bottom" when laying wood planks for a deck. The guys who built the deck on my house didn't have a clue and it collects puddles in the center of half the boards. The puddling water accelerates the cupping effect.
Given the better balance of a curved shield I'd be surprised if the shield were ment to be flat but I'd be doubly surprised if an extant flat one could be found.
Happy Woodworking,
Sean
-
Egfroth
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4577
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Ballarat, Victoria, Australia
- Contact:
Here are most of the salient ponts in the discussion, incorporating statements and replies.
The original discussion was begun by Steve Hand (Hi Gron!). Steve's contention was that there is a difference between the technique for using a heavily curved kite (ie snuggle inside it, and a flat or gently curved kite (hold it out from you and move it around a lot).
He was of the opinion that the heavily curved shield came in at the same time as the full length mail sleeve (ie about mid 12th century), because to attack while using a heavily curved shield, you have to take your arm out of its protection and expose it to danger.
The discussion proceeded from there:
<I>Steven Lowe wrote:
>Of course, one of the major problems with this issue is that kite shields
>only begin to be represented in the 11th century, and the few
>representations we have from this period are equivocal. The only one that
>shows *any* evidence of what the shape may have been is that of the feast in
>the Bayeux Tapestry. The Tapestry is, unfortunately, equivocal even in
>this - neither a boss nor enarmes are shown, so we don't know if the shields
>are supposed to be facing up or down, though I'd suggest the presence of a
>boss would be more of a hassle among the table implements than would a set
>of enarmes (particularly the single enarme at the top, so commonly shown on
>the Tapestry)
>
> However, I am confident that a kite shield with a shallow curve would be
>quite capable of acting as a table if upturned - ie with the back of the
>shield facing upwards. Most items would happily stay on the surface, and any
>item that was upset would naturally roll toward the centre of the shield.
>(If the shield was the other way up, it'd roll off into the ground).
>
Possibly, but I suppose we can test the theory, the test would require
one flat kite, one curved kite, four people and something that looks
like a thin wooden fence to balance on... oh and of course a picnic
lunch. As you can see on that particular part of the tapestry two bums
per shield. It would be interesting to see who has the more difficult meal.
>That the representations we do have are almost all two-dimensional should
>not be taken as evidence that the shields were flat. They're only evidence
>that the pictures are two-dimensional. Of course, it's a lot easier to show
>a kite as a flat face in a two-dimensional picture, and many that might
>really be curved are simply shown face-on, so you never get to see the
>curve.
>
>
I'd like to think that people on this list are a little more intelligent
than to solely base an opinion on one reference. Although the reference
for this particular time are few. You could stretch the argument for
curved shields by saying that some of the kite shields mounted on some
of the ships appear to be different, as though they were trying to
represent something slightly different.
>If you want to go East at the same time, we have a Byzantine kite at
http://www.culture.gr/2/21/218/218ci/00/l9-1.html with a nice shallow curve,
>which is what I believe them to have had at Hastings. Another at
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/egfroth/GeorgeDemetrios.jpg has an "angled"
>front. The shields of the gambling soldiers at
http://www.geocities.com/egfroth1/IkonSoldiers.html seem to show curved
>shields as well, as you can see one rim but not the other. I've looked
>through all my 11th century stuff, but unfortunately it really isn't
>helpful. A large proportion of warriors in West European representations are
> still carrying round shields, and any kite shields shown are face-on,
>proving nothing eiher way.
>
There are some 11th century chess men that can be used in the argument
for flat shields, kites and round, pp 24 and 25 of the "Norman Knight
950 - 1204" Ospery Warrior series. Of course I can dig up others
references as well.
>As Rod has written previously, a non-curved shield on horseback is almost
>useless, and cetrainly I have found that a completely flat kite in foot
>combat gives far less protection than even a mildly curved one. And it's not
>as if the technology didn't exist. Hell, they could make "bowl-shaped" round
>shields; a slightly curved kite should have been a doddle.
>
>
Gimme a bowl shaped reference, so I can make one (I will anyway just to
see how good they are, but it would be nice to have a reference)
>The evidence in a nutshell is as follows:
>
>1. The earliest kite-shields we DO have are curved, and date to the 12th
>century.
>
Yep, but gotta add late 12th century early 13th.
>2. The only evidence we have that they might have been flat is a single
>picture from the Bayeux Tapestry, and (at least in my view) a shield with a
>shallow curve could still have performed as a table.
