Big Shields

[Lanceari]

I frequently ask myself if big shields should have higher defense values.

At first glance, they seem fine. But chevrons change the story. While playing the campaign map, my missile troops rack up lots of chevrons. I have quite a few horse archers with one or two gold chevrons, and mercenary cretan archers with two and three silver chevrons. It is very easy for archers to accumulate chevrons because they have lower casualty rates.

Large shields were very effective at blocking arrows, regardless of the skill of the archer. And since archers rack up chevrons so quickly... My guess is that the defense value of these shields should be measured, not against the the basic attack value of an archer, but against the attack value of archers with a few chevrons on their belt.

On the other hand, I was very impressed by two books I read recently. One of them, narrates how Caesar marched ahead of his soldiers who were afraid to attack uphill against an opposing Roman Legion (during the civil war). He grabbed a shield from a soldier and marched halfway up the hill. The opposing romans threw a volley of pilums at Caesar. He ducked behind the shield and survived the whole thing. After that, his legion attacked and won the day.

The other book explains that the Roman soldiers were shorter than the average man today (perhaps about 5'4" or 5'6") Yet, the shield was over 4' top to bottom. If that is so, and you further assume that the soldier would tend to crouch behind his shield when approaching his enemy, what you have left sticking out of the shield was probably just the soldiers' helmet. So, these shields were almost like a moving wall the soldiers carried in front of them.

...any thoughts? :book:

[DaciaJC]

This is a somewhat related question: I very vaguely recall reading somewhere that chevrons for missile troops only increase their range and/or accuracy and not their damage, contrary to what may be shown on the unit card? Is this true?

[bobbin]

This is a somewhat related question: I very vaguely recall reading somewhere that chevrons for missile troops only increase their range and/or accuracy and not their damage, contrary to what may be shown on the unit card? Is this true?

For the answer to that question and a lot more you should read the Ludus Magna (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=88).

[Aemilius Paulus]

Yes, everyone seems to concur that missile units do not get higher attack with chevrons, but merely accuracy. In any case, there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between fresh archers/slingers and seasoned ones. Whether it is the accuracy or attack, but with missile units, increased accuracy is attack. You ever notice how many missiles do not hit targets? Yeah. Chevroned missile units are priceless. My Rhodian Slingers and Cretan Archers are unstoppable with their silver chevrons.

[Geticus]

Regardless I agree with his basic premise. Roman martial culture advocated the use of shield + body armor, but other strong cultures like early Frankish, old Germanic and Viking all prioritized the shield and mail was rare. The standard panoply of the Viking warrior was shield + helm + spear, and sword if he was well off. And the vikings armed in that way were very effective, winning the field many times against the Frankish knights who were the hardest hitting cavalry in the world at the time. While some of that may be attributed to their skill with spears regardless Viking successes in Asia and Europe as well as the rise of the Goths and Franks towards the tail end of the Roman empire demonstrate that the heavily armored way is not the only viable approach to infantry power.

[Julius Augustus]

Yes, bigger shields undoubtedly deserve a higher defence value. In EB, shields make up a relatively small part of a soldier's defence. A shield defence rating of 4 is kind of ridiculous (To me, maybe the EB team has some reasons?) when you consider that many units have a defence skill of three times that. My guess is that all scutum and aspis shields should get a shield defence of 6, not 4.

[antisocialmunky]

*I can't find the reference naymore, nvm*

[DaciaJC]

For the answer to that question and a lot more you should read the Ludus Magna (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=88).

Yes, I took a gander there and didn't find any thread related to something I recall reading here in the EB forums... and I had no desire of meticulously going through every thread in the hopes of answering my query, not with a soccer match a mere twenty minutes away.

But my question was answered nonetheless. :2thumbsup:

[Azathoth]

Yes, bigger shields undoubtedly deserve a higher defence value. In EB, shields make up a relatively small part of a soldier's defence. A shield defence rating of 4 is kind of ridiculous (To me, maybe the EB team has some reasons?) when you consider that many units have a defence skill of three times that. My guess is that all scutum and aspis shields should get a shield defence of 6, not 4.

Phalangites have 5 shield, and they're almost impervious to missiles. I think the PhalanxMod does give hoplites 6 shield though.

[antisocialmunky]

Never compare phalangite vs missiles to anything else vs missiles. They get a ridiculous frontal bonus. If you guys haven't noticed, missiles are fairly how attack weapons in EB due to the 100% lethality. The average missile attack is 4 for archers and 1.5 for slingers. Big shields average 3-5.

Also shield defense does not get APed in half.

[Lanceari]

...shield defense does not get APed in half.

What is APed?

[Aemilius Paulus]

What is APed?
AP is armour piercing, or when a RTW/EB unit with the AP attribute overlooks half of the opponent's armour. For example: a Dakian Falxman attacks a Roman Hastati with 22 armour, but due to the falx's AP attribute, the falxmen has only 11 armour to go against.

antisocialmunky was saying that the AP attribute only halves the armour, but not the shield and the defence skill.

[Lanceari]

AP is armour piercing, or when a RTW/EB unit with the AP attribute overlooks half of the opponent's armour. For example: a Dakian Falxman attacks a Roman Hastati with 22 armour, but due to the falx's AP attribute, the falxmen has only 11 armour to go against.

antisocialmunky was saying that the AP attribute only halves the armour, but not the shield and the defence skill.

Thanks, I was confused by the "ed" in APed. Never thought of using AP as a verb in past tense.:dizzy2:

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

I was more interested about those low shield values in EB.
Some units like roman legionary carry a big rectangular "scutum" with 4 of defence.
Strange: also pedites extraordinarii (with their round shield) have 4 of shield defence.
And phalangites carry a round shield with 5 (!).
Then, i ve did some test and I ve noted that phalangites are very strong also out of phalanx mode.
I agree with EB team choice to give low shield values, but i don t like that round shield carry the same value of big rectangular/oval shield.:thumbsdown:

However, for game mechanics, shield value count only for attack in front or left(for melee) and become double in front for missile attack(for example roman scutum(4) become 8 for missile attacks from the front).
For this reason an extra shield value(like 7 or 8) make unit too powerful in the front.
I ve already made this battle EDU with +2 to all shield value(without phalangites of course) in my unofficial mini-mod.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=119572

But, after this, I ve noted that units was too strong against missile weapons, so I made +1 to all missile weapons.:sweatdrop:

[Lanceari]

I was more interested about those low shield values in EB.
Some units like roman legionary carry a big rectangular "scutum" with 4 of defence....

However, for game mechanics, shield value count only for attack in front or left(for melee) and become double in front for missile attack(for example roman scutum(4) become 8 for missile attacks from the front)....

Regarding your first point, I would add Camilian Triariis have a shield value of 4, equal to Principe's and Marian Legionairs. My instinct goes along with your comment: the roman scutum should have a higher defense value than the hoplon. Maybe this would create some unbalance between the combat effectiveness of Legionary and the Hoplite. :inquisitive: If that is the case, we could reduce the skill level of the legionary. :juggle2: After all, carrying such a large shield must be cumbersome, :sweatdrop: but it certainly stops arrows. :yes:

As for the second point, I am not clear how game mechanics work. I thought shields had cero value when attacked from the side or from behind. I vaguely remember hearing shield values were reduced when walking or running. But I am not sure if shield values are ever doubled. Could someone educate us here? Is there a thread with this information elsewhere? Ludus Magna reports his experiments but I could not find the actual formulas there.

[DaciaJC]

I thought shields had cero value when attacked from the side or from behind.

As presented in EB, shields are carried in the left hand. Thus, missile attacks from the right or rear of the unit will ignore the shield defense.

[antisocialmunky]

To be honest, shouldn't elite units get some sort of shield bonus for being elite? I mean, you're not just hiding behind you're shield unless you're in tight formation. You're like actually using the thing to not die like the noobs are.

[DaciaJC]

I very much doubt that any person under fire would be trying to "misuse" their shield. It shouldn't take much training to understand how to properly advance behind a shield while under missile attack.

[antisocialmunky]

In formation but what about outside of formation? Besides, big shields are not 100% advantageous since they are cumbersome and obscure your vision if you're blocking or parrying high.

[DaciaJC]

When facing missiles, the bigger the better, no? Obviously, when in hand-to-hand combat, the ideal shield may not always be the largest, but I don't believe that is the issue here.

[Ludens]

I was more interested about those low shield values in EB.
Some units like roman legionary carry a big rectangular "scutum" with 4 of defence.
Strange: also pedites extraordinarii (with their round shield) have 4 of shield defence.
And phalangites carry a round shield with 5 (!).
Then, i ve did some test and I ve noted that phalangites are very strong also out of phalanx mode.
I agree with EB team choice to give low shield values, but i don t like that round shield carry the same value of big rectangular/oval shield.:thumbsdown:

Phalangites are special case. They get a higher shield value and lower defence to simulate the vulnerability of their flanks. It's also been mentioned that the phalanx formation protected individual pikemen from arrows. Personally, I rather doubt that, but historically the phalanx seems to have had little trouble operating in the missile heavy east.

A long time ago someone proposed that shield values were increased in EB, but the argument against it was that this makes AP weapons less effective. A falx or good axe will make short work of a shield. The current situation is not perfect either, but the team has considered these arguments.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

As for the second point, I am not clear how game mechanics work. I thought shields had cero value when attacked from the side or from behind. I vaguely remember hearing shield values were reduced when walking or running. But I am not sure if shield values are ever doubled. Could someone educate us here? Is there a thread with this information elsewhere? Ludus Magna reports his experiments but I could not find the actual formulas there.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=111344

[Lanceari]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=111344

Thanks, this is very helpful. The pertinent part reads, and I quote:

[shield] : Unit's shield value, taken into account against both ranged and melee attacks, but only when they come from the front or the left side. Against missiles from the front it offers twice the protection it's value suggests. Measures the blocking capabilities of a unit's shield. Max value is 31 and everything higher will be considered 31.

...so the frontal defense value of either a Hoplon or Scutum is 4 x 2 = 8. This should take care of arrows incoming from the front.

...but still leaves open the other question raised here: should the Roman Scutum have a higher defense value than the hoplite shield? ...possibly at the expense of a reduction in skill level?

[DaciaJC]

Hoplitai have 4 shield, same as Roman legionaries.

EDIT: Sorry, my mistake. I mis-read your question.

[bobbin]

Given that the Scutum was bigger they probably should but i'm sure the EB team has a good reason.

If watchman is kicking around he could probably answer for you as he did the stats for EB.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Hoplitai have 4 shield, same as Roman legionaries.

This is the true mistake:laugh4:
Oplon ISN T Scutum :2thumbsup:

[antisocialmunky]

Aspis covers eyes to knees and shins are covered by greeves. Scutum covers eyes to ankles and you cover the leading leg with a greeve.

Its comperable.

[Watchman]

AFAIK the diameter of the aspis was pretty variable actually; I was recently looking through the assorted Osprey books dealing with hoplites, and the pictorial sources seem to suggest everything from "shoulder to hip" to "shoulder to knee", with "shoulder to mid-thigh" seeming to be about the most common...
'Course, it's not like you couldn't adjust the height of your stance behind it for greater coverage as necessary anyway.

