Hjortspring bog shields

[Folkert van Wijk]

Am I right that the Hjortspring shields ware not covered at all with leather or linnen??

[Razoslav]

Yes, you're right.
There is no trials of any covering on them. And all recontructions I've ever seen were without eny covering.

And when we have topic about them:
Does anybody knows how thick were Hjortspring shields?

[Folkert van Wijk]

Great thanks for the info.

Ill see if i can find something about the thickness

[Folkert van Wijk]

Oh ... and Razoslav,

Welcome to the forum! 8)

[garrelt]

checked the book about Romische Schilde by Ansgar Nabbefeld.
Catalog number 14 plate 7

Dimensions 80 cm long and 30-40cm wide.
No thickness mentioned.
Nationalmuseum Kopenhagen (Denmark).
Anyone living nearby for measuring the thickness ?
A maximum thickness of about 1.2cm would not surprise me.

[martijn.wijnhoven]

Hi Folkert,

F. Kaul (in The Hjortspring Find) gives the following measurements (but no mention of their average thickness though:
- Shields vary in length between 61 and 102 cm, and in breadth between 29 and 52 cm.
- Largest shield measures 88 by 50 cm.
- The smallest measures 66 by 29 cm.
- Most shields have an average length of 70-75 cm and a width of 45 cm.
- The shield plates have been cut out light, soft wood such as alder, lime or birch.
- Sometimes they consist of two or three wood planks held together by dovetail joints sealed with resinous putty.

Hope this is useful,

Martijn

[Razoslav]

alder, lime or birch.

Really? That's strange - I've always thought that was oak. Thanks!

[martijn.wijnhoven]

Really? That's strange - I've always thought that was oak. Thanks!

The same goes for Anglo-Saxon shields. According to Dickinson and Härke, Early Anglo-Saxon Shields (1992: p. 48), they were able to identify various types of wood used in the construction of shields. I put the number of identifications in brackets.

- alder (11)
- willow/poplar (11)
- maple (3)
- birch (2)
- oak (1)
- lime (1)

Cheers,

Martijn

[Robert]

An resilliant wood like an alder will turn a blade just as well as an oak. But the lighter wooden shield is far more easy to yield. If a wood bends easily, it will disperce the energy of a hit, lessening penetration. So for the same result, a heavy type of wood is not always the best and being able to bring up a shield quickly has a lot of advantages over hefting a massive slab of wood in prolonged battle. There a lot of misconceptions about material used by the ancients, heavy plank shields being one of them. This is why good archeology is so importent, backed up by field trials of replica's. The WHY of some choices our ancestors made really stands out in a prolonged trial. Good data, guys!

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I use a light scutum, and my gladius is light in comparison to some. These were meant to be weilded in war in battle, so the need to
be used in prolonged efforts without wearing out the user seems to be backed up by the finds. Not so alien logic after all!