|
Post by rammstein on Nov 28, 2008 7:10:01 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2008 9:15:11 GMT
The following video should be of interest.
The key points are:
0:53 Thick cow skin used to cover both sides. That skin looks like 10oz. Thick leather adds a lot of weight.
1:28 1/8 thick limewood sandwiched between 10 oz rawhide. This is probably heavier the 1/4 plywood without any leather.
3:09 Small shield is heavy. I'm guessing at least 6 lbs.
3:46 1/8 shield gets destroyed by arrow and thrown axes. I estimate that shield at about 2.5 lbs. This shield is completely useless.
4:40 Rawhide covered shield protects against light weapons but not heavy ones.
5:50 Heavy duty shield protects against mass-weapons.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Nov 28, 2008 20:16:28 GMT
I'm sure the entire population of viking and anglo saxon warriors would disagree with you there. Viking shields were MEANT to splinter, perhaps you should read the link from my last post, as that video proved many of my previous points.
I've very little doubt that rawhide may have covered viking shileds. I just strongly doubt (and so do, strangely, those who have actually studied viking shields) that they were the clunking monstrosities that you all seem to believe they were. But go ahead thinking what you'd like since reading links I post seem to be something that you all cannot do, despite the fact that I'm doing the same for yours.
I'm out before I offend.
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Nov 28, 2008 22:12:52 GMT
In being contrary to Rammstein, let me preface my thoughts from pretty much running the gamut regarding shield weights and even shield use. You can find numerous threads where I am championing the light weight of Nordic type shileds. Right to the weights of how many nails, textiles or leather, on and on. What none of it relates to the original precept was whether or not someone might cut themselves while using a sword.
My only real issue, if there was one, is that folk like to make absolutes without bothering to quantify their statements. It makes for a lot of misinterpretation.
At any rate, if one bothers to chat with folk building period shields, they might find six pounds not unlikely for a round linden ply shield of the 10th century and textile lighter than leather faced. Not really much more or less than four pounds with nothing but a boss and rawhide rim. this for you vikings.
There is so much variance in shields that the first link I offered brings up a means of approximation and extant shield weights. I could also relate a rather in depth NetSword thread in which Klaus is helping me with explaining why his kite with leather on both sides weighs what it does (I forget but I could drag out the discussion).
Still, why a dozen posts that don't relate the the original precept? I guess we're just an onery bunch. I do wish more would look beyond absolutes and formulate research a bit instead of closed minds on a runaway track.
Cheers
Hotspur; it is often easier simpler to just say "it depends"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2008 22:54:50 GMT
I now remember a very specific instance of light shields being used. The Persians favored Wicker Shields. The Greeks are quoted as thinking very little of the lighter wicker-shields. They not only beat the Persians on the Greek mainland but also in the Persian homeland while being vastly outnumbered.
Are there specific circumstances for the Persians using light shields??? Sure there are. There always are. The Persians were a Calvary based army while the Greeks were infantry based. The Persian infantry was only intended to be light support troops. The Greeks figured out ways to reduce Persian Calvary effectiveness. Once this was done they were able to defeat vastly greater numbers of lightly armored Persian forces with smaller but more heavily armored Greek forces. This was done both at Platia in Greece by an alliance of Greeks and also later by Alexander the Great in Asia. In both cases large 15 lb wooden shields, lined with skin and covered in bronze carried the day.
This example proves without a doubt that "light" shields were used too in battle. Its just that I would not want to trust my life to one. The video I post shows way at 3:46. Also in the case of the Greeks, light is compared to what they were using. The Persians may have still been using 7 lbs shields. I don't know for sure.
This is not to say that you can't have a reliable "small light" shield. An 18" round, 1/8 thick, weighting about 4 lbs, should hold up fine against swordblows. A 36" inch at 4 lbs will not holdup very well. If you plan to use that, you better have a parry dagger handy or be trained in two-sword or something.
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on Nov 28, 2008 23:16:24 GMT
Since it seems to want to speak the weights, as well as period and purpose, here is Klaus' recreation from a group in Germany. He had broke it down for me as 50% leather, 40% wood and 10% hardware. 7kg, someof his friends also doing historic recreation of 12th century work were as much as a kg lighter. Meant to mention 12mm thickness core on those (from finds). This is a good size flat-top. Just linking this as it is a wide screen for some h1.ripway.com/Bombadil/SBG/KlausCompositeSchild.jpgI was shocked at the time and I do still read all the lighter wood only threads of a different period. It does just go to show it does depend on period and purpose. Indeed, I had questioned textile instead of leather in one therad and someone did finally come back with that textile was used at times. As to shields and missles, yes that depends as well. Pick a battle, any battle but please, no absolutes. Cheers Hotspur; Klaus is around somewhere on the net but have not seen him post in some timeCheers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2008 23:22:27 GMT
That is a beautiful shield Hotspur. Thanks for posting link.
7 kg = 15.4 lbs. That is exactly what I expect from a wood shield that size and covered as it is.
|
|