Anyway, AFAIK most incarnations of the scutum are not only more covering, but the whole thing is also *much* more robustly constructed - what with triple plywood plus hide covering as opposed to single-planked dome stressed with a cover of half-millimeter bronze. But 4 is the highest the shields go (the special rules of the pikemen nonwithstanding) in the statting system I was handed so meh, plus given that the actual construction of most units' shields is kind of a big question mark (or in any case I couldn't be bothered to try tracking down the details for all the several hundred of the lot) it was pretty much ignored and the value allocation done nigh entirely based on the size of the shields.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

I manually highened scutum armor value to 5.

I don't understand why phalangites has 5 shield value: the phalanx formation could protect from arrows? How? In fact they have small shields, and when in formation they can't easily adjust their stance in order to protect from arrows.

[Watchman]

Forest o' pikeshafts entangles missiles, basically.

[Lanceari]

Aspis covers eyes to knees and shins are covered by greeves. Scutum covers eyes to ankles and you cover the leading leg with a greeve.

Its comperable.

Greek Levy Hoplites do not wear greaves and some of the other armor... Yet, they have a Shield Rating of 4, same as Rorariis and, same as Classical Hoplites. If the shield value is supposed to include the value of this armor, Greek Levy Hoplites should have a lower Shield Rating than Classical Hoplites (which wear more armor). Yet they have the same Shield Rating.

I understand, Armor is represented by the Armor Rating assigned to the unit. If so, a unit wearing more armor should have a higher Armor Rating, not a higher Shield Rating.

On the other hand, I understand heavy and cumbersome equipment should reduce the weapons skill level of a soldier. There is no free lunch. A larger shield offers better protection but it is heavy and cumbersome. The challenge is how model this trade off in a game.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I don't understand why phalangites has 5 shield value: the phalanx formation could protect from arrows? How? In fact they have small shields, and when in formation they can't easily adjust their stance in order to protect from arrows.
No, that was done to make the phalanx more vulnerable to flanking attacks: shield only protects you from the left and front, not the rear and the right. In reality, however, it does not work as the soldier in the unit will simply turn around to face a flanking adversary. But now this also imbalanced the phalangites vs archers contest...

It would have been better to increase defence skill instead, which only protects a soldier from the front. And the pikes will not protect their own phalangites from arrows, only offer some meagre protection to the units behind the phalanx.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

That's why i lowered their shield value to 3.

[Lanceari]

... It would have been better to increase defence skill instead, which only protects a soldier from the front...

Unfortunately, it does not work that neatly. I quote from the RTW EDU Guide cited above:

The unit's defensive stats.
[armour] : Unit's armour value. Taken into account in all occasions (soldier attacked from any direction, melee and ranged). It measures the amount of protection a soldier's armour offers. Max value is 63 and everything higher will be considered 63.
[def_skill] : Unit's defensive skill, taken into account only in melee and only against attacks from the front or the right side. It doesn't affect defense against missiles. It represents a soldier's ability to parry(rather than block) and dodge strikes. Max value is 63 and everything higher will be considered 63.
[shield] : Unit's shield value, taken into account against both ranged and melee attacks, but only when they come from the front or the left side. Against missiles from the front it offers twice the protection it's value suggests. Measures the blocking capabilities of a unit's shield. Max value is 31 and everything higher will be considered 31.

So defense skill increases protection from front AND RIGHT ...which is not the result you were looking for.

[Lanceari]

I was looking through some history books for more information on the actual size of the Roman Scutum.

According to The Complete Roman Army, by Adrian Goldsworthy, the size and shape of the Roman Scutum varied through the centuries.

Apparently, remnants of a shield from 300 BC were found in an archeological dig. The shield we oval shaped and about three feet nine inches long. Goldsworthy does not say the actual length of the shield, but scale drawings of the shield are placed next to another shield for which the author gives the exact length...

A second shield from 300 AD was found on another archeological dig. It is square and about 3 feet 3 inches. But shield from 300 AD is also wider and wraps further around the soldier holding it.

Apparently, no shields have been found for the period between 300 BC and 300 AD. However, the leather case for a shield from about 100 BC suggest that the shield carried in that case was somewhere in between the 300 BC and the 300 AD, but closer to the 300 BC type.

What I have not found is an adequate description of the the shield was handled. It seems that the shield had one horizontal grip right in the middle. But, just one horizontal grip, with no point of leverage, for such a large shield seems too awkward. A soldier holding a shield like that would have no control over it. An opponent pushing the top or bottom of the shield would make the shield swing back and forth wildly and live the poor roman soldier hopelessly exposed. Maybe the shield most have had some leather straps through which the soldier stuck his arm or wrist, and (maybe these leather straps rot away and were never found in the archeological digs).

Any of you know of a source that has actually conducted some research as to how the shield was wielded in battle?

[teh1337tim]

i a under th e impression from one of the good youtube videos on spear tactics used in the ancient world that someone posted in another thread.

You would balance the shield with your leg, basically your greaves and your leg will help keep it from going down. I am not a real expert on this stuff, but I know for sure, theres something calleda boss in shields which balances out the scrutum.


I can really explain it, but look at pictures of a Scrutum or any other shield. There will be a big round thing near the center, basically you hold that on the other side and the shield will be balanced.

[Lanceari]

I have been doing some more research on the Scutum. I found this great article on ancient shields. I encourage anyone interested in this subject to look at it.

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_shield.html

The article includes a picture of a real Scutum from the 2nd century BC. It is much narrower and curved than I ever imagine they would be. Again, I encourage you all to look at it.

I had heard that Roman soldiers used their swords on the right hand side because the shield would not allow them to retrieve them on the other side. Only upon seeing the picture how narrow and "curved" is the Scutum in the picture shown in this article did I realize how constrictive the Scutum could be.

I was particularly interested on the authors description of how the Roman Scutum was used in battle. According to the author, and I quote:

" ...the legionary would often rest his scutum on the ground and fight from behind it while crouched. This would lower his center of gravity, making it harder for him to be pushed back or knocked off-balance, and would also allow for more of his body to be protected by the shield... It should be stressed that this technique would result in a rather static position, and Roman tactics tended to rely on moving forward, so the soldier might have advanced with subsequent short charges whenever possible, and it is certain that, when called for, he would have held his shield in front of himself and continued to press forward."

This has huge implications for RTW/EB. The Roman soldiers were carrying a portable wall which they would actually place in the ground in front of them and thereafter fight from behind this wall. This is a truly static possiton. Much more static than the phalanx or any other formation from the period. More important, for EB, if this article is right, legionaries should have a lower attack ratings but a higher shield ratings.

Another section of this article deals with the charge, and I quote again:

"During the charge, the legionary would hold his shield in front of himself so that the force of the impact would, hopefully, knock his opponent to the ground. In this way, the scutum could serve as an offensive weapon by battering the enemy with the central boss and by hacking at him with the metal-bound edge."

If this author is right, the legionary should have a very high charge value, a very high defense shield value, but a very low attack value once the charge was over.

As a martial artist familiar with the way people behave in combat, I find this article very very convincing. It is by far the best explanation I have heard of how Romans might have used their Scutums.

The author points out that modern scholars do not realize how important this shield was in shaping the Roman Army and contributing to its success. After reading his interpretation of how the shield was most likely used, I must agree. If the author is correct about the way Romans used their shield, the Roman Scutum caused a truly monumental change in fighting techniques. It was not just a bigger shield, but a moving wall to be rested on the ground in front of you. This calls for a completely different set of fighting techniques and allows for whole range of new tactical options.

In fact, it also allows for a new understanding of the triple axes formation. First of all, if each soldier was carrying his own little section of a moving wall, then each maniple in the hastati line could charge the enemy, do as much damage as possible, and then "build" a small fortress leaving gaps in between each separate little fort in which the velites could move around.

After this initial stage, if the enemies tried to surround one of the Hastati forts, the principes in the second line could use their powerful charge to press the enemy against the little fort built by the Hastati Maniple up front. The enemy would be squeezed between a rock and a hard place. However, if the charge failed, the pricipeps would proceed to build their own little fort, and wait for the triariis to stabilize the line, the old fashion way.

Now, this has the ingredients of a true revolution in military thought. Something completely different from the fighting techniques of greeks and other ancient people.

I think more research on this area is worth it. I would also encourage the EB team to consider, and maybe playtest a version of EB where legionaries have a very high charge value, a very high shield value, and much lower attack values. It might make for a very different, and potentially very interesting experience.

[DaciaJC]

An insightful theory, but are there no references in classical texts referring to the scutum and its applications?

[antisocialmunky]

I think the primary secondary source for Imperial Era tactics is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Re_Militari by Vegetius. As far as I know, the Chinese used shields of similar size to set up defensice positions that their halberd infantry fall back to and for their massed crossbowmen to fire from. Or that's how its interpreted in movies anyways :-p.

There is also modern riot police shield tactics if experimental archeology is your thing.

[Geticus]

Roman military histories, e.g. Livy, Appian, Sallust, Caesar, Velleius Paterculus, Tacitus, Ammianus Marcellinus who wrote in Latin as well as the Hellenic historians such as Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Dio Cassius, Plutarch tend to reflect the concerns of wealthy men of letters and as such they usually do not convey much insight into the tactics and physical mechanics of combat. Homer is the peerless source for that, but unfortunately he only described the late Bronze. But off the top of my head I can recall two historical incidents that were archetypal as to the use of the scutum as a striking weapon.
One is the famous dual between Titus Manlius Torquatus and the Gallic champion in the mid 4th century BCE. Livy records that Torquatus struck the huge Gallic champion with his shield and knocked him off his feet and slew him with a sword strike (to the vitals IIRC). Torquatus' victory in this single combat terminated the battle. Torquatus was incidentally one of the great masters of Roman military discipline during the Republican era, so his exploits inspired Romans for centuries.
At the turn of the 1st century BCE Gaius Marius was famous as the master of military discipline and the most physically capable soldier of his generation, and during his campaign against the Teutons and Ambrones he instructed his soldiers to strike with their shields and destabilize the Teutons that way. Basically, press of shields was fairly common in ancient warfare, both Roman and Hellenic, and the upwards shieldstrike or block followed by a gladius thrust to the vitals was a fairly common Roman tactic.

[antisocialmunky]

I can't speak for Frontline but I don't think we were disputing offensive use of the shield but the static fight style described above. While it might work, the issue here at hand I was responding to was how much conjecture that article Erpi posted contained.

[Lanceari]

An insightful theory, but are there no references in classical texts referring to the scutum and its applications?

There might just be... I vaguely remember some readings consistent with this author's theory... but at the time I read those I was not paying particular attention to the use of the Scutum. I will review my books and let you all know...


I can't speak for Frontline but I don't think we were disputing offensive use of the shield but the static fight style described above. While it might work, the issue here at hand I was responding to was how much conjecture that article Erpi posted contained.

...I absolutely agree we must do some more research here. Please note I raised that flag in my initial quote. As I mentioned in my last post, I will further research this, and share with you anything I find. I would also appreciate reading anything any of you may find.

