1st Cen. AD Germanic Shield

[Harjaz]

Hi,

Could anyone tell me where I could find information on how to make an authentic Germanic shield? I know they were made of seperate planks of wood (probably lime wood), and covered in raw hide. Unfortunately, I don't really know how I would put all of that together. My problem isn't really the actual wood, it's the raw hide. Do you have to cure it, or some how treat it first before you attach it to the wood (perhaps with glue)? My current shield is made of plywood (easy to make, but definately not authentic).

thanks

Dan

[agrimensor]

Rawhide is sold in petshops, Dogs chew on it. If you buy a big "bone" and soke it in water it gets soft. then drape it on the shield fix it and let dry. I Saw a picture in the booklet Roman military clothing isbn 978-1-84176-487-0 of a german auxilia with a plank clipeus with yust the rim in rawhide. fix the rim with clothpegs and after drying dril an sew it to the shield.
Much luck,
vale

[Paullus Scipio]

Not all Germanic shields were necessarily covered in leather or rawhide, or even had rawhide re-inforced rims ( which is something of a 're-enactorism' to protect the rims of shields exposed to far more combat than a real one had to endure!).

Tacitus, writing in the 1 C AD, (Annals II.13) has Germanicus say in AD 16:-
"...even their shields are not reinforced with iron or leather, but are merely plaited wickerwork or flimsy painted boards..." and in the 'Germania' "...there is nothing ostentatious about their equipment: only their shields are picked out in the colours of their choice..."( the colours may have been tribal in some cases, for we hear of the Cimbri with white shields (Plutarch 'Marius' 25), and elswhere we hear of the Harii having black shields, and later the Frisii brown and Saxons red shields.)

Here is a description of a reconstructed 'Hjortspring hoard' shield dating from c. 350 BC Denmark ( the 'Hjortspring story' is fascinating in itself). This type of shield continued in use well into the second century AD.

http://www.myarmoury.com/nateb_othr_nate_hjort.html

Dimensions for that reconstruction are:-
Length: 35.5"
Width: 21.75"
Thickness: 0.75" tapering to 0.25" at the rim
(the shields varied in thickness from around 12-20 mm/0.5-0.75 inches in the middle to 3-6mm/0.15-0.25 inches at the rim, so this reconstruction is one of the larger heavier ones)
Umbo: 12" long, 4.75" wide, 3.5" high
Weight: 8-9 pounds

Other reconstructed German and Celtic shields are also on that site.


The fifty or so intact Hjortspring shields were each individual - no two alike - many were cut from a single plank, while others were made of two boards glued edge to edge ( these, if any, may have been covered in thin leather or hide glued to the surface front and back). A few were made from three boards. These were joined with tenon-and-rebate joints.

One rectangular narrow shield, with the usual rounded corners; 80 cm/32 " x 33 cm/13.2", was carved boss, handgrip and all from a single piece of wood.

The wooden Ash handgrips had rebates or tenons cut in the back - which made them slightly 'springy' and shock-absorbing. They were held in place by the 'barleycorn' shaped boss usually, though some were nailed, often no glue was used and tenon joints used. Some spare handgrips seem to have been carried for some have clear cord marks from a tie on them. The shields themselves were of light softwoods ( alder or lime), though two were of hardwood (oak?) .
( The above is from "Hjortspring Fundet"; Grosenberg)

More information can be found here:

http://www.hjortspring.dk/wold/shields.htm

[Matthew Amt]

Oh, VERY cool page, thanks Paul!

I would not recommend dog chews for rawhide. They are mostly made from smaller bits and scraps, but what you want is a single continuous sheet. Worse, they are boiled or bleached, so the rawhide is white and a rougher texture, whereas the simple rawhide bought from a leather supplier is a greenish-brown translucent color, and smooth.

Using rawhide to cover a shield can be difficult! The only treatment it gets is to soak it to make it flexible (anything beyond that could make it "leather" rather than "rawhide"!). And as it dries, it shrinks with incredible strength. Many of us have seen beautiful and laboriously-made wooden shield cores warped or folded into kindling by shrinking rawhide... Search around on RAT for relevant discussions. There is also at least one very good one on the Kelticos board (which you'll want to read completely in any case!),

http://www.kelticos.org/forum/index.php

Good luck!

