01-26-2011, 08:04 AM
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?
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?
Dan Dalby
Group Leader Project Germani
Germanic Tribes of the 1st. cen. BCE to the 1st cen. CE
Group Leader Project Germani
Germanic Tribes of the 1st. cen. BCE to the 1st cen. CE