On the other hand, I also want to underline two points:

(1) There is surprisingly little stuff available on how the scutum was used. The article I cite may have (and probably does have) a lot of conjecture. However, it is also a conjecture to assume that the shield was used just like any other shield... which is what I, for one, had been doing all along until I read this article. At this point, I just realize I really don't know, and, I am willing to question the commonly accepted conjecture that the Scutum was used the same way as other shields.

(2) The size, shape, and handle of the Scutum are very odd. It would be very very awkward to use the Scutum the way the Hoplon was used. It might be that the Scutum was not used the way this author suggests. Maybe it was used in a completely different way I can't imagine. But, my gut feeling is that the Scutum was not used the same way as the Hoplon. If you want to use a shield the way you use a Hoplon, why not use a Hoplon in the first place? For that purpose, the Hoplon is a lot better.

Again, I just think we should be willing to challenge the assumption that the scutum was used in the same manner as other shields. After all, didn't someone once challenged the assumption the earth was flat?

[Lanceari]

This site has some useful stuff:

http://www.swan.ac.uk/grst/student%20papers/Roman%20Rep%20shield.htm

The author built a scutum using original descriptions. So we get an accurate replica of the shield. Just as important important, we can see the author resting the shield on the floor and standing behind it. I encourage you all to look at the picture and note the following details:

(1) note the height and width proportions of the shield. Furthermore, note how the shield looks when the holder rests the shield on the floor and stands behind the shield.

(2) Consider Roman legionaries were shorter than we are today. Now imagine a short roman legionary resting the shield replica on the floor and standing behind it. If you look at this mental image, you can probably note it would have been fairly easy for that short soldier rest the shield on the floor, and crouch behind it.

Of course, this is not conclusive evidence, but it tells us the theory proposed above is quite consistent with the actual proportions of the shield and the average height of the legionaries.

Finally I must call your attention to this one sentence, and I quote from the above article:

"I now had to add a rim; Polybius tells us that 'The upper and lower edges are bound with iron to protect the shield both from the cutting strokes of swords and FROM WEAR WHEN RESTING ON THE GROUND.'"

So the shield was often rested on the ground. Again this is not conclusive evidence. It was very heavy. Soldiers eat, sleep, etc. They had to rest the shield every now and then. Still, I am not aware of any other shield that had a rim on the lower edge for the express purpose of resting the shield on the ground.

I will keep looking for more info.

[antisocialmunky]

It could also be because its rested on the ground because it weighs a ton and is huge. Its known that it was rested on the ground for anti-cavalry and missile formations so that the legionaires could hide behind it. The issue here is doing it in a fluid fight. You might use it to brace in some sort of defensive formation but not when you get into CQB.

The Romans fought with a decent amount of space between each man. Therefore I conjecture that the curvature of the shield was to protect the legionaires from the sides during engagement because there would be some infiltration in the front ranks. So really the front several ranks would be in combat.

Other cultures used interlocked shields to protect the sides of each man and to prevent infiltration. In those cultures, longer weapons were used to stab over the front rank of shields so multiple ranks could engage the front rank of the opposing force. However, the Romans instead used infiltration to their advantage to break up enemy ranks, to make the enemy fight their close range fight instead of the over the shield poking fight or the 1 on 1 fight.

I further conjecture that another point of the shield and the loose roman formation was to deflect the initial charge around each soldier so that the force of the initial charge could be disipated by this deflection effect. Legionaires would be compressed while the enemy impacts but the force of the charge would carry into the legionaires. The front few ranks of the enemy would be deflected by their big round narrow shields deeper into the Roman formation where they would be isolated. The enemy soldiers would be unable to fight with spears or be able to draw their secondary swords since everyone would be compressed. However, the Romans would be ready with their short swords, they would be able to finish these guys off quite easily as well as the front rank of the enemy that were also compressed. The front ranks of the enemy would be disordered for the enemy in an unfavorable way. Their flat shields only protected 90 degrees but because the Roman formation was designed loose without a smooth front unlike a hoplite line. Their shield covered a larger arc and their short sword made the Romans excel at CQB which is what they effectively made the fight.

So: I conjecture that basically they abandoned the monolithic defense of an interlocked shield wall that counters charge with counter force for being able to break up and redirect the charge of the enemy and punish them for over agression.

[Geticus]

My mistake, I missed his static grounded shieldwall thesis. Though he cites many variations of scuta, I recall the scutum was generically 2.5' by 4' and in that case it would leave approx. 1.5' exposed above its upper rim for a 5'6" man when grounded, which makes him longsword bait IMO. The metal reinforcements on the top were chiefly a reaction to celtic overhand slashes which proved so lethal during the mid Republican era. So this proves that the Roman legionary raised his shield to guard against the ubiquitous Celtic overhand. In fact the Celt overhand slash was considered by Roman historians to be their standard and primary striking method, and since Romans fought Gauls so often, this supports the idea of scuta not grounded, but held ready to raise.

I recall that Vegetius described the Roman legion during battle as a "murata ferrea" or iron fortress, though this seemed to refer to the iron armor as much as the shieldwall.

Agreed that the purpose of the scutum curvature was to deflect, though I think it was more to deflect against missiles and javelins, which were ubiquitous in Italic warfare and very lethal. Really I think that Roman jav volleys were extremely lethal against insufficiently armored opponents like the Celts during the Gaesatae invasion, the Helvetii etc.

What I can say is that I have read the majority of ancient primary sources on Roman warfare, including all of Caesar and pseudo-Caesar in Latin and I never gained the sense that the scutum was rested on the ground. We should bare in mind Polybios' axiom that the standard movement of a Roman army was a slow step backward, I don't think that this implies a static shieldwall but a slow killing retreat and heaping up of the dead until the enemies morale began to waver. A slow retreat while resting scuta on the ground means that they would be dragging their scuta slowly backwards, which strikes me as inefficient and weak, which the Romans were not.

My personal thesis on Roman warfare is that the key to Roman legionary invincibility did lie in their shield arm, but not through a static and grounded shield tactic, but rather because the Roman military tradition was a product of a ancient, dour, and uncompromisingly stern work ethic and cult of virtue, which gave rise to a singularly rigorous disciplinary system which procured a somewhat sluggish but nigh inexhaustible power of endurance. So when Polybios cited the slow step backwards I see that as meaning that the Romans won their battles more via caution and defense than by offense and lethality and I see their greatest strength consisting in their shield arm due to the tireless drill of bearing the weight of the scuta on the march and in battle.

[Lanceari]

Though he cites many variations of scuta, I recall the scutum was generically 2.5' by 4' and in that case it would leave approx. 1.5' exposed above its upper rim for a 5'6" man when grounded, which makes him longsword bait IMO. The metal reinforcements on the top were chiefly a reaction to celtic overhand slashes which proved so lethal during the mid Republican era. So this proves that the Roman legionary raised his shield to guard against the ubiquitous Celtic overhand. In fact the Celt overhand slash was considered by Roman historians to be their standard and primary striking method, and since Romans fought Gauls so often, this supports the idea of scuta not grounded, but held ready to raise.

I have read sources indicating Early Republic (polybian) legionaries used different shields. In fact, apparently there were five types of shields. There was the triarii shield which was essentially a Hoplon. There was the Velite's shield which as a small circular shield. There was the Cavalry shield which was hexagonal and flat. And there were two other types of shields used by the legionaries. One was a full body semi cilindrical oval shield about 4 feet high. The other was flat and slightly shorter (maybe six inches shorter). The shorter version usually had a strong vertical rib running from top to bottom.

There is a frieze from altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus which is depicted in Adrian Goldsworthy's book The Complete Roman Army, page 28. It shows two roman soldiers from the polybian period holding their shields. One is holding the larger semi cylindrical type, while the other is holding the flat oval type.

The soldier holding the larger semi cylindrical type is fully erect. The shield is clearly rested on the ground, and the shield reaches from the ground to the neck of the soldier. If the soldier were to crouch into a fighting stand, the shield would reach his nose or even higher. In fact, there is no way that soldier could crouch into a fighting position while holding that shield without the shield at least touching the ground. Whether the soldier actually stuck the shield into the ground or it merely hit the ground as he crouched into a fighting stand, the net effect would be the same.

Please note my whole thesis is predicated on one fact: people don't fight fully erect. In close combat, soldiers crouch. Whether you are a hoplite or a wrestler, whether you practice karate or boxing, your fighting stand is never a fully erect position. Fighting stands vary greatly, but we can safely make some generalizations: you place keep one foot behind the other, a couple of feet appart, and, you bend your knees a little, etc. As a result, you lower your center of gravity and your effective height goes down a few inches. If you are carrying a shield that reaches up to your neck, and you crouch into a fighting stand, that shield can easily reach your nose.

Then, of course there is the other shield in the frieze. The one with the vertical spine, the flat oval type. This second type of shield is shorter; maybe 6 inches shorter? And the soldier holding it is NOT resting the shield on the ground.

I have seen both shields depicted in many reputable sources. It seems some legionaries used the larger type shield while others used the smaller flat version. Is it possible the Hastati used one type of shield while the Pricipes used a different type of shield? We know the Principes wear greaves while the Hastatis did not. Could this fact be related? Maybe soldiers wearing greaves carried the somewhat smaller flat oval shield?

Maybe, and this is only and educated guess... maybe the front line Hastatis carried the bigger shield. It offered greater protection against missiles (which they needed). It covered their lower legs, so they did not need greaves. But it reduced their mobility and attack potential. Meanwhile, the second line used a smaller, used the lighter shield, flat oval shield. They were safely away from most arrows and other missiles. So they did not need the bigger heavier shield, while the somewhat smaller shield allowed them more mobility and offensive capability.

Some of you cite Vegetius. I do not know latin and have not read Vegetius. But I understand Vegetius lived around 450 A.D. We know some changes did occur in the Roman Army between 200 B.C. and 450 A.D. The polybian oval shield was dropped in favor of the shorter square imperial version long before Vegetius. It is possible, and I dare say, it is likely, that a change in shields came along with a change in fighting techniques.

Finally, I agree that the Roman ethos was key to their success. Still, I am puzzled by the huge size of the shield, specially when we consider that these were short people. It takes a huge effort to raise a big shield to parry an upward blow. Not only it takes a huge effort, it also takes time. Besides, your elbow was constrained by the semi cylindrical shape of the shield and by the manner the hand had to get into the handle to grab the shield. Even if you had the required physical fitness to move the shield arround, you lack elbow room (literally) to move the shield upward to perry. Under those circumstances, and given the huge size of the shield, it would make more sense to duck behind the shield than to use the shield to parry upward.

Anyway, I continue to research this. I will try to scan the picture of the frieze I cite above to share it with you.

[Lanceari]

This is the frieze I cited above.

I am most interested on the soldier standing on the viewers right. Notice his shield rests on the ground and reaches up to his shoulders or neck.

Notice the way he grabs the shield and further notice how his elbow would hit the curvature of the shield as he tries to lift the shield. Furthermore consider that, the further he tries to lift the shield the further he would have to bend his wrist into a very awkward position.

The ergonomics of this shields are such that I doubt it was meant to be raised to parry upwards.

(I hope the picture uploads well. This the first time I try to upload a picture here.)

[Lanceari]

I previously stated the average height of roman legionaries was 5' - 6". I have been looking through my books, to refresh my memories and to give you all a cite.