>
I personally think the shields used for the tables are flat because
there are round bottomed bowls sitting on them. Saying that I still
think that you could stretch your imagination for curved shields, 'cause
there are a lot of images that don't look quite right for flatties.
>3. Every other picture we have is equivocal, showing the shield from
>directly in front or behind. None show the shield edge-on.
>
>
In the Bayeux I'd agree, but 100 years later there are definitely some
bible images that show shields from the side .
>4. If there were any 11th century picturs showing a shield side-on as a
>straight line, we'd have something more closely approximating proof that
>they were flat. But there aren't any.
>
No, but there are 11th century chessmen with flatties, kite and round.
>5. Later (C12) pictures of kite shields either show them face-on, or curved.
>
>I submit, M'lud, that the case for "flat" kite shields in the 11th century
>is still far from proved.
>
Well M'lovelies, "flat" kite shields may be far from proven, but curved
is also very far from proven.
Basically you can make either a curved OR a flat, because the technology
was available for both types. There is no solid evidence (yet) to prove
either case."</I>
And the last bit of the discussion on this subject was:
<I>> Agreed. All I'm trying to do is put the case that it is by no means proved
> that curved shields _didn't_ exist in the 11th century, which was the
> original contention.
>
> Egfroth
Umm, my original contention is that HEAVILYcurved shields didn't exist in
the 11th century. My research (using fechtbucher, artwork and practical
experimentation) shows that lightly curved shields function pretty much like
flat shields, but heavily curved shields function very differently. Look at
the images from the 11th century versus the 12th century. The shields are
being held radically differently. 11th century kites are held in single
combat like round shields, with the edge towards the opponent, but 12th
century kites are held flat against the body, with the curve protecting the
flanks. Roman shields are shown held the same way, while Greek shields are
shown held like 11th century kites (Greek shields also have their own unique
ward, made possible by the form of the shield). Shield form, not fashion
dictates how the shield is used. However, the heavy curve makes it almost
impossible to protect the arm in attack and hence every picture I have of a
chap with a heavily curved kite shield shows him with full length mail
sleeves. And of course the Romans eventually introduced the manica in Dacia
to combat the extreme number of injuries to the sword arm.
So, flat or gentle curve, it doesn't matter to me as it doesn't change what
I do with the shield.</I>
And finally, the two chess pieces I was thinking of were at http://www.chez.com/cazaux/charlemagne.htm but there are also the piecse from the Lewis chess set which seem pretty damned flat (though they're apparently later, and from a different part of Europe).
[This message has been edited by Egfroth (edited 11-06-2003).]
The original discussion was begun by Steve Hand (Hi Gron!). Steve's contention was that there is a difference between the technique for using a heavily curved kite (ie snuggle inside it, and a flat or gently curved kite (hold it out from you and move it around a lot).
He was of the opinion that the heavily curved shield came in at the same time as the full length mail sleeve (ie about mid 12th century), because to attack while using a heavily curved shield, you have to take your arm out of its protection and expose it to danger.
The discussion proceeded from there:
<I>Steven Lowe wrote:
>Of course, one of the major problems with this issue is that kite shields
>only begin to be represented in the 11th century, and the few
>representations we have from this period are equivocal. The only one that
>shows *any* evidence of what the shape may have been is that of the feast in
>the Bayeux Tapestry. The Tapestry is, unfortunately, equivocal even in
>this - neither a boss nor enarmes are shown, so we don't know if the shields
>are supposed to be facing up or down, though I'd suggest the presence of a
>boss would be more of a hassle among the table implements than would a set
>of enarmes (particularly the single enarme at the top, so commonly shown on
>the Tapestry)
>
> However, I am confident that a kite shield with a shallow curve would be
>quite capable of acting as a table if upturned - ie with the back of the
>shield facing upwards. Most items would happily stay on the surface, and any
>item that was upset would naturally roll toward the centre of the shield.
>(If the shield was the other way up, it'd roll off into the ground).
>
Possibly, but I suppose we can test the theory, the test would require
one flat kite, one curved kite, four people and something that looks
like a thin wooden fence to balance on... oh and of course a picnic
lunch. As you can see on that particular part of the tapestry two bums
per shield. It would be interesting to see who has the more difficult meal.
