This is Thrand, Excellent video and very well done. I enjoyed it very much and shall make a reply as soon as I am able to do it properly.

You see this internet. This is how to have a respectful disagreement. Thank you so much for your respect.

Wonderful stuff. Clear, concise, articulate, well thought out AND respectful. Subscribed. It was interesting listening to you argue, intelligently, the merits of different construction methods and materials, with respect to shields. I have absolutely no doubt that many such passionate conversations were had around the warm hearths of many a smoke filled long house, a millennia or so ago.

Thank you, Lenin.

Excellent presentation. Thank you for making this video and for sharing it.

Wow-what a video and very well done! I'll have to go look through Thegn Thrand's channel now! Thanks for the work it must have taken to do this.

Thank you!

My assumption about the paint job on the wood under the hide was that it was 1) Related to the gluing of the wood to the rawhide cover. 2) Done as a "temporary measure": You made shield blanks (out of the abundant and inexpensive wood) which were not covered in hide (which was far more expensive than wood) and had no boss (the other expensive part) so as to be ready to be used in lieu of proper made shields in an emergency or be converted to fully operational shields with boss and rawhide cover. In the meantime, the wooden blanks were painted on to serve a decorative, ritual etc function and to be somewhat protected from the elements until they were needed.

Very interesting!

Very good points! Could not the use of linseed oil on the rawhide do the water protection and an improved see-through alone? On the other hand I find the paint on the outside is a more logical idea because the most high in contrast paints where more expensive. That shields broke during a battle is also a hint to not completely covered shields. It is hard to know if there where rules how the shields should be for duels. And maybe there where different types used for different fighters, wallets, times and regional aspects; and all we find is a tiny part of them.

probably would've been a great vid if I could've heard anything

The Gokstad is a difficult archaeological source. The ship an all that stuff belonged to women. As far as the archaeologists can tell to a high status woman and her handmaid . So bringing Gokstad in a military context is kinda hard.