I was wrong. They were even shorter. This is the quote I found:

"Roman Legionaries averaged just five feet four in height, primarily because of their diet..." Page 8, Cesar's Legion: The epic saga of Julius Cesar's elite 10th legion and the armies of Rome, by Stephen Dando-Collins.

[Geticus]

When you say that soldiers crouch, I somewhat agree, but I think that crouching too much can also be an energy drain, so I personally think that the crouch was not too pronounced.

When you cite a height of 5 foot 4 inches, I wonder what the author's basis was. I could counter cite Vegetius who enumerated the list of traits belonging to the ideal soldier, among them was that he be tall and long fingered. He also advocated that the best recruits came from the northern imperial provinces, so this may reflect the barbarization of the Roman military. However Vegetius did aim to renew the ancient values and system that made the Roman legions great. So whose skeletons was your figure of 5'4" based on? One thing is for sure, the Roman legionaries developed exceptional, battle-winning powers of endurance through Roman military discipline.

Epi you propose that the separate echelons of the so-called Camillan and Polybian legions might have been armed differently. I should say in advance that my specialty is Classical martial psychology and moral ideology, so I claim no primary expertise in Roman weaponry and arms. That said, I know no primary literary evidence that supports or refutes your idea. They might have been different. It is certain that the hastati were the young Romans in the blossom of youth, whereas the Principes were men of full maturity and strength. I tend to think of the hastati as psychologically less resolute, with somewhat weaker morale than the principes. Thus I see the hastati in some way as the "lighter" infantry out of the two. In general my sense is that during the mid Republic, when the Romans were wary of war with the other Latin cities who fought exactly the same as the Romans did, and also often fought the Samnites who fielded high quality infantry armies, the Romans sought to conquer through endurance by fighting in successive waves of all age groups, and the principes in this system represented the core strength of the Roman army, seasoned by greater mental maturity and still yet in their physical prime. So if one group used heavier shields and arms, I would lean towards the principes being the more heavily armed and the hastati using the lighter shields.

When one discusses Roman legionaries I think it is good if one has read a fair amount of the primary source material on their military drill and endurance. Marius' mules were famous for carrying great loads without complaining. A Roman legion could dismantle a fort, march 10-20 miles, then dig a ditch and pile up a mound and palisade and lay out and establish a new fort in one day, all the while being prepared for battle. Caesar's legions built a bridge over the Rhine, then burned it behind them, only to build another bridge to recross back west when they left Germania. Caesar's legions likewise built siegeworks of such magnitude, piling mounds and constructing siege shelters so rapidly that one of the Belgae factions surrendered when they saw the speed of the siegeworks, avowing that the gods were on the side of the Romans to enable them to do works of such magnitude. Again Caesars siegeworks at Alesia, and the circumvallation and contravallation race between the Caesarians and Pompeians at Dyrrhacchium all demonstrate the tireless quality of well drilled Roman legionaries. In the histories there are many more examples, the drills of Scipio Aemilianus in Africa and Spain against the Numantians come to mind.

I think a pertinent question is, is it possible for a man to sustain a 20-22 pound weight with one hand for consecutive hours. I think it is for a man of exceptional endurance and forearm strength. Myself I work in the carpentry business and the heavier worm drive saws that are common in the western US weigh around 14 or 15 lbs. East coast carpenters commonly complain of their weight and won't use them. But experienced framers who use them every day swear by them, and they can carry them continuously like an extension of their arm, to the point that one might even forget that one is carrying it. Stronger framers can straight arm them out in front of themselves or at an angle above their head. And those are just framers. They are not training for life and death conflict. I think with sufficient drill and cultural pressure men could have been mass drilled into a physical state where they could hang a scutum from their left hand for hours, occasionally raising them to deflect a powerstrike like the celtic overhand. Afterall, when the bolder men in the front ranks of the enemy are worn out through repeated strikes, unsteady nerves and the press of shields, a Roman front liner only needed to kill a certain number before the more cowardly enemies would start to lose morale and waver.

Would a legionary find reason to rest the shield on the ground sometimes in combat? It seems reasonable to me. I could imagine them resting them on the ground and maybe bracing them with their foot or knee during a press of shields. But when the javelins were flying the Romans raised their shields to ward them off. And the gladius thrust to the enemies' vitals was sometimes performed under a raised shield. Also remember shield bashing, the Romans bashed their opponents, even knocking them down. Titus Manlius Torquatus is remembered as shield bashing a Gallic champion off his feet during a famous dual that took place c. 350 BCE. That took a lot of strength and it was obviously not performed with a grounded shield.

I like your concept of grounded shields and it may well have some basis in fact but I think you are underestimating the strength and endurance of the Roman soldier. The Romans were very clear in their history, they conquered the world with superior manhood, so IMO average concepts of human endurance do not count for much when evaluating the physical conditioning of well drilled Roman soldiers when on campaign.

[gamerdude873]

I just want remind everyone that romans probably realized the weaknesses of such a large shield, namely the slowness of raising it for protection against over hand strokes. They trained their soldiers with DOUBLE WEIGHT swords AND SHIELDS, probably to account for the shields lack of mobility in combat, efectively allowing the soldier to wield the shield that much easier. I would agree that soldiers would rest the shield on the ground in combat, but given their training, they were definately not restricted to it. If they were, they would be as inflexible as a phalanx, which nearly EVERYONE agrees that legionnares were NOT. Legionnares were probably capable of fortress style combat, but so is a phalanx. What i think really set the Romani apart was that they could easily set up an impregnible defense, then turn on a dime and start moving around and maneuvering again. Their mobile, yet solid style allowed them to defeat phalanxes and even looser barbarian styles.

According to what I've been reading here, The soldier had either the option to manuever, or to stand his ground. His shield would be a bonus either way: it wasn't so big that it couldn't be moved, and he had been trained and exercised enough to do so with greater ease, but it was so big that it was difficult to bypass. If he moved, it would be like a fortress that suddenly sprouted legs. essentially, it's heavy calvary on foot, if you get my meaning. They aren't pinned into an inflexible formation, but their shields offer most or all the benefits of it. In spite of the a looser formation commanders would not have to worry too much about their individual soldiers being isolated and mutilated by infiltration into the ranks because the shield perfrormed so well.

In fact, I would go so far as to propose that the shield allowed rank infiltration to occur with far less damage to the front ranks than with other combat styles. If a phalanx was infiltrated, it was living on borrowed time.

In a charge, the objective is usually to knock the front ranks down or backwards. In a loose order formation with the scutum, (don't forget this shield was really heavy!) if the soldier rested it on the ground, and crouched down behind it, his center of gravity would be lowered, and the shield would be able to protect the soldier given its wieght and keep him on his feet. The body position probably angled the face of the shield slightly upward, thus helping to deflect the force, in addition to the shields curved surface. I can't be certain, but given the formation and if the shields were used this way, men, not just weapons, would be sliding off and bouncing off and tripping because of these shields in a charge onto the ground, given the usual space between each soldier. In other words, it was probably like trying to run into a smooth, slippery, rock solid boulder. Ouch!

Also, in a loose formation there are gaps in the front line. Unlike in a shield wall, which is a giant, continuous target, the individual soldiers would be much more difficult to hit (Smaller targets), and some enemies would either have to stop charging, or carry on through the holes in the front rank to the next row of soldiers to find a target that wasn't already swarmed by friendlies (don't want to get your head cut off by your own men!). The scutum would allow the legionnare to, at least for some amount of time, be able to fend off multiple foes, thus forcing due to lack of operable space on the enemy side, the enemies behind the ones he was facing to either sit around and throw rocks at each other, or try to get around him into roman ranks. Any enemies who tried to get around him into the back ranks would be undoubtedly killed by the second rank. I recall somewhere that the Romans placed their best soldiers in the front ranks. These men would be able to do just that, or they would be in the rear!

As for offense or charges on the romans part, i cant really add anything new. Only that the flexible style of "loose coherence" allowed them to outmanuever the inflexible formations while remaining solid and orderly enough to penetrate even more lax formations at bay.

Mind you, this is just speculation, I have no credits or resources, just my head and analysis of what's here. Sorry if i repeated someone else, and i haven't read absolutely everything, cause you guys have been writing a lot! Just my own little two cents and thoughts is all I wanted to add.

(GD873 Takes cover behind scutum as historians and people with actual evidence come to tear his ideas apart)

[Lanceari]

... When you cite a height of 5 foot 4 inches, I wonder what the author's basis was. I could counter cite Vegetius who enumerated the list of traits belonging to the ideal soldier, among them was that he be tall and long fingered. He also advocated that the best recruits came from the northern imperial provinces, so this may reflect the barbarization of the Roman military. However Vegetius did aim to renew the ancient values and system that made the Roman legions great. So whose skeletons was your figure of 5'4" based on? One thing is for sure, the Roman legionaries developed exceptional, battle-winning powers of endurance through Roman military discipline.

I appreciate you press us to check on our sources. I mentioned earlier, i cited from page 8, Cesar's Legion: The epic saga of Julius Cesar's elite 10th legion and the armies of Rome, by Stephen Dando-Collins. Dando-Collins main source seems to be Cesar's Memoirs. He cites them all the time, and in Appendix G of his book he explains that for this particular section of the book he relied heavily on Cesar's Memoirs. He does cite plenty other sources, and I cannot be absolutely sure where he got the exact number from. However, it does seem to be a well researched book, and I have no sources contradicting this number.

Your correctly state that, during Vegetius time, soldiers from the "northern imperial provinces" were much taller. However, during most of the period covered in EB, and particularly during the Polybian Era, these provinces were not under Roman Control.

We know shields changed from the Polybian to the Imperial Era. There are archeological findings of Camillian/Polybian Era Shield and an Imperial Era Shield. The earlier shield was oval and longer. The later shield from 2d century B.C. was shorter and square. Vegetius is describing an Army that had already made a transition from the old oval/longer shield to the newer square/shorter shield. Not only they had a different shield, but they also had a different sword. By 4th century B.C. the Roman Army had dropped the gladius and adopted a longer sword.

I am the first to grant we have limited data to work on. But what this limited data seems to tell us is the following: During the polybian and early marian times we had very short men wearing very long oval shields and very short swords. Six hundred year later, when Vegetius writes, we have bigger men from the northern imperial provinces using a shorter square shield and a longer sword. But these instances are 600 years apart.

Unfortunately, popular media always presents roman soldiers wearing the imperial shield. This is not historically accurate. To make maters worse, the shield commonly presented in the movies, is not even an accurate representation of the imperial shield. There is one imperial shield recovered by archeologists and dating back to 2nd century BC. This shield is longer, narrower and more curved than the shields commonly popularized by the media. See pictures here:

Imperial Shield
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_shield.html

And, for a picture of a replica of the Polybian Shield
http://www.swan.ac.uk/grst/student%20papers/Roman%20Rep%20shield.htm

...I found some excerpts describing actual man to man combat. They are by no means a manual in shield techniques, but they give us a better sense of how these men fought. I will copy them in my next post.