>That the representations we do have are almost all two-dimensional should
>not be taken as evidence that the shields were flat. They're only evidence
>that the pictures are two-dimensional. Of course, it's a lot easier to show
>a kite as a flat face in a two-dimensional picture, and many that might
>really be curved are simply shown face-on, so you never get to see the
>curve.
>
>
I'd like to think that people on this list are a little more intelligent
than to solely base an opinion on one reference. Although the reference
for this particular time are few. You could stretch the argument for
curved shields by saying that some of the kite shields mounted on some
of the ships appear to be different, as though they were trying to
represent something slightly different.
>If you want to go East at the same time, we have a Byzantine kite at
http://www.culture.gr/2/21/218/218ci/00/l9-1.html with a nice shallow curve,
>which is what I believe them to have had at Hastings. Another at
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/egfroth/GeorgeDemetrios.jpg has an "angled"
>front. The shields of the gambling soldiers at
http://www.geocities.com/egfroth1/IkonSoldiers.html seem to show curved
>shields as well, as you can see one rim but not the other. I've looked
>through all my 11th century stuff, but unfortunately it really isn't
>helpful. A large proportion of warriors in West European representations are
> still carrying round shields, and any kite shields shown are face-on,
>proving nothing eiher way.
>
There are some 11th century chess men that can be used in the argument
for flat shields, kites and round, pp 24 and 25 of the "Norman Knight
950 - 1204" Ospery Warrior series. Of course I can dig up others
references as well.
>As Rod has written previously, a non-curved shield on horseback is almost
>useless, and cetrainly I have found that a completely flat kite in foot
>combat gives far less protection than even a mildly curved one. And it's not
>as if the technology didn't exist. Hell, they could make "bowl-shaped" round
>shields; a slightly curved kite should have been a doddle.
>
>
Gimme a bowl shaped reference, so I can make one (I will anyway just to
see how good they are, but it would be nice to have a reference)
>The evidence in a nutshell is as follows:
>
>1. The earliest kite-shields we DO have are curved, and date to the 12th
>century.
>
Yep, but gotta add late 12th century early 13th.
>2. The only evidence we have that they might have been flat is a single
>picture from the Bayeux Tapestry, and (at least in my view) a shield with a
>shallow curve could still have performed as a table.
>
I personally think the shields used for the tables are flat because
there are round bottomed bowls sitting on them. Saying that I still
think that you could stretch your imagination for curved shields, 'cause
there are a lot of images that don't look quite right for flatties.
>3. Every other picture we have is equivocal, showing the shield from
>directly in front or behind. None show the shield edge-on.
>
>
In the Bayeux I'd agree, but 100 years later there are definitely some
bible images that show shields from the side .
>4. If there were any 11th century picturs showing a shield side-on as a
>straight line, we'd have something more closely approximating proof that
>they were flat. But there aren't any.
>
No, but there are 11th century chessmen with flatties, kite and round.
>5. Later (C12) pictures of kite shields either show them face-on, or curved.
>
>I submit, M'lud, that the case for "flat" kite shields in the 11th century
>is still far from proved.
>
Well M'lovelies, "flat" kite shields may be far from proven, but curved
is also very far from proven.
Basically you can make either a curved OR a flat, because the technology
was available for both types. There is no solid evidence (yet) to prove
either case."</I>
And the last bit of the discussion on this subject was:
<I>> Agreed. All I'm trying to do is put the case that it is by no means proved
> that curved shields _didn't_ exist in the 11th century, which was the
> original contention.
>
> Egfroth
Umm, my original contention is that HEAVILYcurved shields didn't exist in
the 11th century. My research (using fechtbucher, artwork and practical
experimentation) shows that lightly curved shields function pretty much like
flat shields, but heavily curved shields function very differently. Look at
the images from the 11th century versus the 12th century. The shields are
being held radically differently. 11th century kites are held in single
combat like round shields, with the edge towards the opponent, but 12th
century kites are held flat against the body, with the curve protecting the
flanks. Roman shields are shown held the same way, while Greek shields are
shown held like 11th century kites (Greek shields also have their own unique
ward, made possible by the form of the shield). Shield form, not fashion
dictates how the shield is used. However, the heavy curve makes it almost
impossible to protect the arm in attack and hence every picture I have of a
chap with a heavily curved kite shield shows him with full length mail
sleeves. And of course the Romans eventually introduced the manica in Dacia
to combat the extreme number of injuries to the sword arm.