Matthew

[Harjaz]

Hmmmm

The Hjortspring shields seem to be more Celtic than Germanic (and by the 1st century AD the Germanic tribes were definately using iron shield bosses). However, they will be invaluable for reference. Re: The rawhide. From what you've said, it seems the rawhide is more trouble than its worth (especially because many of the Germans didn't even have any on their shields). However, the Hjortspring shilds would be good for representing a poorer warrior (as iron shield bossed would have been more expensive than wooden ones). What about the shields from Illerup? Would they be more accurate for the 1st century? After all, they're only 100-200 years after my time peroid, while the Hjortspring shields are 350 years before (and a lot of advancement in Germanic weaponry was made during time).
Re: Tribal colours. Would any of you know where I could find the tribal totems and colours of the Germanic tribes? I know the Cherusci had the stag totem, and the Chauci had a bird. I think I would be great to make a shield specific to a perticular tribe.
Re: Tacitus claims that the Germanic shields were not reenforced by iron or leather, but I've seen in the "Show your Germanic warrior impression" forum that Robert Borsch has a shield that has an iron rim on it. However, he is portrarying a wealthier fighter, and it may be possible that Tacitus was refering only to the 'average' warrior.
With the shield shapes, it seems that the during the time of the Hjortspring boat, the shields were squarish with rounded edges. However, by the first century AD, the shileds seem to have gotten thinner and more angular. By the migration period, the shields seem to have been round. Would it be possible that these shield shapes overlapped in the 1st century (square, hexagonal, and round shields all in use at the same time?). It seems that most 1st century AD Germanic reenactors prefer the hexagonal shields, while some are more rounded, but about the same size. I would think the long, hexagonal shields would be more suited to individual fighting (as they provide your body with good defense, but are not quite as good in a 'shield wall' formation). This makes sense as the earlier Germanic tribes were more skermishers and individual fighters, while during the migration period and early middle ages the 'shield wall' tactic became more popular, perhaps giving rise to the round shields of the migration period and the viking age. The round shields provide adiquate defense, but they can also cover your 'shield wall buddy' in a battle. This makes them better for formations, but due to their size, wouldn't it make it more difficulte for individual combat?

[Paullus Scipio]

Harjaz wrote:

The Hjortspring shields seem to be more Celtic than Germanic (and by the 1st century AD the Germanic tribes were definately using iron shield bosses).

The Hjortspring shields are most definitely 'Germanic', not Celtic !! ( even if there is an understandable resemblance). Since the circular boss only appeared in the Roman army c. 25 AD, it is likely that the first examples copied in 'Germania' only appeared after c. 50 AD. Furthermore, despite the appearance of the circular boss, the 'spina and barleycorn' type continued in the Roman Army until the end of the second C AD, and presumably lasted in 'Germania' even longer - but all-wooden shield-bosses don't turn up in the archaeological record, whilst iron ones do. The best evidence is Tacitus telling us that the Germans did not have iron re-inforcements, which would include bosses, on their shields in AD16, which fits in perfectly with the above.

Archeological finds from the first and second centuries AD are relatively rare, but by the third C AD circular iron bosses were more common. A similar find of a defeated enemy's spoils to that at Hjortspring was found at Illerup Adal dating from the 3 C AD. The equipment appeared to belong to around 1,000 warriors, but only 300 or so metal bosses were found - an indication that 2/3rds of the warriors probably had wooden 'barley corn' bosses, even at this date.