[Lanceari]

This is a quote from pages 125-126 of Caesar's 10th Legion, by Stephen Dando-Collins. It describes the 10th and 1st legion hacking at each other during the Civil War. The 10th is fighting for Caesar, the 1st is fighting for Pompey. The 10th recently charged against the 1st. The 1st held the initial charge. Lines are drawn, and... this is the scene the author describes:

"Now, standing toe to toe with their adversaries, Caesar's men tried to hack a way through the shield line. On Caesar's right wing, Centurion Crastinus, repulsed in his initial charge, was moving form cohort to cohort as his men tried to break through the immovable 1st Legion Line, urging on his legionaries at the top of his voice above the din of battle. Crastinus threw himself at the shield line, aiming to show his men how to reach over the top of an enemy shield and strike at the face of the soldier on the other side with the point of the sword. As he did, he felt a blow to the side of the head. He never saw it coming. The strength suddenly drained from his legs. He sagged to his knees. His head was spinning. Dazed, he continued to call out to his men to spur them on.

"As he spoke, a legionary of the 1st Legion directly opposite him in the shield line moved his shield six inches to the left, opening a small gap. In a flash he had shoved his sword through the gap with a powerful forward thrust that entered the yelling Gaius Crastinus's open mouth. According to Plutarch, the tip of the blade emerged from the back of Crastinus's neck. The soldier of the 1st withdrew his bloodied sword, and swiftly resealed the gap in the shield line. His action had lasted just seconds..."

First, note Caesar's men are trying to hack a way through the "shield line" formed by the 1st. This gives the impression ranks are close enough to draw a shield line. The 1st Legion line is described as "immovable".

But, most important, notice the attack technique. They don't slam the shields against each other trying to push the opponent's shields off to the side and aim at their belly. Instead, they attack overhead, aiming at the face. This is completely different from our common imagination.

Note Crastinus is hit twice, first to the side of his head. He is stunned by the first blow, but the mortal blow is the second blow. The mortal blow enters through his mouth and exits through his neck. Both attacks are aimed at Crastinus's head. Both are overhead strikes.

The details surrounding this second blow are telling. The author tells the attacking soldier moves his shield 6 inches to the side to open a small gap in the shield wall. This tells us the 1st legion had formed a solid shield of walls. Shields were next to each other with no gaps, thus, the soldier had to move the his own shield off the side to open a small gap in his own shield wall through which he could attack. Furthermore, the author tells us the soldier immediately re sealed the shield wall as he withdrew his sword.

Furthermore, we are told were extremely fast. The first blow, we are told it had been so fast no Crastinus's never saw it coming. The second blow we are told was swift and powerful, the whole thing taking only seconds. Clearly, these men were were master's of this technique and executed it with extreme dexterity and speed. They most have practiced it many times before. This is not the picture of men improvising a new technique on the spot.

The techniques described in this excerpt are in keeping with the style of combat we proposed in our prior excerpts. We don't see a football match where soldiers are tackling each other with their shields and trying to force an opening to strike the opponents gut. Instead, they barricade behind a portable shield wall, and strike overhand aiming at the neck and face of their opponents.

Bear with me just one more short excerpt. Here, Caesar's men are fighting the German. It was a bloody encounter and the author describes the wounds: "Some wrenched shields out of the hands of their owners. Others reached over the top of the shields and stabbed the points of their swords into German faces." Page 23 of Caesar's 10th Legion, by Stephen Dando-Collins.

Again, we here no mention of attacks to the underbelly, again, swords are stabbed at the face, presumably in an overhand fashion.

These two battles are over 10 years apart from each other. In both instances we see overhand strikes which are most consistent with the style of combat we are proposing. Furthermore, the quote describing the encounter between the 1st and 10th legion clearly speaks of a continuous shield wall that is resealed after each attack.

In my previous entries I mentioned the ergonomics of the shield. I realize I did not explain my point. The ergonomics of the shield tells us a lot about the manner it was wielded. I am not very good at drawing... I have to find a way to illustrate my point... I will work on this.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, you're very convinced of your point and quite inflexible in your belief. I dont' share your vision and nothing in your citations indicate any static position except in some sort of formed defense. This is in contrast to actual fighting as being static when the fighting begin is a rather bad, bad position because it negates your ability to respond to situations at hand. Even riot police do not hold such a stance after they engage.

[gamerdude873]

I think Epi is right in saying that the overhand was probably more effective and probably way more common. Think about it. The head is very vulnerable: look what happened to Crastrinus after he got conked on the nogin, while a blow to an armored torso probably does not necessarily guarentee any sort of damage. It could just bounce off, Assuming that he is wearing armor of course, and a shield is almost always going to be guarding the torso. A man needs to be able to see though, so at least a small margin of his unprotected face will almost always be exposed.

On the other hand, I think ASM has a good point about static formations... they're too easily exploited at the sides, and they don't open up new ends to break things loose. What happens is just an endless grinding battle, like a phalanx v. phalanx.
Looking at your excerpt, I can see two things:


The 10th is fighting for Caesar, the 1st is fighting for Pompey. The 10th recently charged against the 1st. The 1st held the initial charge.

Meaning that they first tried to ram down the door. However, that clearly didn't work. So they tried a new idea:


Lines are drawn, and... this is the scene the author describes:

"Now, standing toe to toe with their adversaries, Caesar's men tried to hack a way through the shield line. On Caesar's right wing, Centurion Crastinus, repulsed in his initial charge

Now they are in a block, trying to eat the enemy in small bites rather than in one big swallow. I think this says that they were more than physically capable of performing either tactic. Same goes for resting the shield on the ground to make an immovable rock of a defense (physical Pushing, as I understand, had a large role in ancient battles, and something braced or dragging against the ground is hard to move, last I checked) and crouching behind it, or raising it up to and moving it about quickly to rape the *&^% out of that centurion over there.

With the sword, if the opponent is unarmored and/or unshielded, it would make some sense to target the torso (...bigger target...) or if he is armored, one of the most commonly unarmored places is the face, since it's difficult to protect without sacrificing hearing, breating and vision. I personally would attack any unarmored locale i could see, and since the soldiers mentioned here are well geared, I can see why it would be easier to knock their heads about than to try to stab through a coat of mail behind a shield.

It's a long and round about way of saying it, but the roman's probably figured that if they attacked or fought only in one particular manner, someone would figure out a neat trick to screw them over. By maintaining the ability to do quite a number of things at the drop of a hat or to turn on a dime, they could keep their foes guessing, and they'd know what to do when they came across this particular type of enemy, or that type of armor, or what to look for in exploiting it.

Knowledgeably and Tactical Flexibility anyone?

[Geticus]

Epi I respect your zeal for your viewpoint, yet I think you are relying excessively on secondary sources. Please refer to Caesar or Plutarch or Appian preferentially over Stephen Dando Collins. If you have not read primary sources and do not presently have strong Latin translation skills, I advise you to be cautious when advancing a very particular viewpoint on the basis of what you consider good tactical sense, since other men have tactical sense as well and may see other ways, and again if you have not underwent Roman military discipline yourself and call scuta heavy and consider them unweildy I think that may just reflect that you yourself are weaker and have less endurance than the average ancient Roman legionaire, who carried large loads, full panoply, yoke, stakes and rations marching all day every day and fighting battles periodically. Think about it.

There are so many examples that come to mind to counter your basic assertions. One thing I can tell you is that you will almost never get the gist of the Latin when it is filtered through the mind of a modern era historian, including this romantic Stephen Dando Collins. Whose style, incidentally, I might like, but I can still recognize his romanticizing streak.

Examples. Dando Collins says that Crastinus' tries to "hack a way" through the shield line.

Roman soldiers, generally speaking, do not "hack". They "thrust". They "pierce". I have read all Caesar and words such as "hack/slash/chop" scarcely arise in Caesarian Latin. Dando-Collins is turning classical history into neo-Celtic arthurian romance. Read Vegetius. In an era of increasing barbarization and Germanization of the Roman imperial military Vegetius admonished his contemporaries to look back to republican Roman military standards and drill, and one such point that he emphasized was that Romans fight with the point, and not the edge of the sword; they thrust, rather than hack, and Vegetius even went so far as to say that men who used their weapons to chop used to be laughed at.

You relate that Crastinus went from cohort to cohort trying to break through the immovable first legion line. This again smacks of celticizing romance. There are ten cohorts in a late republican legion, and typically four cohorts in a front line. Caesar BC.3.91 says that Crastinus led about 120 evocati against the Pompeians. Against a front line of 4 cohorts equaling approximately 2000 men. Now I know they were evocati led by a decuman primus pilus but what real evidence do you have that Crastinus ranged with 120 along a line of 2000 men all with leveled pila?? Please cite your PRIMARY sources and preferably not Lucan for that matter. Do you see how fictive this sounds? Do you really think Crastinus' evocati so totally outcharged the rest of Caesar's legions that they could range back and forth along the line of Pompey's first? And does that idea even make sense-- Roman evocati led by the primipilus of the X legion running back and forth along the front of an entire legion like Celtic heroes? Your primary sources please?

Also while the Pompeians held their ground and kept their positions strictly at Pharsalos, Caesar's more experienced legions did not, they rather charged and fought with greater alacrity spreading their formation out a bit. And they won with crushing superiority. So which side better represents Roman warfare? Caesar is clear at BC.3.92 describing the Pompeian strategy to not leave their position and fight a total static defensive battle:

Quod nobis quidem nulla ratione factum a Pompeio videretur, propterea quod est quaedam animi incitatio atque alacritas naturaliter innata omnibus, quae studio pugnae incenditur; hanc non reprimere, sed augere imperatores debent...

So the Pompeian strategy is seen as holding "nulla ratio" according to Caesar's men, this from Caesar himself. So how much validity is there in citing as exemplary a Pompeian strategy that failed, and which was interpreted as performed "nulla ratione", and moreover was attributed to one C. Triarius and not even to Pompeius (B.C. 3.92)?

And I can cite counterpoint to other points you make. You refer to the time that Caesar's men started jumping over the German's shields and downstriking during the campaign against Ariovistus. You fail to relate that Caesar noted this as an exceptional instance-- without pulling out the text I know very well that it basically says something like ... "some of our men were found to be bold enough to jump over their shields and strike down at their faces..." And this only after the Germans were exhausted and formed a tight shieldwall to hold off the Caesarians, so jumping shields was an exceptional tactic and not the norm.

What about the battle against the Nervii when Caesar's legions got so close together under the pressure of the Belgae that they could no longer use their weapons properly and Caesar had to enter the cohorts and admonish them to spread back out? How tight is too tight??

In short, I respect your interest and you bring up some intriguing archaeological evidence, but the primary literary sources are lacking. Rather leave Dando-Collins' excessively fictive romance a distant second where he belongs. Oh, and I am not sure where Collins' content all came from, but it is certainly not Caesar's Bellum Civile, because I have it in front of me and it says nothing of Crastinus' death, and definitely nothing of him trying to "hack a way" through the Pompeian line.

[Lanceari]

I included the entire two paragraphs section from Dando Collins because I felt it was most appropriate to include the whole citation. I fully understand Romans did not "hack". I also understand they charged at the opponent. I further understand it would have been impossible for a Primus Pilus to walk through the entire legion, and I am aware Crastinus was not the Primus Pilus at the time of this battle. I take no issue with any of these points raised above.

I wish I knew latin. I admit I am limited by my lack of knowledge here.

