Re: Re: Shields [Oops]

From: Roderick and Ellen Robertson <rjremr_at_...>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:47:53 -0700

> Depending on how you used the shield, it could have been decoration,
> but I wonder if it was intended a bit like a modern "thin-shell"
> bicycling helmet? The thin top layer of metal would tend to cause
> glancing blows to skid off, rather than damaging the hide or wood
> underneath. Direct blows would of course go right through, and the
> hide or wood would have to absorb the blow, getting damaged in the
> process. Hmmm, depending on the quality of arrow and spear points,
> it may also have reduced the incidents of them getting lodged in the
> shield (more would clatter off without sticking). Pure speculation
> on my part here.

>From a history channel show on Troy (and other research, I don't believe
*everything* I see on TV!), a bow of the period had about the range of a javelin (puny little things!) - you had to be *close* to take out your opponent (and the shields were big enough that almost any hit was taken on the shield). Most arrows probabbly wouldn't have stuck.

On another front, in the Stories of William of Orange (No, not the one that became King of England, the one that was the second generation of Charlemagne's Peers after Roland et al. were slaughtered at Roncesvalles), William complains about how stingy Big Charlie is, saying "The only new studs in my shield are the heads of lances embedded there".

RR
It is by my order and for the good of the state that the bearer of this has done what he has done.
- Richelieu