[Harjaz]

From what I've seen it apears that most Germanic reenactment groups prefer the cone-shaped iron bosses, though a wooden 'spine' boss thrown in there once in a while deffinately helps add to the authenticity of a Germanic warband.
Re: Tacitus's claim about the Germans not using reenforcing on their shields. According to Osprey Publishing's 'Rome and Her Enemies', the claim made by Tacitus was orgininally part of an 'eve-of-battle' speech made by Germanicus to his troops. Germanicus was trying to bolster the moral of his troops, so he would have been trying to make the Germans sound as primitive as possible. Therefore, we cannot accept this claim as being accurate. According to this book, the Germanic tribes also have shields with a "...a prominent projecting boss and iron or bronze edging." (p 211)

[noxia]

Hi,
you could have a look into Norbert Zieling, Studien zu germanischen Schilden der Spätlatène und der römischen Kaiserzeit im freien Germanien

By the way, in the new Gommern publication (M. Becker u.a., Das Fürstengrab von Gommern (Halle/Saale 2010) they deal with the reconstruction of the shield, you might find that helpful, because they tested the use of rawhide as well as a covering out of gut, which seems to have been used for the gommern shield.

Perhaps we should consider more wooden shield bosses. Engelhardt wrote, that he found 5 wooden shield bosses in Vimose!
I think, that we are lacking them due to preservation causes.
have a look here:
http://nymoesgaard.hum.au.dk/
NM 22837, NM 22838 and NM 22839 are of wood.

With the Vimose stuff you have to be careful, because the find has a really wide dating range. You might also ask if the material is germanic or rather scandinavian. Because it is different from the material you find for example in the przeworsk culture.

[Matthew Amt]

Avete!

We seem to have topics on Germanic shields on several different boards! Coulda sworn there was one on Armour Archive, not seeing it now but here's a link to one on MyArmoury:

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=21612

Good stuff all around!

Matthew

[Harjaz]

I've heard from several 'experts' on the Germanic tribes that there is evidence that some Germanic shields were edged with iron. Would anyone know how these were constructed, as well as the cone shaped shield bosses? I have a forge and some metal and I was hoping to reconstruct the shield of a wealtheir warrior.

[Matthew Amt]

I believe there is some evidence from Celtic or British finds of metal rims, basically similar to Roman ones. A "gutter" of thin metal, with little tabs every few inches for a nail to go through. Later on, the idea seems to be a simple gutter held on with separate strips of metal that are bent around the edge and nailed through.

The conical bosses are interesting because they are thickest at the center, and thinnest at the edges. It seems they started with a tube, raising or drawing down one end into the point (however flat or tall you want it), then working the flange out 90 degrees on the other end. Obviously they were able to accomplish some pretty complex shapes! It's hard to find repros--usually they're spun, though they can look quite good.

Vale,

Matthew

[Harjaz]

Thanks Matthew!

Would you know of any sites that show close up pictures of the thin metal 'gutters' and the forging process of a cone style boss? When I'm forging something, it's often helpfull to have an image or plans to base my project on.

Dan

[Matthew Amt]

Hoo, sorry, not offhand I'm afraid. I *think* there are details on shield rims in one of the discussions on Kelticos (it's worth reading EVERYthing on that board in any case!). Boss construction I learned first in a conversation with Bruce Blackistone ("Cap'n Atli" on Armour Archive). There may be a topic there that covers it, or he could have a tutorial or article on the AnvilFire site. And of course it's just a theory, hard to prove without a bunch of Xrays of original bosses, but the method should give reasonably accurate results.

German and Celtic stuff isn't my area of expertise, so these are just tidbits I've picked up along the way! I don't have any good sources at my fingertips, so I just sponge off the experts. Find them and sponge!

Matthew

[Harjaz]

I'll definately go an take a look at the sites you suggested (I'm on Kelticos as well, but I havn't been on in a while due to the lack of interest in Germanic tribes). You also mentioned that modern reconstructions of germanic shield bosses are 'spun'. I'm not very familiar with this term. Would the spinning process be harder or easier than the traditional way?

[Adam Oswalt]

Quite a while ago there was a thread on here that had some good images of the historical process used to make the spiked/cone-shaped bosses. If you do a search, you might be able to find it. Even if the pictures aren't there anymore, I'm pretty sure the process was discussed. If I remember right, the bosses were forge-welded into a cone, and then welded to a flange. Spiked bosses were made pretty much the same way. That's all just working from memory.

Spinning refers to using a lathe to form a peice of metal around a mold or form.

Adam