I am trying to reach an understanding on how the Romans used the scutum AFTER the initial charge was over. The cite from Dando Collins, romantic as it may be, provides us some facts. It is a fact that the 1st legion made a tight shield wall during this encounter. The record also shows the overhead strike was used very often.

For a future post, I am preparing a discussion of the ergonomics of the scutum, with illustrations. I hope, after you see that post, you will better understand the point I am trying to make. Once you read this, you will see a lot of my thoughts are consistent with what gamerdude873 pointed above.

Perhaps, the following lines will give a better idea of the point I am trying to make:

(1) I do not propose that the roman legions were static at an operational or even tactical level. I do propose they formed very tight shield walls.

(2) I propose the top of the shield was anchored at the shoulders, and the bottom of the shield was anchored either on the ground or on the left knee. This anchoring of the shield reduced the mobility of the front row of each maniple, but it allowed a fraction of the maniple or cohort to hold the line while the rear ranks were free to outflank the opponent. This is consistent with the account of how the 10th legion overpowered the 1st legion. It is also most consistent with Cesar's admonishement to his men to spread out, both in Begium (cited above), and in England (not cited) when the 7th was attacked by surprise and failed to spread out.

(3) Based on the ergonomics of the shield, I will make the argument that Roman soldiers standed completely sideways to the enemy, not just half off-side like spearmen did. Only by standing fully sideways, they could take full advantage of their shield. I further propose that the particular fighting stand had certain implications regarding the sword techniques used, and the formations adopted.

(4) I propose the scutum offered greater protection than the suggested EB shield rating of 4.

(5) Finally, I would like to see how EB could represent certain elements of the Roman fighting style that are currently not reflected.

Some of you have suggested I don't properly account for the endurance of Roman soldiers. Others sugested I should not limit myself to one historical source. I wish to respond to these remarks:

I am not a kid anymore, and I certainly don't have the endurance I used to have a few years ago. However I have many long years of martial arts practice and teaching. I am drawing from this experience as I review books I had previously read in order to figure out the body movements and techniques roman soldiers could have used most effectively.

My experience tells me that, given the equipment the roman soldiers used, the common image on how they fought is probably wrong. For example, a shield with a vertical handle is wielded in a different way than a shield with a horizontal handle. Why did the Scutum have a horizontal handle, while the Hoplon had a vertical handle? Why did the Romans opted for a horizontal handle? Some Roman flat shields had vertical handles, but all semi cylindrical scutums, as far as we know, had horizontal handles? Why? If they wanted to parry with their shields using techniques better executed with a vertical handle, wouldn't they change the handle?

As for my sources... I have read many books and papers on roman history. I read them in the languages I know. I am aware translations are not always perfect.

Because my interest here is to figure out how the Roman's used their shield, I limit my self to quotes that illustrate their fighting stand, their combat moves, their body movements... These are the excerpts that will help me figure out how they stood, how they held their shield, blocked the opponent's blows and attacked the enemy. I am open to any evidence or insights on how they used their shield or sword.

I try not to get sidetracked into discussions about whether they trained with weights, or whether Crastinus was the Primus Pilus of the 10th Legion. These are valuable and interesting facts, but they do not shed light on the question I am trying to answer. I am sorry if some of you misunderstand my intent focus as a failure to see someone else's point of view. I would be most interested in your research on the Roman chain of command and what a Centurion did or did not do during the actual battle. Perhaps we could have a thread for that. Likewise we could have a thread on the weight soldier's carried, etc. I would gladly participate in any such threads. And, most likely, I will agree with everything you say on those threads.

Finally, I never said the Romans jumped over the Germans. I only said they used the overhead strike. You need not jump to execute an overhead strike. In fact, you probably won't if you are wearing heavy armor and a big heavy shield that is not strapped to your arm. An overhead strike is executed by simply swinging your arm over, and then downward, as described in the blows that killed Crastinus.

[Geticus]

Well I am interested in your concepts though I think point three is overly radical in that Republican legionaries wore a greave on the left leg and the greave defends the front, not the side, so why invest all that money in greaves if you fight facing right? Since shield bashes were used and since Romans sometimes countered a overhand slash by raising the shield to block and thrusting beneath it to the vitals, I think your thesis would have to account for those motions, i.e. you run the risk of overgeneralizing if you state that shields were as a rule grounded.

As far as how tight the sheild walls were, I lack primary source material on it at hand. I think Vegetius is one place to look since he spoke about the "murata ferrea" or iron wall formed by the legions. I read it long ago so I don't recall any precise points but it is a very key source for this kind of thing.

I strongly agree with your point #4.

I recommend Caesar's Bellum Gallicum, Bellum Civile, and pseudo-caesar's Bellum Africanum which has very good descriptions of Caesar's army doing a long defensive retreating march while surrounded by Numidian skirmisher cavalry and pelted on all sides by javelins, Roman shields had everything to do with their survival during that march.

Vegetius and Velleius Paterculus as well as Sallust on the Jugurthine war and of course Livy are all very relevant to Republican era warfare.

[Vasiliyi]

Just read this entire thread, and Im impressed with its depth. Excellent work to those who qouted and sited their sources. Hope theres more.

[Lanceari]

Well I am interested in your concepts though I think point three is overly radical in that Republican legionaries wore a greave on the left leg and the greave defends the front, not the side, so why invest all that money in greaves if you fight facing right? Since shield bashes were used and since Romans sometimes countered a overhand slash by raising the shield to block and thrusting beneath it to the vitals, I think your thesis would have to account for those motions, i.e. you run the risk of overgeneralizing if you state that shields were as a rule grounded.

As far as how tight the sheild walls were, I lack primary source material on it at hand. I think Vegetius is one place to look since he spoke about the "murata ferrea" or iron wall formed by the legions. I read it long ago so I don't recall any precise points but it is a very key source for this kind of thing.

I strongly agree with your point #4.

I recommend Caesar's Bellum Gallicum, Bellum Civile, and pseudo-caesar's Bellum Africanum which has very good descriptions of Caesar's army doing a long defensive retreating march while surrounded by Numidian skirmisher cavalry and pelted on all sides by javelins, Roman shields had everything to do with their survival during that march.

Vegetius and Velleius Paterculus as well as Sallust on the Jugurthine war and of course Livy are all very relevant to Republican era warfare.

Your point about the greaves is quite important, and well taken.

In Karate we have two important side fighting stands. One of the them is called Kiba Dachi, in which your feet are sideways, as suggested in your comment above. But there is another side stand called Kokutsu Dachi. (Dachi = Stand). In the Kokutsu stand, your front foot is facing your opponent, while your hips, shoulder and rear foot are sideways. Furthermore, in the Kokutsu stand, you hold your head and chest a bit back, so three quarters of your weight fall on your rear foot. This Kokutsu stand is similar to the fencing position, except for the fact that you hold your head and shoulders a bit further back.

Most grown ups feel uncomfortable when they first learn the Kokutsu position. But, after a while you start feeling comfortable with it.

I believe Roman Soldiers adopted a position similar to the Kokutsu stand when making their shield walls. The Kokutusu position would allow the soldier to anchor the shield on his left shoulder and left knee or floor. I will develop this further on an entry I am already preparing...

The Kokutsu stand is also a great position from which to launch an overhead strike. In fact, there is a particular variation of the Kokutsu stand called Okinawan Kokutsu in which your right hand is up, as if ready to execute an overhead strike with a gladius. If you have a whole troop of men standing in Kokutsu, statistically speaking, you will find many overhead strikes. This of course is consistent with the anecdotal evidence cited above. Again, more on this later...

Geticus comments also helped me realize something I had been trying to figure out for a while. Geticus points out Legionaries used greaves on their left foot. The odd and interesting thing about this fact is that they only used greaves on their left foot, but not on their right foot. Other soldiers in ancient time wore greaves on both feet. Romans did not. Why? But, of course! If the rear foot was held sideways (as described for the Kokutsu), the greave for the right foot would be useless, as noted by Geticus! Furthermore, in the Kokutsu stand, your right foot is so far back it would be quite safe form being hit. So the Kokutsu stand explains both the fact that they wore greaves on the left foot, and the fact they did not wear greaves on the right foot.

I will try to get the book suggested above, Bellum Gallicum.

As far as the attacks on the genitals... I would like to find accounts of battles where these attacks were executed, hoping I may notice something that explains how they were holding and pushing their shileds. The Scutum is very long; which means leverage can build up from one extreme to the other. Used properly, you can use that leverage very effectively against your opponent. Lose control, and your opponent will use your shield against you. Tackling with a shield four feet long must have been an art; brute force alone would not suffice.

I was saving this for my post on the ergonomics of the shield, but, at the risk of getting ahead of myself, consider the following: Lets say a soldier adopts a Kokutsu stand, and braces his shield with his left shoulder and left knee (or ground), pulling through the center handle towards him to lock the shield. As the roman soldier adopts this position, his shield will lean back towards him it at an angle of as little as 15 degrees or as much as 45 degrees (depending on how much the soldier bends his rear/right knee). If an opponent is foolish enough to bash his shield against a roman scutum held in this manner, two things will happen: First, the opponent's shield will flatten against the shield of the roman soldier, angling away from the opponent's head and exposing his face and neck. Second, the opponent himself will be off balance, as his feet cannot advance as far forward as his center of gravity. This brakes the strength of his tackle, and, furthermore, makes it more difficult for him to parry an overhead strike. An opponent bashing his shield against a roman scutum held this way will quickly find a gladius in his face or neck. If I am correct, a scutum wielded in this manner would turn against the opponent his own attempt to tackle you (think of judo or aikido).

[antisocialmunky]

Yes this much is true, they used it in a bracing position like that with the shield raised from the ground. That way, the shield transfers the impact to the arm, upper body, and then the legs into the ground. If you rest your shield on the ground, then you risk that the shield falls into you because it gets caught on the ground and then you domino into the guys behind you

You can also maneuver your sword more effectively.

[Lanceari]

Yes this much is true, they used it in a bracing position like that with the shield raised from the ground. That way, the shield transfers the impact to the arm, upper body, and then the legs into the ground. If you rest your shield on the ground, then you risk that the shield falls into you because it gets caught on the ground and then you domino into the guys behind you

You can also maneuver your sword more effectively.

If a soldier rested the shield on the ground, he would have to brace the top of the shield with his shoulder to avoid the problem Antisocialmunky describes.

The scutum was very long. The handle was in the middle and horizontal. Therefore, it had to be braced on the top and bottom at all times. If the user does not brace it properly, the leverage of the shield will turn against him.

Some prior post here proposed comparing the scutum to the riot police shield.

You can find a picture of a riot police shield, with handle, here:

http://www.armynavyshop.com/prods/rc1992.html

The handle is the determining factor here. The riot police shield is held like a hoplon. You slip your arm through a strap and grab the vertical handle on the other side. You keep your left elbow bent at 90 degrees, your arm in a horizontal position in front of you. The riot police shield is held like a hoplon and it is wielded like a hoplon. The riot police shield is in fact a rectangular hoplon.

You can see the handle of a scutum recovered from an archeological dig here:

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_shield.html

The handle is horizontal. Furthermore, the handle is in the middle of the shield, unlike the handle for a riot police shield. The scutum could not be wielded like a riot police shield, because the handle forced you to grab the shield in a different way.