So, flat or gentle curve, it doesn't matter to me as it doesn't change what
I do with the shield.</I>
And finally, the two chess pieces I was thinking of were at http://www.chez.com/cazaux/charlemagne.htm but there are also the piecse from the Lewis chess set which seem pretty damned flat (though they're apparently later, and from a different part of Europe).
[This message has been edited by Egfroth (edited 11-06-2003).]
This is another area where Romanesque church sculpture should be of assistance ... I'll have a look through my resources over the weekend. Unfortunately, a lot of it is early 12th C, so I don't know if I'll find anything that answers the (apparently very crucial) distinction between the 11th C and 12th C ...
-
Egfroth
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4577
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Ballarat, Victoria, Australia
- Contact:
Yeah, it's a bugger, isn't it?
Look forward to seeing what you turn up.
------------------
Egfroth
"I hope all your chooks turn to Emus and kick your dunny down."
see my webpage at www.geocities.com/egfrothos
Look forward to seeing what you turn up.
------------------
Egfroth
"I hope all your chooks turn to Emus and kick your dunny down."
see my webpage at www.geocities.com/egfrothos
-
Egfroth
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4577
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Ballarat, Victoria, Australia
- Contact:
Thats like asking "How long is a piece of string?" Maybe they didn't have the incentive, though personally, I like to protect my legs. Maybe the fighting style they used was particularly suited to the round shield. Or maybe they just didn't think of it . . .
It appears that the kite shield travelled to Western Europe from (possibly) Egypt, via Byzantium. By the end of the 11th century they were widespread, but round shields never completely vanished.
------------------
Egfroth
"I hope all your chooks turn to Emus and kick your dunny down."
see my webpage at www.geocities.com/egfrothos
It appears that the kite shield travelled to Western Europe from (possibly) Egypt, via Byzantium. By the end of the 11th century they were widespread, but round shields never completely vanished.
------------------
Egfroth
"I hope all your chooks turn to Emus and kick your dunny down."
see my webpage at www.geocities.com/egfrothos
also gotta figure that before this cent, fighting from horseback in europe wasnt the thing to do. kite's work better on horses than rounds do so........
------------------
Wolf
"She barks like a she-ass, but has that stare of a woman thats perminantly moist between the hams"-- the Advocate
http://home.armourarchive.org/members/wolf/
------------------
Wolf
"She barks like a she-ass, but has that stare of a woman thats perminantly moist between the hams"-- the Advocate
http://home.armourarchive.org/members/wolf/
-
Egfroth
- Archive Member
- Posts: 4577
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Ballarat, Victoria, Australia
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by lacheadon:
<B>And that is the point. In our style of fighting, lower legs often seems a few open target, but they musn't have been for them.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, legs seem to be the major area of wounds in Viking battle graves from what I've read. Pretty horrifying ones, at that.
And there are two swords in the sagas known as "Leg-biter"
------------------
Egfroth
"I hope all your chooks turn to Emus and kick your dunny down."
see my webpage at www.geocities.com/egfrothos
<B>And that is the point. In our style of fighting, lower legs often seems a few open target, but they musn't have been for them.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, legs seem to be the major area of wounds in Viking battle graves from what I've read. Pretty horrifying ones, at that.
And there are two swords in the sagas known as "Leg-biter"
------------------
Egfroth
"I hope all your chooks turn to Emus and kick your dunny down."
see my webpage at www.geocities.com/egfrothos
From Gretti Saga:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"Önundur stóð út á borðið öðrum fæti og hjó til manns og à þvà var lagið til hans. Og er hann bar af sér lagið kiknaði hann við. Þá hjó einn af stafnbúum konungs á fót Önundar fyrir neðan kné og tók af fótinn. Önundur varð þegar óvÃgur."
----------------------------------------
"Onund was stepping out with one foot on to the bulwark, and as he was striking they made a thrust at him with a spear; in parrying it he bent backwards, and at that moment a man on the forecastle of the king's ship struck him and took off his leg below the knee, disabling him at a blow."</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
but:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"Önundur varð græddur og gekk við tréfót sÃðan alla ævi. Var hann af þvà kallaður Önundur tréfótur meðan hann lifði."
