Talk:Yetholm-type shield

Can someone please put in a reference for the Long Witterham shield?

IceDragon64 22:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Article issues and remaining problems
Mostly, I've just done a standard copyedit, removing extraneous words. This is especially important, since a typical reader may find it difficult to wade through all the facts.

There's some confusion (apparently taken from the sources) about what these shields were for, and where they came from. On the one hand, the Wiki synopsis suggests they are all alike, came from the same place, and were for ceremonial purposes. On the other, it suggests some versions were occasionally used in combat, and were so well established that pictures of them appeared in Scandinavia.

This reference, so kindly provided, (http://www.ambaile.org.uk/en/item/item_illustration_print.jsp?item_id=9592) suggests that there is both a grip and an arm strap, however the Wiki article apparently mentions only the grip, and then concludes from this that the shield could not be used for combat.

It's peculiar that a historical reconstruction of a sword hitting the shield was necessary whatever, and the circumstances of this test need examination. If, on the part of the experimenters, there was a question of whether the shield could withstand a sword, to have the test utterly defeat the shield suggests that either the experimenters knew little about swordplay, or that the replica shield did not accurately represent its strength.

Discussions about armor where there are a great number of examples and contemporaneous literature focus on known types, known weapons, and the rational for how armor protected against weapons. However this situation is entirely different. There are few shields, and no documentation supporting their purpose or the weapons which they were meant to thwart. So, for example, it's entirely possible that these shields were used to combat petty thieves, or for practice, or to fend off wild animals. Again, striking a replica shield with a replica sword seems to be good theater, but entirely besides the point.

It would be nice if the very clear pictures in the reference cites could be used, since they depict clearly what the textual explanation alone cannot.

67.169.127.166 (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking an interest in this article. I originally wrote it and it was one of my earliest efforts at a new article. You have for the most part improved it.


 * There is a particularly nice example on display at the British Museum - I cannot imagine why it is not on their highlights tour for it is a most beautiful and remarkable object. Somebody may be able to photograph it, but it is awakwardly high up. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)