[antisocialmunky]

That is nothing unique, tall vertical shields tended to have a single grip. Thureos had horizontal grips as well. They are designed that way because you're fighting sideways to a certain extend and can brace the shield using your shoulder and the opposite leg.

As far as I know, the celts and later hellens weren't prone to do the fortress defense or adapt their equipment in that way.

The aspis and riot shields have the argive grip because hoplites and riot police stand shoulder to shoulder in formation and need the shield infront of them as opposed to the side. Seldom do mobs actually charge into the riot police so they don't have to brace. Hoplites didn't brace, the formation was extremely dense and pushy so they didn't need to sideways brace. So I will withdraw my claim about riot police = legionaires. It jsut looks alot like it since use similar formations.

Would be nice if the Rome member of EB could chime in.

[Ludens]

Geticus comments also helped me realize something I had been trying to figure out for a while. Geticus points out Legionaries used greaves on their left foot. The odd and interesting thing about this fact is that they only used greaves on their left foot, but not on their right foot. Other soldiers in ancient time wore greaves on both feet.

I doubt we have enough evidence to state this categorically, but I'd be to interested to see your source. EB gave most heavy Hellenistic units double greaves, but for example the Pezhetairoi make due with a single. This also makes perfect sense from their combat stance (which is similar to that of Greek hoplite figurines): the left leg leads so is in more need of protection.

Incidentally, please use the edit-button rather than double posting.

[Lanceari]

I doubt we have enough evidence to state this categorically, but I'd be to interested to see your source. EB gave most heavy Hellenistic units double greaves, but for example the Pezhetairoi make due with a single. This also makes perfect sense from their combat stance (which is similar to that of Greek hoplite figurines): the left leg leads so is in more need of protection.

Incidentally, please use the edit-button rather than double posting.

I have to check this, but I believe I got this from Adrian Goldworthy's The Complete Roman Army... it has many illustrations and excerpts on roman equipment. But, again, I have to check.

In any event, please note the point I am trying to make is that the scutum had to be braced at the top and bottom. Given the ergonomics of the shield, I then propose that Romans soldiers used a side stand as described above, which in turn has huge implications regarding their fighting style, spacing within a formation, etc.

[antisocialmunky]

Its a fair assessment but you have yet to give much evidence that it was used outside of a defensive bracing formation, not after combat is joined.

[Ibrahim]

a very interesting discussion-makes me realize the bayonet drills of the 18th century are easier to figure out :clown:

but ASM and others raise a point: how do you use the shield offensively?

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

a very interesting discussion-makes me realize the bayonet drills of the 18th century are easier to figure out :clown:

but ASM and others raise a point: how do you use the shield offensively?


The shield becomes an offensive weapon when it is used to strike the enemy.
Not to kill the enemy, but also make him lose his balance, open the guard, do indeed fall to the ground.
Certainly the shield can kill an enemy on the ground launched downward cutting.
In general, heavy shield can unbalance the enemy and being pushed hard against an enemy with significant effects.
The enemy retreats succumbing to the advance of the ranks behind him.
More ... heavy shield increases the total mass of the individual, and more mass means more powerful sword and greater stability.

The offensive drive of shield has always been very neglected in the total war mechanics.:no:

[Ludens]

I have to check this, but I believe I got this from Adrian Goldworthy's The Complete Roman Army... it has many illustrations and excerpts on roman equipment. But, again, I have to check.

I meant your claim that non-Roman soldiers either wore no greaves or greaves on both legs. IIRC there is evidence that Roman legionaries often used a single greave, but we haven't got anywhere near as detailed information on the equipment of other nations.

[Vasiliyi]

The shield becomes an offensive weapon when it is used to strike the enemy.
Not to kill the enemy, but also make him lose his balance, open the guard, do indeed fall to the ground.
Certainly the shield can kill an enemy on the ground launched downward cutting.
In general, heavy shield can unbalance the enemy and being pushed hard against an enemy with significant effects.
The enemy retreats succumbing to the advance of the ranks behind him.
More ... heavy shield increases the total mass of the individual, and more mass means more powerful sword and greater stability.

The offensive drive of shield has always been very neglected in the total war mechanics.:no:

Yah, i saw that in HBO rome and i wasnt sure. Was it really used like that?

[mountaingoat]

lol u mean the gladiator fight scene?

no doubt that shoving the shield into an opponent at the right time will open them up and stun , which gives time to then thrust the blade and return the shield back to starting position.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Yah, i saw that in HBO rome and i wasnt sure. Was it really used like that?


yes because any object thrown from the top down can kill a person falled to the ground.. especially a shield with iron edges which is some kg weighty.
Big shield is more weighty than many other fatal items.:2thumbsup:

In my mind the rtw/m2tw mechanics does not use so well the shield during melee.

[antisocialmunky]

It would certainly make legionaires better. I don't think it counts the shield boss into the attack rating. It would be nice if Watchman chimed in on this. But given that other units also hade shields that could be used as a battering ram to my knowledge have no attack bonus for shield bashing, I don't think it does.

[Lanceari]

I doubt we have enough evidence to state this categorically, but I'd be to interested to see your source. EB gave most heavy Hellenistic units double greaves, but for example the Pezhetairoi make due with a single. This also makes perfect sense from their combat stance (which is similar to that of Greek hoplite figurines): the left leg leads so is in more need of protection.

Incidentally, please use the edit-button rather than double posting.

Adrian Goldworthy explicitly tells us at least some Roman soldiers wore greaves on the left foot only. Page 30 of The Complete Roman Army. There are also pictures of friezes in different pages of the book that seem to support this statement.

[antisocialmunky]

Again... That wasn't the question, he was asking about where your sources where for greave wearing of other soldiers was from so the EB team can examine the source for EBII.

[Lanceari]

Again... That wasn't the question, he was asking about where your sources where for greave wearing of other soldiers was from so the EB team can examine the source for EBII.

I was not the one making reference to non-roman soldiers.

I merely explained Roman soldiers did not need a greave on the right foot. My entire post regarded roman soldiers only. Ludens may be confused because at some point I cited part of antisocialmunky's post.

[Lanceari]

I THE HANDLE

The information available today indicates the Roman Scutum had a horizontal handle. The Greek Hoplon and some Roman flat shields had a vertical handle. The choice of a vertical or horizontal handle gives us important clues about the manner in which the shield was wielded.

A vertical handle allows much greater freedom of movement. Imagine you are holding an umbrella. You can move your hand up or down, left or right with great ease. It is most comfortable to hold the umbrella right in front of you, around the height of your chest or diaphragm.

A best example of a horizontal handle is the handle on a briefcase or suitcase. It is best kept to the side at hip height. But it is very awkward to hold an object around the height of your diaphragm with a horizontal handle because your elbow forces your wrist and hand into a vertical position. Of course you can extend your arm forward, but this is a weak position, which results in poor balance, and very poor leverage.

Here is a link to a picture of a Roman Scutum recovered in an archeological dig:

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_shield.html

The shield is missing the Metal Boss, which is convenient because we can clearly see the handle. It is a horizontal handle.

Friezes from Polybian era, show soldiers holding the Scutum low, with the handle around hip height, and off to the side. This of course would be the proper way to carry a big heavy shield with a horizontal handle.

The horizontal handle made it difficult to raise the shield beyond a certain point. When an attacker executes an overhead strike the attacker extends his arm up above his head and stikes down at a 30 - 45 degree angle depending on how far the attacker extended his arm. Accordingly, an upward block should reach 4 inches over the defender’s head, or 12 inches above the shoulders.

I am attaching a set of diagrams illustrating how a user would raise a Hoplon or a Scutum in order to execute an upward blow. If you study the illustrations I copy below, and try using a mock roman Scutum, you will find it does not lend itself to make an effective upward block.

II THE LENGTH OF THE SHIELD, PROBLEMS WITH CARRYING THE SHIELD IN FRONT OF YOU.

The horizontal handle requires the soldier to keep the shield’s handle around hip height. This is consistent with friezes dating back to Roman era. Furthermore, because the Scutum was so long, carrying it in front of you, at hip level, would block your legs. All illustrations from contemporary art show romans carrying the shield off to the side.

These limitations were true during the march, and they were equally true during actual combat. Our thesis is that Roman soldiers fought fully sideways to the enemy as described in the charts attached.

Modern Boxers keep one foot back from the other. However, we must clarify this is not what we mean by fighting sideways. If we look carefully at a boxer’s stand we will notice his hips are facing forward. If a modern boxer were to grab a Roman Scutum in the manner, the scutum would be on his side and would not protect him from the enemy.

In order to take advantage of a roman Scutum, you have to rotate even further off to the side. The user needs to rotate until his hips are fully sideways to his opponent. Modern fencing and oriental fighting styles incorporate side fighting stances which we believe are similar to those used by Roman soldiers. We believe roman soldiers used fighting stances similar to the stances shown in these pictures:

http://www.uktc-shotokan.org/stance_kokutsu-dachi.gif

http://www.uktc-shotokan.org/block_gedan-barai.gif

The last two charts attached illustrate how a Roman soldier would hold the Scutum while using these stances.



III THE LENGTH OF THE SHIELD, HOW TO STABILIZE THE SHIELD

The length of the shield requires its user to anchor the shield at top and bottom. A four feet long shield can build a lot of leverage. If the user only holds the shield through the middle handle, an attacker pressing the top or bottom edge of the shield will overturn the shield. The user of such a long shield had to anchor the top and bottom of the shield.

We believe Roman soldiers braced the top of the shield with shoulders, and the bottom of the shield with the knee or the floor. We believe Roman soldiers could have braced their shields with shoulder and knee while standing fully sideways to their opponent as shown in the charts attached.



IV THE ATTACK

Roman sword strikes were penetrating stabs, not slashes. The soldier could strike from either the forward or backward stance, depending on the proximity of the opponent.

When executing the attack, the Roman soldier would rotate hips and shoulders, pressing the right hip and shoulder forward, but without moving his feet. This rotation would have a triple effect: First, it displaces the shield to the side making room for the coming strike. Second, it allows the attacker to put the full strength of his rear leg plus the weight of hips and shoulders behind the strike. Third, it moves the right shoulder forward, allowing greater reach. The rotation of hips and shoulders allows simultaneous execution of all these elements (rotating shield, shifting body weight, and increasing striking range). It is a remarkably quick movement that accomplishes all these elements at once. It also allows for a very quick recovery by merely rotating hips and shoulders to their original position.

This hip and shoulder rotation is standard technique for some oriental fighting styles that practice side fighting stances.



V THE CHARGE, RUNNING WITH SHIELD, TACKLE WITH SHIELD

I am now working on the charge. I need to do a bit more research before I am ready to post on this subject.

To figure out how roman soldiers used the shield during the charge, we first have to figure out how romans carried their shield while running. I am looking for contemporary art (friezes, statutes, etc. showing legionaries running) I have found only one. If any of you have any useful source, I would appreciate you share it with me.

After we figure out how Roman soldiers carried their shield while running, then we have to figure out the techniques (shield and body movements) they used to transition from a "run" to a "tackle". Again, I am working on this.