--------------------------------
"Onund recovered and went about for the rest of his life with a wooden leg, wherefore he was called Onund Treefoot as long as he lived."</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
/N B
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"Önundur stóð út á borðið öðrum fæti og hjó til manns og à þvà var lagið til hans. Og er hann bar af sér lagið kiknaði hann við. Þá hjó einn af stafnbúum konungs á fót Önundar fyrir neðan kné og tók af fótinn. Önundur varð þegar óvÃgur."
----------------------------------------
"Onund was stepping out with one foot on to the bulwark, and as he was striking they made a thrust at him with a spear; in parrying it he bent backwards, and at that moment a man on the forecastle of the king's ship struck him and took off his leg below the knee, disabling him at a blow."</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
but:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"Önundur varð græddur og gekk við tréfót sÃðan alla ævi. Var hann af þvà kallaður Önundur tréfótur meðan hann lifði."
--------------------------------
"Onund recovered and went about for the rest of his life with a wooden leg, wherefore he was called Onund Treefoot as long as he lived."</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
/N B
Indeed. It would be easy to point the finger at the increase in the usage of cavalry, but, as Eggfart pointed out, leg wounds still seem to be fairly common.
Of course, how many body and upper leg/arm wounds are lost because of more soft tissue is something much harder to evaluate.
I mean, there must have been some cause to go from the Roman scutum and big ovals to the "smaller" rounds. Why?
Of course, how many body and upper leg/arm wounds are lost because of more soft tissue is something much harder to evaluate.
I mean, there must have been some cause to go from the Roman scutum and big ovals to the "smaller" rounds. Why?
Guys,
Great discussion. I'd guess that use on horseback contributed, though was not THE reason, for the development of the kite shield.
However, I'm firly in the camp of "no heavily curved kite shields" in the 11th century, at least not for use from horseback. Now, the fellow referred to as Rod in Egfroth's posted discussion above stated that a non-curved shield is almost useless from horseback. I wouldn't go quite that far, but a slight curve does make it much more effective and easier to place. The shields I've used from horseback have had a slight curve to them. However, a highly curved shield 1) I don't think would on horseback, because you can't "tuck" into it, and most importanly, 2) Holding the highly curved shield in your left hand would interfere in a large way with rein usage. I know that mounted guys could use their legs as aids as well, but (in my opinion) not exclusively of the reins.
Having the highly-curved shield on horseback would not only be highly awkward, but would retard your ability to effectively control your horse.
As to how they were constructed, Wyrmspleen, folks have covered that pretty well. Most (actually all) of the modern repros I've seen have been a variation on the "glued-bent-plywood-edged-in-leather" method, with various coverings for the front and back. HOWEVER, I'm having one made (which I'm picking up today, as a matter of fact) that is of plank construction, with a slight curve, etc. Hopefully should be very nice! And yes, everyone, I'll post pics of it when I get back.
Glen
Great discussion. I'd guess that use on horseback contributed, though was not THE reason, for the development of the kite shield.
However, I'm firly in the camp of "no heavily curved kite shields" in the 11th century, at least not for use from horseback. Now, the fellow referred to as Rod in Egfroth's posted discussion above stated that a non-curved shield is almost useless from horseback. I wouldn't go quite that far, but a slight curve does make it much more effective and easier to place. The shields I've used from horseback have had a slight curve to them. However, a highly curved shield 1) I don't think would on horseback, because you can't "tuck" into it, and most importanly, 2) Holding the highly curved shield in your left hand would interfere in a large way with rein usage. I know that mounted guys could use their legs as aids as well, but (in my opinion) not exclusively of the reins.
Having the highly-curved shield on horseback would not only be highly awkward, but would retard your ability to effectively control your horse.
As to how they were constructed, Wyrmspleen, folks have covered that pretty well. Most (actually all) of the modern repros I've seen have been a variation on the "glued-bent-plywood-edged-in-leather" method, with various coverings for the front and back. HOWEVER, I'm having one made (which I'm picking up today, as a matter of fact) that is of plank construction, with a slight curve, etc. Hopefully should be very nice! And yes, everyone, I'll post pics of it when I get back.
Glen
Well, I finally trawled through my resources (including the three volume reprint of "Romanesque Sculpture of the Pilgrimage Roads") ... and the results are, of course, inconclusive.
- There are plenty of depictions of gently curved shields throughout the twelfth century.
