Shield Practicality

[Quinn Wilson]

I own a large metal heater shield, 15 guage steel. I don't know it's actual weight, but it is rather heavy, despite that I do frequent upper body workouts. Are metal shields practical compared to the lighter wooden shields?
I know that you can use a metal shield for long periods of time while wooden shields must be replaced frequently, but is that enough to make it worth sticking with metal? Is it financially practical either way?
Please give me your opinions.

[Jake_Norwood]

My understanding, from dealing with bucklers and plywood heaters only, is that metal shields should be *lighter* than wooden ones, if made properly (thin, tempered, etc.). Am I off base here? I know it's true for bucklers...

Jake

[JeanryChandler]

Aluminum shields are light, but all-steel shields would be heavy, and were in fact rarely used. The only two examples I'm aware of are the small steel heaters used in jousting and some rather large infantry shields used by Ottoman Turkish Janissairy infantry which were supposed to be bullet proof, (and must have been very heavy!)

Most of the heaviest wooden shields ever used were very light and much thinner than what people expect based on SCA recreations etc.

For example, studies done on Viking round shields and a variety of Roman shield types (the very large, rectangular Scuta and the smaller round cavalry shield) show that they were in almost every case made of very thin wood made of cross-hatched laminated sheets, ranging from as thin as 1/4" toward the edge to around 1/3" near the boss.

There was one Roman shield found in Egypt which was fairly heavy, but it may have been specialy designed to resist arrows.

Norman kyte shields were also quite thin, in the same range.

The wood itself was usually very light. Many types were used but the most popular seems to have been linden or "lime" wood, which is similar to American basswood, fibrous and strong but very light, almost in the realm of balsa.

Celtic, Viking and Roman shields all had a central boss which was often made of iron or bronze, but contrary to most peoples expectations, they rarely had a metal rim. Roman and Viking shields sometimes had a layer of leather over the wood.

The Greek Aspis / Hoplon was quite heavy, being of fairly thick (near 1/2") wood covered in a sheet of bronze, but it was a shield that was used in a static position from tight formation, and not meant for individual combat (the grip for on thing is on the far-right side, for interlocking and covering your neighbor)

By the late medieval period of course the old larger types of shields which were primarily intended for deflecting thrown weapons such as javelins and axes were gradually replaced by bucklers and heavier armor, and by pavise shields which were placed on stands on the ground...


Jeanry

[Casper Bradak]

I can attest that steel shields were not heavy. They came into frequent use later in the renaissance. To the best of my knowledge though, there was never a steel "heater" shield. The majority of true shields (as opposed to buckler types) surviving are round.
Shields, like swords, even if weighted properly, can fool the inexperienced into thinking they are heavy, when someone who trains with them would think otherwise. It's quite possible yours is too heavy. I've handled several reproduction metal shields (including aluminum ones) that were just too heavy to use. Shields in particular though, take a lot of training to develop the muscles required to handle them for extended periods.
For an average sized shield (slightly more than shoulder width round), in my experience, 18 guage is good, 16 guage is usable, any heavyer is too heavy.

[Quinn Wilson]

Thanks. I perfer using large heater shields, and my goal is to be as historically acurate in my equiptment as possible. by the sound of things large metal heaters were rare.
How realistic are wooden heaters covered in the front by a thin sheet of metal?

[Brian Hunt]

Wooden heaters, if covered would have been done so with either leather or canvas.

hope this helps.

Brian Hunt.
GFS

[Jeffrey Hull]

Maybe the heater shield you own is *overguaged* compared to the historical examples.

I would guess that 18 guage would be reasonable, and that no thicker than 16 guage would be what you want for a large heater. I say this as someone who has handled 16 guage bucklers, of about 13-15 inch diameter which weighed like 4.5-6 pounds, and were thus about as heavy as I would sant in a buckler, and perhaps heavier than I would prefer. Thus a heater made with 15 guage that feels tooo heavy probably is too heavy. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

Incidentally, a lot of the steel shields historically were round in shape, if that interests you.

JH

[Robert Subiaga]

Say, what evidence (if any) is there for hardened leather being used, especially in round shields?

