"Pictish and Caledonian Shield Designs" Topic

Hello TMP! So I bought in to the recent Kickstarter for Forged In Battle miniatures. I was really considering building a Pictish force with their new models. However, I took a look at the sculpts yesterday and noticed that most of the shields were a sort of diamond shaped and were very small and thin and without a metal boss in the middle (very similar to the Essex models). I was wondering, is this historically accurate?

From the resources I have available to me, I noticed three sheild patterns were consistent. The square, circle, and a shield in the shape of an H. All would be classified as smaller shields but larger than a buckler. I really like the splintered light figures as I believe they got the shields and arms down well, but I've already put money into the Forged in Battle Kickstarter.

Basically my question is, is there any historical accuracy behind a somewhat diamond shaped, small shield without a boss? Would I be better off with going for a different army pack from Forged in Battle (their figures are phenomenal btw). Am I being too picky?

Also, I have the Opsrey books, but could anyone reccomend some further good reads on the Picts? Thanks everyone!

Search for "Pictish Art" through Google and you will find a number of stone reliefs with the shields you describe.

More importantly there are good illustrations of the scroll work emblazoned on such shields.

My Picts are from Old Glory which have the small shields and to complete my Caledonians I bought small shields from Xyston.

There was an excellent series on the picts in Slingshot 15 or so years back. I don't recall any diamond-shaped shields. IIRC the author suggested that the most common shield shape in Pictish art was circular.

I haven't heard of diamond shaped shields before, don't recall any appearing on any stones or carvings.

Round shields appear most often by far, especially in "battle" scenes. From what I remember, the "H" shields only appear on post Christian stones/caskets and in none of the "battle" scenes. I think they are just ceremonial.

The stone carvings are all we have. There is no other evidence, archaeological, written, anything, for Pictish shields.

We don't even know if the carvings are accurate or just an 'artists impression'.

Your best bet is to google the carvings, have a look at some, and use whatever shields seem reasonable to you based on what you have seen. If you are happy with how your figures look, then job done. If anyone else tries to tell you that they are wrong, ask them to prove it and wish them the best of luck….

Justin Taylor, if you're reading this, now is the time to re-make your 25mm Pictish shield decals in 15mm.

There are certainly representations of square shields.

link

link

Ah thank you for illustrating the difference in shields! Ok, so the first picture (square shield) is traditionally what I have seen Picts using. The slightly diamond shaped shields in the second picture I have never seen evidence for, yet I have seen them modeled on Essex and now Forged in Battle figures (as well as, now, this picture). I'm wondering what the historical evidence is for this diamond shaped shield which looks to be a leather type held together with two poles? I'm inclined to think the more square shield with a boss in the center is what was actually used, but I'd like to be proven otherwise if at all true! Thanks again for the great responses!

Supposition by the illustrator. Then that illustration is copied due to a lack of any easily available others.

The diamond shield seems an obvious construct. Two shafts bound together as a cross, with a hide cover stretched across and 'shrunk fit' as it dries. Thus the slight curvature between the points.

I think a lot of the FIB minis are closely based on Armies and Enemies illustrations (certainly their Romans were), which probably explains the diamond shields.

A major percentage of any older miniature line is based on WRG reference books.

Pity that some of the older work was wrong.

They did what they could at the time, unfortunately reworking masters for minis isn't as easy as redrawing an illustration.

If the 2nd. figures shield is corret then it could be a square shaped shield or a diamond shaped depending on how you hold the centre of the sticks. However if it is indeed built like a kite, holding the sticks at the centre is going to cause numbed fingers (at best), it an opponent whacks the centre of the shield.

Yeah but look at the first image those shields have a boss.

No one knows what the rear of the square shields looked like or even what they were made of. The only references are on stones and I've never seen a representation of the rear of a shield on one.

Its a case of "best guess", as are the tattoos/bodypaint.

Funnily enough, one thing illustrators and sculptors haven't picked up on are the saddle cloths on some cavalry on various stones that have "foot pockets" on the front corners for the riders feet. A form of stirrup?

Yes I'd say so, it would let you rest your legs. A very sensible thing to do.

The "diamond-shaped" shield, basically a square with incurved sides, is based directly on the warrior on the Eassie stone – see link fifth picture. Indeed he looks to be the source for the Barker Figure 97 in general, having no visible clothing apart from the cloak. The cross-stick structure does seem to be guesswork, or inference from the shape.

Thanks for that Duncan