- I could not find anything depicting a shield in 11th century sculpture ... Exact dating of these pieces is difficult (particularly because the dates that _are_ given in the tomes mentioned above are sometimes hard to sift from the text - commentary takes up a good part of one volume, the rest are just photographs), but the majority does come from the 12th century. There is one other approach to this that I could take, and I will try this later if I get a moment.
- There are plenty of depictions of shields that are ambiguous, either because of the way they have been carved or because the photographs are unclear (often taken from far away, or odd angles, or so that the relevant detail is only a small part of a larger composition, or because it is over or under exposed or a little fuzzy (Romanesque Sculpture of the Pilgrimage Roads was first published in 1923 ... But who knows when some of the photos were taken, and how much of the works depicted may have been destroyed in the wars or by erosion since then ...). There may be flat shields ... Personally, I tend to doubt it, but that's just a gut feeling. There are some shields that, while being curved, also seem to have a vertical angle down the centre, ie. so that the shield face has two facets.
- The only thing that I could find indicating a "heavily curved shield" was a capital dated to the "mid 12th century" by the Osprey Norman Knight book (p.49? I don't have my copy here). It consists of two gentlemen facing each other over their shields. The Osprey illustration only shows the tops of the shields - I have a picture that shows the whole capital, and the protagonists certainly seem to be "snuggling" inside their shields. This may, of course, be mere artistic convention, but in any case it fits in with Mr Hand's theory.
Cheers
Michael B
- There are plenty of depictions of gently curved shields throughout the twelfth century.
- I could not find anything depicting a shield in 11th century sculpture ... Exact dating of these pieces is difficult (particularly because the dates that _are_ given in the tomes mentioned above are sometimes hard to sift from the text - commentary takes up a good part of one volume, the rest are just photographs), but the majority does come from the 12th century. There is one other approach to this that I could take, and I will try this later if I get a moment.
- There are plenty of depictions of shields that are ambiguous, either because of the way they have been carved or because the photographs are unclear (often taken from far away, or odd angles, or so that the relevant detail is only a small part of a larger composition, or because it is over or under exposed or a little fuzzy (Romanesque Sculpture of the Pilgrimage Roads was first published in 1923 ... But who knows when some of the photos were taken, and how much of the works depicted may have been destroyed in the wars or by erosion since then ...). There may be flat shields ... Personally, I tend to doubt it, but that's just a gut feeling. There are some shields that, while being curved, also seem to have a vertical angle down the centre, ie. so that the shield face has two facets.
- The only thing that I could find indicating a "heavily curved shield" was a capital dated to the "mid 12th century" by the Osprey Norman Knight book (p.49? I don't have my copy here). It consists of two gentlemen facing each other over their shields. The Osprey illustration only shows the tops of the shields - I have a picture that shows the whole capital, and the protagonists certainly seem to be "snuggling" inside their shields. This may, of course, be mere artistic convention, but in any case it fits in with Mr Hand's theory.
Cheers
Michael B
-
Guest
Egfroth, is there a little more info you can give me about the Seedorf shield you mentioned so that I can find out more about it. I dont mind any kite info from the 12th c.
Also in regards to boss and handle attachments I came across this site that looks at the Bayeux Tapestry:
http://home.armourarchive.org/members/brodir/shields.html
Regarding the boss that is on the front of the kite shield you see in the tapestry, I have read (see below) that holding a kite with your hand and not your arm would seem very awkward. Would it be at all possible, if not used for fighting, that holding the shield by such a handle nehind a boss may have been used to protect against being struck by fired arrows? Whereas holding it by the arm close to the body would increase the chance of arrows penetrating the shield and into the wearer. This way even the hand would be protected from this if the shield was being held by the hand placed behind the boss. Just wanted to get some thoughts on that. Thanks.
http://www.regia.org/shields.htm
"It is debatable whether or not these bosses were used in the same fashion as round shields; i.e. centre gripped. The tendency in re-enactment is to wear them crossbraced, as if you were still riding. This is because if the shield is held near the boss, the lower section acts like a pendulum making it difficult to operate."
