Okay, so here is a dangerous one. Complete heresy. I see shield walls depicted as a long line of shield equipped troops using them to resist an enemy. Shields locked one behind the other. Seen re-enactments doing the same...
I was in the police and I was 'shield trained ' for riots. I have also USED the darn things in disorder situations. Now, here is the heresy.... I don't believe in shield walls like that. My experience suggests they'd be too vulnerable because more than 5-6 shields in a row would mean the guys at the ends are the only ones who could use their weapons. That would make the guys in the middle VERY vulnerable.
I think shield walls were not continuous but were actually groups of 4-5 people (max) stood together with a 'co :-*ntinuous' line made up of groups like that.
There we go... Cat let out of bag. I am no historian like many here but I HAVE used a round shield to defend myself and colleagues.
Discuss...
Police shields have straight sides, don't they? I think that makes a difference when it comes to using thrusting weapons (which the cops fortunately don't).
Comparatively few troops used the shieldwall in the way you describe it urbancohort.
As FK says, those that did had flat, round shields a yard or so across, not police riot shields and were armed with spears not truncheons.
I'd also guess that after an initial bit of fencing with spears it would become a shoving match with comparatively few casualties until one side bulldozed the other and broke their formation at which point the losing side starts to fragment and the real killing starts as people either fall back trying to get space to regroup or simply decide they're done and leg it.
Most shielded troops used the shield as both offence and defence.
The Romans for example, would rake an opponents shins with the bottom of the shield, smack them under the chin with the top or punch them with the boss and once their opponent was off-balance they or their mates would stab him with their gladius.
So, far from being heresy, what you are describing is pretty to close to how most armies did things.
I think police teams are designed to be highly manoeuvrable, hence they are in small groups of 5 to 6, they can close up and can control ground, but the teams can also open up so that fast 'snatach squads' from behind can run through the line,also the team itself can stay in a shielded group and move forward quickly if they need to or totally break shield, move and then quickly reform.
A medieval shieldwall may well have operated in the same way, so that small tactical groups locked shields but then those sub-groups came together to form a solid 'army' line, but the men would probably tactically think in terms of their sub group. The effect is to concentrate men in the front line, which makes the front line much denser than the attacking line unless they are also in shieldwall and a shoving match happens.
The men immediately behind the shield wall will be totally hands free to do nasty things (thrust and jab) with their pointy sticks etc.
The shieldwall tends to stop people running away (though I guess once one does, plenty might follow, reveallling gaps that can be exploited), though as men fall, the shield wall needs to be kept intact, so replacements need to be fed in so that the line does not become stretched and unable to lock shield or gaps open up between the tactical units as the sub units move either left or right to keep the integrity of the line, I think this is what happened at Hastings, when the accounts say that the less armoured General Fyrd started to take position up in the front line as it took casualties, which eventually lost its defensive shieldwall integrit, which perhaps needed the more heavily armoured and militaristic classes to make it function effectively.
Hello
Here is a YouTube of what looks like a Korean riot police training exercise http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8LiQFnkuJY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8LiQFnkuJY)
Interesting.
Cheers
GrumpyOldMan
Police shields are very large with straight sides. Troops that used the shield wall normally has smaller shields that were not as large and often not rectangular, leaving gaps to slide a spear or sword through.
Urban cohort said that in some instances the police use round shields.
But not spears, pikes, or thrusting swords (I hope!).
UK police shields
Saxon Shieldwall Style
(http://raingod.com/angus/Gallery/Photos/Europe/UK/England/images/LondonCJBRiotPolice01.jpg)
Roman Legionary Style
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/M%C3%B3tm%C3%A6li_v%C3%B6rub%C3%ADlstj%C3%B3ra_1.jpg)
NB: no swords, spears, javelins, axes, etc. :)
Front tank legionaries, rear rank circular, front rank shield wall, back rank are 'snatch squads', They come through the line and grab troublesome types quickly.
Great debate, thanks to all. Police generally use round shields in most cases now because of their greater manoeuvrability than lugging long shields. And no, police don't use edged weapons, but they do have a stick, effectively a blunt sword. Now, I still think that the principle stands. If you had a large line of round shields interlinked, I think it could be weaker than we might imagine. Obviously Saxon warriors etc might have spears and swords, but I stand by my original point. One can drive an analogy too far and public disorder is unlike real battle, but I think it would be difficult to wield such weapons in close order, interlocked shields more than 4-5 men across.
I saw a re-enactment at Battle a few years back, which was excellent, but it got me thinking.
Quote from: urbancohort on 10 October 2016, 12:19:23 PM
Great debate, thanks to all. Police generally use round shields in most cases now because of their greater manoeuvrability than lugging long shields. And no, police don't use edged weapons, but they do have a stick, effectively a blunt sword. Now, I still think that the principle stands. If you had a large line of round shields interlinked, I think it could be weaker than we might imagine. Obviously Saxon warriors etc might have spears and swords, but I stand by my original point. One can drive an analogy too far and public disorder is unlike real battle, but I think it would be difficult to wield such weapons in close order, interlocked shields more than 4-5 men across.
I saw a re-enactment at Battle a few years back, which was excellent, but it got me thinking.
A stick is a lever and requires impact velocity.. A thrusting sword is a long wedge, which goes right in. I didn't expect to have to point this out.
I know they use both, I helped with riot training up at Formby (paid, as a student, to riot for the day, it was awesome fun)!
The idea of a riot in Formby is laughable. Were the squirrels getting out of hand, or was it the OAPs?