Hardened leather certainly was common in European armor at times; and round, hardened leather bison-hide shields used by Plains Indians were often very, very good protection--and quite light.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Gee, I do not know, other than maybe Scottish targes. I really do not know. JH

[Robert Subiaga]

Weren't Scottish targes usually of the wood-covered-with-leather variety?

[Brian Hunt]

Yeah targes are leather covered wood, and they frequently had a center spike.

Brian Hunt
GFS.

[Casper Bradak]

I don't know of any european shields primarily of leather. Wood, plywood and metal seem to have been the primary cores. Early shields were a small assortment of effective constructions of wood pieces, while into the "middle" ages the majority were made of plywood.
They were always made from specific close grained woods as well, linden being the most common I think.
Though I haven't heard of leather european shields, I have heard they could be effective. It could be b.s., I haven't put it to the test or read original sources first hand, but I've heard some of the native north american rawhide shields flattened an occasional musket ball.
On the other hand, from my experience with cour boulli, and some of the cour boulli bucklers going around, I wouldn't trust my life or limbs to them against blades.

[Robert Subiaga]

No surprise--it's heavily dependent of the thickness of leather you start with.

(I had the opportunity to be a science teacher at charter high schools that either were for American Indians or had a heavy population of them for a number of years. Guess what we made and tested a lot? )

But yeah, if you start with properly thick--really thick--hide, they're wicked strong. Not only managed to withstand my Lyman .54 Plains Pistol at close range, but bolts from my heavyweight crossbow.

All my axes, swords and maces for that matter too. Only the spike of a war hammer punched through.

That's why I posted the question. Plotted mathematically, weight-per-strength, the leather really did outperform wood pretty handily.

But cuir boille didn't seem to catch on 'til rather late when it came to armor, so I wonder if no one had chanced upon its use and advantages soon enough. Perhaps it wasn't until most shield use in Europe had gone by the wayside anyway.
Then again, maybe they did use it and we just have no surviving examples.

Ah, mysteries ...

[Robert Subiaga]

Ha! I'm an idiot!

(And possibly insane, for responding to my own post.
<img src="/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" /> )

Anyway, as a historian friend who's better at minituae pointed out to me--leather was expensive in most places in the Middle Ages and Renaissance! (My jaw dropped at the relative prices of a buff coat vs. a cuirass in the 17th C.)

Sure, people like the Mongols--herders--used leather a lot; as did many American Indians--hunters. But medieval and renaissance societies simply weren't gulping down burgers like we do now--and leaving us to have a bunch of cattle skins to do something with.

Add to that the fact that it's easy to mess up boiled leather: not thick enough to begin with, boiled too little, boiled too long, etc. And when cuir boille is messed up, it's not like you can re-smelt it. Its ruined, period.

(Now there's another "movie pet peeve" for all of us: the overuse of leather in costumes, esp. armor. Not necessarily a fault of leather itself, if done right--but a modern attempt to "look cool" that isn't authentic.)

[James_Knowles]

leather was expensive

To continue along these lines, I have a paper (Books and Readers in Byzantium by Nigel G. Wilson) that talks about the scarcity and expense of parchment in Mediaeval Rome (the Byzantine Empire). One typically obtained eight pages from one animal.

Wilson states, "The low yield should be no surprise, because mediaeval animals were much smaller than their modern counterparts, which are the result of selective breeding since the eithteenth century."

The economics of Mediaeval Europe also weren't condusive to large ranching enterprises. Unless one had a tremendous amount of wealth, animals --- especially those from which one could obtain hide --- were of more value for their labour, milk, and hair (e.g. sheep). One could view these animals in the context of The Goose that Laid the Golden Egg. Don't kill the animal that help plow or provides wool or milk.

In Constantinople in the 12th century parchment books typically ran in the 10-20 nomismata range. Compare this with an annual salary for civil servant of 72 nomismata per annum. (!)

This all touches the subject tangentally, through the trade of parchment and books in a land across the sea from Italy, but I think that it speaks to the subject of the scarity and expense of leather on the Continent.

Anyhow, there goes my goofy brain again.

James Knowles
GFS
ARMA Ogden, UT
www.arma-ogden.org