Also in regards to boss and handle attachments I came across this site that looks at the Bayeux Tapestry:
http://home.armourarchive.org/members/brodir/shields.html
Regarding the boss that is on the front of the kite shield you see in the tapestry, I have read (see below) that holding a kite with your hand and not your arm would seem very awkward. Would it be at all possible, if not used for fighting, that holding the shield by such a handle nehind a boss may have been used to protect against being struck by fired arrows? Whereas holding it by the arm close to the body would increase the chance of arrows penetrating the shield and into the wearer. This way even the hand would be protected from this if the shield was being held by the hand placed behind the boss. Just wanted to get some thoughts on that. Thanks.
http://www.regia.org/shields.htm
"It is debatable whether or not these bosses were used in the same fashion as round shields; i.e. centre gripped. The tendency in re-enactment is to wear them crossbraced, as if you were still riding. This is because if the shield is held near the boss, the lower section acts like a pendulum making it difficult to operate."
Hey, thanks for posting the Nordhere link! Glad people are able to get use out of the articles posted so far, more are in te works, I assure you...
I know the SCA has it's authenticity issues, but a lot of SCA guys use kite shields with a boss, a hole and a centergrip. This has nothing to do with historical practice, just ansering your question about whether it's impossible or not. I've used one for SCA combat, and they work fine, much like a large centergripped oval. The statement in the Regia article that they are unwiledy is due to the bosses being off-center; you simply have to place the boss so that it is dead in the vertical center of the shield (weight-wise, not length-wise).
My reenactment kite has straps though, as the evidence for strapped kites is, in a word, overwhelming.
Glen- I'm very, very interested in the plank kite you mentioned. I've been pondering a similar project, and I'm curious; did you settle on running the boards vertical or horizontal?
~Wil
------------------
Norðhere- 11th century living history & reenactment in Western Canada
[This message has been edited by Wil (edited 11-15-2003).]
I know the SCA has it's authenticity issues, but a lot of SCA guys use kite shields with a boss, a hole and a centergrip. This has nothing to do with historical practice, just ansering your question about whether it's impossible or not. I've used one for SCA combat, and they work fine, much like a large centergripped oval. The statement in the Regia article that they are unwiledy is due to the bosses being off-center; you simply have to place the boss so that it is dead in the vertical center of the shield (weight-wise, not length-wise).
My reenactment kite has straps though, as the evidence for strapped kites is, in a word, overwhelming.
Glen- I'm very, very interested in the plank kite you mentioned. I've been pondering a similar project, and I'm curious; did you settle on running the boards vertical or horizontal?
~Wil
------------------
Norðhere- 11th century living history & reenactment in Western Canada
[This message has been edited by Wil (edited 11-15-2003).]
Ny Björn posted pictures of a kite shield found at Trondheim bygrund to the Hastings 2000+ egroup: www.smartgroups.com/groups/hastings (I think you'll have to join to see it there).
This shield appears to be made of thin planks, with one horizontal layer and one vertical layer.
Following is some information he also posted:
"Today, after a whole year I finally succeeded in
getting in touch with the archaeologist that unearthed the bloody thing!
He told me a lot, here is an abstract:
The shield was found at Trondheim bygrund in 1975 in a context dated to the
11th and 12th centuries. It was found in what was then a backyard in a
refusal heap with other discarded objects, it had obviously been thrown away
as worn-out and useless.
It is made up by two layers of boards, the upper layer skewed 90º against
the lower.
The boards in each layer are approximately 5 – 6 mm thick. One must
keep in mind though that the shield parts were waterlogged by the time of
the recovery, it could thereby be estimated that the shield probably had a
total thickness of close to/less than 10mm.
A series of holes along what is left of the rim implicates that it initially
was covered and/or had the rim reinforced, possibly by rawhide that
deteriorate quite fast in the ground.
The height is roughly 1 m, and at the widest point it measures approximately
0.5 m.
The wood in the shield was never more closely examined; it is therefore not
possible to say which kind of wood that was used."
This shield appears to be made of thin planks, with one horizontal layer and one vertical layer.
Following is some information he also posted:
"Today, after a whole year I finally succeeded in
getting in touch with the archaeologist that unearthed the bloody thing!
He told me a lot, here is an abstract:
The shield was found at Trondheim bygrund in 1975 in a context dated to the
11th and 12th centuries. It was found in what was then a backyard in a
refusal heap with other discarded objects, it had obviously been thrown away
as worn-out and useless.
It is made up by two layers of boards, the upper layer skewed 90º against
the lower.
The boards in each layer are approximately 5 – 6 mm thick. One must
keep in mind though that the shield parts were waterlogged by the time of
the recovery, it could thereby be estimated that the shield probably had a
total thickness of close to/less than 10mm.
