Quote:
Originally Posted by ak_aramis
the Scots Targe tends to be thicker (10-15mm, throughout), and otherwise of similar construction in general. Two layers of light wood, laminated into a panel. Stronger and heavier than the viking... and slower. Then add the semi-decorative nailwork... a proper 19" can have a pound of nails alone.
Where the viking shield flexes, the targe absorbs the impact energy by being more massive. Different routes to the same effect.
I made mine from an expedient material - 1/2" plywood - and even with no face nails (because if it had them, then I couldn't use it in SCA Fencing), it absorbs a lot of energy - equally as much as the plastic bucklers some of the ARMA guys are using absorb by flexing. (Locally, ARMA guys show to SCA Fence practices, and vice versa.)
|
I should note that the most common conclusion I've seen from folks that have studied the viking shield finds themselves is that the shield wall was not a viking thing. Both the physical archaeology plus the fact that they were (during the "peak viking" raiding period" effectively skirmishers/super-light infantry.
So viking shields are a terrible example of "what to do in a shield wall," since the answer seems to be, in most cases "don't do that."
Other shields and formations of heavier infantry, both before and after the viking era, clearly have documentation - extensively so - of tight shield formations.
My intro point was just stating the limits of my knowledge. The second - that shields and walls of shields is remarkably hard to find an opening through - is my real point, and speculating that mucking around with who can be considered engaged and not might be a way to mechanize these concepts.