Viking Shield Walls- Help Request

[Easy E]

Greetings,

I have been doing a bit of research into viking combat tactics and formations for fun.  In my quick review, I keep running across citations of Ralph Warming who claims that the vikings did not fight in a shield wall at all.....

https://www.ancient-origins.net/artifacts-other-artifacts/dissolving-myths-vikings-did-not-hide-behind-shield-walls-008969

http://sciencenordic.com/did-vikings-really-fight-behind-shield-wall

Is the shieldwall a more Saxon or English tactic compared to the Vikings/"Dane" wedge formation tipped with axeman?  I am a bit confused on who or what to believe? 

Can folks point me towards some more evidence/examples for reference?  Thanks

[Cubs]

I don't have any sources sorry, but from what I've read, early Vikings (8th-9th century) had small shields, which would not have been suitable for forming shield walls, whereas later Vikings (10th-11th century) had larger shields and probably did. This was perhaps in imitation of the tactics used by other enemies they encountered. Military evolution is often dictated by what the other guy is doing effectively, and then trying to do it better.

[tin shed gamer]

Its bad science full stop.
Discarding the obvious evolution of equipment and tactics of an entire age .All that has been show is a static shield will fail with repeated strikes.information thats been corrupted to fit a theory.Nothing more.
I don't recall ever working with any method of shield construction that didn't fail when repeatedly hit with an edged weapon.
Shields fail history and the sagas are full of accounts of shields failing. (Also shield walls a phrase thats not easily mis translated)
Shield size aside testing an individual shield is out of context . To understand how this style/construction of shield works within the context of a shield wall. Then you have to recreate a section of a shield wall. Includeding exploring how overlapping shields effect their performance. More importantly a working knowledge of a shield wall is required. Shield walls are not a passive act.
I've worked with a lot of academic egos over the years and they are rarely backed up with commonsense.
I've seen curators wax lyrically on the 100% authenticity of pieces only to have to politely point out that the rear panel has made in Taiwan stamped in to the metal.
So I read information and theorys like these with scepticism As they lack any depth of research and have very limited data pools. On which the theory has been floated.

It's also worth noting that circular shields of similar shield size to earlier viking shields are often used by riot poilce both individually and in shield walls . All be it a slightly less stabby and choppy environment.But they can be used to great effect when trained with.

[Neldoreth]

The first source you linked mis-characterized the strength of Warming's investigations. He didn't definitively conclude anything really, he's just testing theories. For example, the article in your link that states something like this is kinda ridiculous because it doesn't 'confirm' any theory, it only supports it at best:

However, the shields were not strong enough (or big enough) to withstand multiple hits from swords and axes in a shield wall – something that confirms Warming’s theory.

The second source you linked does a better job.

That being said - despite the fact that Warming is working on a Master's Thesis around this - it appears to be not-quite experimental archaeology; and is almost pseudo science. His methods seem to lean in a direction that is very specific - one-on-one combat for example - and don't really seem to emulate combat with large groups of people. It's one thing to have a static shield in a one-on-one fight, but it's another to have a static shield when you're backed by hundreds of spears... And perhaps his conclusions just mean that they fought in a loose shield wall, rather than a completely locked shield wall... which look very similar from a distance...

I'd take it all with a grain of salt.

[Neldoreth]

Here's a picture of my loose shieldwall that I use for wargaming... it's fun, and it looks great!



Thanks
n

[Antonio J Carrasco]

My problem with the shieldwall theory is not equipment. First, we need to make a distinction between raiders and armies. The former would have travelled relatively light, possibly with only a few men fully equiped, and intent on not to be forced to fight; it is probable that raiders didn't include enough professional warriors, therefore is doubtful that they were trained to form a shieldwall or, if formed, to stand an assault without running.

Norse armies were a different proposition. There we should expect a higher proportion of partial or even full-time warriors, well armed and, plausibly, used to fight together. It's credible they would have been able to use relatively complex formations that  required trusting your fellow warriors, stamina and the will to withstand a charge, plus the equipment needed to survive the first onslaught. On the other hand, seems highly doubtful that those "elites" were but a portion of the army.

Then there is another problem: how it actually worked. Sagas and chronicles are not particularly helpful to get the tactical nuances of Age of Invasions' warfare. We do not really know how a shieldwall looked like or how it worked; experimental archaeology is especulative; we should be very careful to accept its conclusions.

Warfare before the advent of massed battalions was a very personal affair. Anthropologists that have documented pre-industrial warfare have noticed an almost universal pattern when two forces of warriors come to grips: a first phase of skirmishing, when younger warriors show off; then comes a lull, when the forces deploy; afterwards comes the phase of hurling up insults and abuse, while the warriors work up themselves into a frenzy and reunite the courage to close with their enemies; finally, the actual close combat, which more often than not is represented by short bursts of activity, followed by small lulls when opponents separate a few meters to catch their breath (close combat is an exhausting activity). If that pattern was reproduced in Viking Era warfare (it is plausible; it doesn't conflict with what we know from the sources, and it is well within the possibilities of available technology at the time) , any tight formation, perhaps with overlapping shields, perhaps not, would have give a psychological and tactical advantage to the defender; that kind of formation, from the point of view of the attacker, could have been plausibly described as a "shieldwall", even if it wasn't a "wall" at all (and not how is shown in TV shows for sure!)

Anyway, I doubt we have a definitive answer ever, but a plausible one should combine, after a careful textual criticism of the written evidence, knowledge of the warrior culture of the period studied, known military practices of pre-industrial societies, technological analysis of the defensive and offensive panoply the researched society had available -and how common it was, of course-, and, to be honest, a lot -and I mean a lot- of educated guesses.

 

[Duncan McDane]

I'd go for common sense. A: what would you use a shieldwall for and B: who would you put into it?
A Shieldwall is a defensive formation so I'd use it for protecting flanks, roads, gaps, positions etc. Also, it is a pretty limiting formation so I'd put my untrained levies/militia into it, led by a few veterans to get a bit of discipline into it, leaving my household/professional/elite warriors free to trash the enemy's main treads elsewhere on the battlefield doing the real fighting. And, as it didn't do much use to kill the servants/peasants/militiamen forming that Shieldwall I guess attacking armies wouldn't go full force on them, as they'd still need people to work the land, doing their jobs and paying their taxes.
So, Viking raiding parties wouldn't use the formation, other than covering their retreat after being defeated by the locals, I'd say...

[John Tailby]

Greek Hoplites used team work tactics and close formations with overlapping shields. That required everyone moving together and having weapons that allowed the fighters to reach beyond the line of shields.

I think its a tactic that requires training and trust in your comrades. Its probably a situational formation a bit like the Roman Testudo. On smooth ground where a measured advance is appropriate and possibly protection against missiles is required it might be a useful formation.

Where you want a fast advance over rough ground or want to concentrate your best warriors in an small area and minimise the impact on your lesser experienced warriors, then maybe a wedge is a good formation.

[Easy E]

The sources I have found talk about three potential formations:

1. The Shield Wall which is probably more like the Greek Phalanx than the Testudo

2. The Boar's Head which sounds like a wedge with axemen at the tip and edges.

3. Loose formation where warrior's give each other space to swing their weapons and use their shields but are not tightly packed together.