A series of holes along what is left of the rim implicates that it initially
was covered and/or had the rim reinforced, possibly by rawhide that
deteriorate quite fast in the ground.
The height is roughly 1 m, and at the widest point it measures approximately
0.5 m.
The wood in the shield was never more closely examined; it is therefore not
possible to say which kind of wood that was used."
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Brodir:
<B>If those measurements are correct, that is a VERY small kite shield...
~Wil</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In its present state, the shield appears fragmentary and very rough around the edges - it may well have been wider or longer. It does appear to be very rounded at the bottom (not much of a "point"), but that could also be because of decomposition.
<B>If those measurements are correct, that is a VERY small kite shield...
~Wil</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In its present state, the shield appears fragmentary and very rough around the edges - it may well have been wider or longer. It does appear to be very rounded at the bottom (not much of a "point"), but that could also be because of decomposition.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Michael B:
In its present state, the shield appears fragmentary and very rough around the edges - it may well have been wider or longer. It does appear to be very rounded at the bottom (not much of a "point"), but that could also be because of decomposition.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Michael, could I ask you for a giant favour? Could you email those pics to me as an attachment? I tried to subscribe to the Hastings 2000 list this afternoon so I could grab them, but I'm having troubles. Please and thank you,
~Wil
In its present state, the shield appears fragmentary and very rough around the edges - it may well have been wider or longer. It does appear to be very rounded at the bottom (not much of a "point"), but that could also be because of decomposition.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Michael, could I ask you for a giant favour? Could you email those pics to me as an attachment? I tried to subscribe to the Hastings 2000 list this afternoon so I could grab them, but I'm having troubles. Please and thank you,
~Wil
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Wil:
<B> Michael, could I ask you for a giant favour? Could you email those pics to me as an attachment? I tried to subscribe to the Hastings 2000 list this afternoon so I could grab them, but I'm having troubles. Please and thank you,
~Wil</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's odd - Smartgroups is loading extremely slowly at the moment. However, I've managed to extract the pictures and have emailed them to you both.
Cheers
Michael B
<B> Michael, could I ask you for a giant favour? Could you email those pics to me as an attachment? I tried to subscribe to the Hastings 2000 list this afternoon so I could grab them, but I'm having troubles. Please and thank you,
~Wil</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's odd - Smartgroups is loading extremely slowly at the moment. However, I've managed to extract the pictures and have emailed them to you both.
Cheers
Michael B
-
Guest
Could you email to me also please. I would have asked you through email but you do not have an email listed. thanks.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Michael B:
<B> It's odd - Smartgroups is loading extremely slowly at the moment. However, I've managed to extract the pictures and have emailed them to you both.
Cheers
Michael B</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Michael B:
<B> It's odd - Smartgroups is loading extremely slowly at the moment. However, I've managed to extract the pictures and have emailed them to you both.
Cheers
Michael B</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Wyrmspleen the Incoherant:
<B>Could you email to me also please. I would have asked you through email but you do not have an email listed. thanks.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Done.
<B>Could you email to me also please. I would have asked you through email but you do not have an email listed. thanks.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Done.
Pics for me too, please .
john.f.steelquist1@jsc.nasa.gov
You might send a set to Brodir, though, and see if he can put them up on his site...
Ulsted
. john.f.steelquist1@jsc.nasa.gov
You might send a set to Brodir, though, and see if he can put them up on his site...
Ulsted
Posted to Ulsted.
Ny Bjorn has provided me with a source for these photos:
"The pictures originally came from the Norwegian journal "SPOR" (as a part of
an article on Heraldry - however strange it may sound...). They were first
published in a report on the excavations at Bygrunnen in Trondheim (Norway)
in the journal "Meddelelser fra prosjektet Fortiden i Trondheim bygrunn:
Folkebibliotekstomten" in 1985 (I think). It was excavated by Ian Reed."
Ny Bjorn has provided me with a source for these photos:
"The pictures originally came from the Norwegian journal "SPOR" (as a part of
an article on Heraldry - however strange it may sound...). They were first
published in a report on the excavations at Bygrunnen in Trondheim (Norway)
in the journal "Meddelelser fra prosjektet Fortiden i Trondheim bygrunn:
Folkebibliotekstomten" in 1985 (I think). It was excavated by Ian Reed."