Riot training centre, closer to Warrington, but we went and saw the squirrels in the way home, which is probably why I'm confused (and I may have been slightly concussed too, but that was from American football the day before)!
http://liverpoolcitypolice.co.uk/bruche/4556853138
Also with shield walls there tended to be several ranks behind the first thus adding weight of numbers and the rear ranks being able to thrust over the top of the front rank
I have been involved in a couple of shieldwalls 4 ranks deep and once they collide the weight of both sides tends to naturally lock the shieilds in place especially when there overlapped
When I watched these videos, I have to say I wasn't fully convinced (I must also confess, I was also getting bored). Other than perhaps the odd image (e.g., some seamstress' idea of a shield wall on the Bayeaux Tapestry), does anyone know what the historical sources for the drills and the arrangement of shields in these 'walls' are? Or is it mainly conjectural? (I'm not saying there are no historical sources, I'm simply not a Dark Ages expert).
I understand that the most ubiquitous weapons were spears and hand axes. Swords used up more metal and were more expensive to make than spear heads and axe heads, so you were more likely to be chopped by an axe or stabbed by a spear than stabbed or slashed by a sword. It seems to me that 'locking' your shield with the left side overlapping the right hand side of your left hand neighbour's shield restricts your freedom of movement when up close, hand-to-hand combat occurs. Wouldn't it be better to have the right side of your left hand neighbour's shield overlap the left hand side of your shield? Also, it seems to me that feet and legs are vulnerable to chopping and stabbing, and a one handed axe is good for swinging over the top of a shield wall and onto heads, necks and shoulders.
Anyway, here are some links to a site that explores hand-to-combat techniques in the Dark Ages which, if not covering shield walls per se, seems to me to highlight some flaws in some re-enactors' thoughts regarding shield walls and which may be of interest to Dark Age fans. As you will see, many of the techniques are taken from one-to-one combat in the Viking Sagas. Within the site, there are also articles on Helmets, Mail etc.
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/the_shape_of_viking_combat.htm (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/the_shape_of_viking_combat.htm)
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_shields.htm (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_shields.htm)
Plus another:-
https://wuhstry.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/the-viking-axe-and-spear/ (https://wuhstry.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/the-viking-axe-and-spear/)
As I understand it, a favourite manoeuvre was to bring the axe head down over the top edge of the opponents shield and pull the shield downwards to expose the warrior.
That's the method Uhtred tells about in the Bernard Cornwell books. :)
Cheers - Phil
Not attempting to come up with some ground breaking insight here, chaps. Posting this for entertainment only. OK, the following footage is from a computer game and so there are a lot of things that are not quite right, shall we say. However, some of the action is quite good and kind of looks 'right' also, particularly as it is mostly seen from a 'helmet cam' perspective and you are right in there and part of the mayhem. Watch the green shields get stamped.
My old Re-enactment group were asked to assist the police with training once. After mentioning caltrops for the horses and bin lids (it was many years ago) for a boars-snout shield charge they were informed it wasn't to be quite such a physical training day...
Thanks to all for taking part in the discussion. Very illuminating.
Talking to a wargamers friend who joined the Police after University (well actually after a couple of years teaching in inner city Brum. He decided that as all he was doing was riot control, he might as well have the uniform and the kit) and asked him what would happen if we used Theban tactics against a police line. The response was pretty unprintable but suggested it would work pretty well.
I also took part some years later in "Green Hackle" which pitted Sandhurst cadets (playing Northern Ireland security forces) against a horde of Territorials as the various sides. At one point that included a shield wall, which was taken apart when the funeral procession used the coffin as a battering ram.
:d :d :d :d
Quote from: JeffNNN on 22 October 2016, 05:09:37 PM
I also took part some years later in "Green Hackle" which pitted Sandhurst cadets (playing Northern Ireland security forces) against a horde of Territorials as the various sides. At one point that included a shield wall, which was taken apart when the funeral procession used the coffin as a battering ram.
Also :d :d :d One would hope that first class tactical thinking was rewarded! lol
But, when you think about it, such a 'pry bar' could have been useful in some circumstances...if a shield wall was as rigid as is often assumed. Personally, I think that most 'battles' were more like large scale skirmishes, with action much more fluid than often depicted. Given the small size of most warbands of 'carls', it would be too easy to outflank a single shield wall as supporting 'troops' would be so much weaker than armoured warriors. Possibly 'cores' of warriors with support, manoeuvering and reacting to opportunity would make more sense. (Would make for much more interesting game, anyway, than ' line up and role the dice'...something that has put me off 'ancients' or 'Dark age').
"Shield Wall" seems a little bit more like something that you would read in 'The Sun'...stirring stuff from the skalds in the feast hall before or afterwards.
But, 'horses for courses'...some battles will have required different tactics than others. Bigger battles may have just needed to be a long, hard slog...and Hastings had to have a wall to prevent cavalry penetration.
So, just fight your fights as they had to...they wanted to win...and live for the rewards.
Heedless Horseman, that is pretty much what I was thinking. You have just described it so much better than I did. Given that I believe that Hastings was fought slightly away from the preserved field, which would have been too boggy for Norman cavalry to operate effectively, I think the Saxon line was further East by a few hundred yards, astride what is now the A21 probably with the centre between the church and the mini roundabout(!) This would also have been more effective in preventing a Norman out flanking manoeuvre hence their greater reliance in archers. It would also mean the shield wall would potentially have a smaller frontage which might explain Harold's inability/unwillingness to commit all forces to the charge of the fyrd when the had the Norman army retreating. It might have been that they were fighting in a much narrower space than we have traditionally though.
Anyway, I am rambling now. Thank you for contributing to this discussion.
Just out of interest, the first series of The Last Kingdom is now on Netflix (always supposing you can cope the various groups being put into a sort of 'uniform' for the uninformed).