[Ludens]

I was not the one making reference to non-roman soldiers.

I merely explained Roman soldiers did not need a greave on the right foot. My entire post regarded roman soldiers only. Ludens may be confused because at some point I cited part of antisocialmunky's post.

:inquisitive:


Other soldiers in ancient time wore greaves on both feet. Romans did not. Why? But, of course! If the rear foot was held sideways (as described for the Kokutsu), the greave for the right foot would be useless, as noted by Geticus!

If soldiers of other nations also used single greaves, it does not indicate a unique fighting style for the Romans.

But even if they did not, it's probable that they would have used their left (shield-side) leg as leading and the other as trailing: meaning that the right leg was comparatively far away from any enemy weapons. Furthermore, the greave would have made for less bruises when an attacked slammed the shield against the legionaries knee. A single greave makes sense even when not supposing your unique fighting style.

So I am going to join the others in saying that you are getting a bit carried away by your enthusiasm. I've enjoyed reading your arguments, though, and who knows: you may be right. But I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

[DaciaJC]

So I am going to join the others in saying that you are getting a bit carried away by your enthusiasm.

In my humble opinion, Epi's enthusiasm is much more welcome here than, say, this (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=281532) example of rabid passion. I am enjoying reading both sides of the argument.

[Lanceari]

:inquisitive:

So I am going to join the others in saying that you are getting a bit carried away by your enthusiasm. I've enjoyed reading your arguments, though, and who knows: you may be right. But I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

O.K. I got a bit carried away with greaves...

Still, how could a soldier wield a 4 feet long scutum in battle using only a small horizontal handle in the middle? How can this soldier hold it? How would he stop the enemy from pushing the top of the hill and breaking his nose with his own shield?

If I was a Gaul facing a roman soldier, and the roman soldier was holding the scutum in the manner shown in movies and history channel...

Well, I would just kick the top of the shield, and break his nose. However, if you don't feel comfortable with kicks, you could slam your shield against the top of the Roman scutum, and the unbraced scutum would collapse on the bearer's face.

But, why even bother... In the movies and documentaries the scutum is held high and vertical. It offers no protection to the front foot. Hoplites could afford to do that because they had a long spear to keep the opponent at a distance. But the gladius was too short for that. If Romans held the scutum the way currently shown in movies and documentaries, a Gaul holding a spear, would simply stab the Roman's front/left foot. (Notice the stances I propose offer a way to block such downward strike).

At least, I hope you will grant me Romans did not want the enemy to break their noses or stab their feet... if you don't mind getting carried away with me just a little a bit. :wink2:

Don't get me wrong, I find your skepticism helps me work harder at my point. I just wish you all would be equally skeptic about the standard image so often presented of how roman's fought. I agree my theory is short of supporting data, but the standard image has even less going for it. In fact, it has so many holes in it, a full pack of whales would have no problem getting through.

[antisocialmunky]

You use your left shoulder and your left leg to brace it while holding it with an overhand grip. You should talk to some reenactors.

[Geticus]

I think the reality might have been variable, with extreme defensive/othismos push of shields tactics entailing something like what Epi proposes, a defensive stance within a pretty tight formation, with the right foot held back and turned 70 or so degrees away from the direction of the left, shoulders and/or knees as well as left forearm bracing the scutum. But one must also leave room for aggression, Roman soldiers campaigned under severe discipline and they were oathbound to obey the imperial commanders under power of life and death. So one year you campaign under say Fabius Maximus Cunctator who was famous for defensive caution, years later others campaign under Scipio Africanus who was capable of Caesar-like blitzes. Soldiers take after their commanders. Pompeius' legionaries fought defensive in tight ranks, Caesar who was famed for his celerity spread out and charged, and Marius' legionaries used the shieldboss as a blunt weapon. Also Romans were capable of well protected defensive retreats like the Caesarians in Africa vs. the Numidian light cavalry horde, so in that case they marched and at the same time faced their shields against the enemy on all sides, levelling pila against them whenever they came to close, all the while marching. But in general when a Roman charged they charged forwards, not facing away from or perpendicular to their opponent. So a variable stance seems credible to me, depending on the fluctuation between defensive and aggressive fighting, the morale, lethality, defensive ability, and endurance of their opponents, as well as any needs for marching and movement. Opponents who were pilum fodder were often charged and mowed down in droves like the Tencteri and Usipetes during Caesar's Gallic campaign, there was little need for an extreme defensive stance when the opponent routed so easily, but firmer opponents like Hannibal's men were probably opposed with much more cautious and guarded impetus.

[Lanceari]

I agree with antisocialmunky Roman soldiers must have braced top and bottom. I am proposing techniques to do this. I also think these techniques have some implications for EB. First, a side fighting stance calls for a tighter formation. Second, if the shield is wielded as suggested in my chart, the shield protects the entire body from a front attack, which in turn calls for a higher shield rating (higher than the Hoplon). Third, maybe we should reduce the attack strength...

I agree with Geticus the techniques I have described only show how Roman soldiers would stand while "holding the line". In particular, I agree with with Geticus the stances and techniques I described do not allow for the charge. In Monday's post I included a note explaining I am still working on the charge. I said back then:


V THE CHARGE, RUNNING WITH SHIELD, TACKLE WITH SHIELD

I am now working on the charge. I need to do a bit more research before I am ready to post on this subject.

To figure out how roman soldiers used the shield during the charge, we first have to figure out how romans carried their shield while running. I am looking for contemporary art (friezes, statutes, etc. showing legionaries running) I have found only one. If any of you have any useful source, I would appreciate you share it with me.

After we figure out how Roman soldiers carried their shield while running, then we have to figure out the techniques (shield and body movements) they used to transition from a "run" to a "tackle". Again, I am working on this.

[Ludens]

In my humble opinion, Epi's enthusiasm is much more welcome here than, say, this (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=281532) example of rabid passion. I am enjoying reading both sides of the argument.

No argument here. I just want to point out you should be careful with such speculation. It's easy to get carried away by new ideas, even (or especially) when there is not that much information available.


Don't get me wrong, I find your skepticism helps me work harder at my point. I just wish you all would be equally skeptic about the standard image so often presented of how roman's fought. I agree my theory is short of supporting data, but the standard image has even less going for it. In fact, it has so many holes in it, a full pack of whales would have no problem getting through.

Scepticism is good. But I am still not convinced that the traditional representation of the legionaries fighting stance is an impractical as you think. I shall have to leave the discussion to more knowledgeable members, though.

[Lanceari]

The Argive Grip is the best grip if you intend to use the Scutum as suggested by the traditional representation. That's why modern riot police shields use the Argive grip. That is also why hoplons used the Argive grip.

The Roman's were familiar with the Argive grip. Triarii shields used the Argive grip. Still, Romans chose not to use the Argive grip in their scutums.

This begs the question: if the Argive grip was the best suited for the traditional representation, and, if the Romans were familiar with the Argive grip, why would they drop the Argive grip in favor of the horizontal handle?

Their choice of handle indicates Romans did not mean to use the shield as depicted in the traditional representation. It might have been used in such a manner under exceptional circumstances, but, it was not meant to be used that way.

[Geticus]

I can chime in a bit on the horizontal handle. One should bear in mind the wars that the Romans fought during the 5th, 4th and 3rd century BCE often came down to gruelling infantry slugfests.

During this era the Romans fought wars every single year with limited means and their supremacy was attained by a system of three wave infantry attack, the so-called triple echelon system. Unlike during the Pax Augusta, during the Camillan era the entire citizen population was militarized. All Roman men were likely subjects of the draft. Virtually all would fight in the legion, and the excellence of the Romans was based first and foremost on superior endurance. The Romans won war through superior total endurance of the entire male population combined, the young (hastati), principes (middle aged), and the triarii (old able bodied veterans). So the intent of the Camillan triple echelon is for the hastati and especially the principes to withstand, exhaust and if possible route the opponents via superior defense and endurance, and failing that, for the triarii to make one decisive charge and push and break the enemy line decisively.

So the design of the scutum is based on this era, the struggles with the Aequi, Volsci, other Latin cities, Sabines, Samnites, Etruscans and Gauls to create the supreme, most durable and steady infantry lines in all Italy. The scutum design reflects this. It is intended to offer the greatest protection against massed javelin showers, spears, and swords, for the least energetic drain so as to maximize the combat endurance of the legionaries. Therefore the handle has the position that the left hand takes naturally when hanging at ease, i.e. horizontal. It is designed basically for maximum protection for least exhaustion. It is less aggressive than the Hellenic aspis which was used as a blunt weapon during phalanx othismos. The scutum in contrast is intended for huge protective benefits while minimizing loss of endurance. It is meant to be held for hours if need be, in the most comfortable and natural position to help the hastati/principes ward off the total impetus of the enemy until they become exhausted, without the Romans becoming exhausted themselves. So that's basically it, natural hand position with the arm eased as much as was practical in battle, to enable the endurance of the legionaries to outlast the enemy until they became exhausted, morale collapsed and they broke.

Basically the Romans won more through superior endurance, while the Hellenes won through superior aggression and forward pressure, hence the difference in shield design.

[antisocialmunky]

You can still punch people in the face. It takes abit to stop 22 pounds even if its not bieng too fast.

[Ibrahim]

In my humble opinion, Epi's enthusiasm is much more welcome here than, say, this (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=281532) example of rabid passion. I am enjoying reading both sides of the argument.

true. I love a well mannered, if even at times overeager disscusison. at least Epi =/= P of thebes

[Tuuvi]

Could it be possible that the scutum was held from the bottom up, with the arm forming a right angle at the elbow(like doing bicep curls)? I was imagining what it would be like to use one with a horizontal handle and that seemed to me like the easiest way to hold it. Having your arm in that position would give you a pretty good range of motion, which means you could move your shield around quite a bit. Also your entire forearm would brace the shield, which removes the problem of leverage that Epi described. When in battle or withstanding a charge you could hold the shield next to your body, making the shield easier to hold and therefore reducing fatigue. In that position the shield would be extremely stable, because it would be braced by your entire torso.

Personally I don't think that holding the shield from the top like Epi described is a very feasible idea. That would put your arm in a very awkward position, making the shied very difficult to use. Like I mentioned earlier all of this is just speculation, I don't have any sources to back up any of these claims. :sweatdrop:

[antisocialmunky]

Maybe they sometimes use the shield sideways and punched people with the bottom edge.

[Phalanx300]

Could it be possible that the scutum was held from the bottom up, with the arm forming a right angle at the elbow(like doing bicep curls)? I was imagining what it would be like to use one with a horizontal handle and that seemed to me like the easiest way to hold it. Having your arm in that position would give you a pretty good range of motion, which means you could move your shield around quite a bit. Also your entire forearm would brace the shield, which removes the problem of leverage that Epi described. When in battle or withstanding a charge you could hold the shield next to your body, making the shield easier to hold and therefore reducing fatigue. In that position the shield would be extremely stable, because it would be braced by your entire torso.

Personally I don't think that holding the shield from the top like Epi described is a very feasible idea. That would put your arm in a very awkward position, making the shied very difficult to use. Like I mentioned earlier all of this is just speculation, I don't have any sources to back up any of these claims. :sweatdrop:

I've also seen a guy with a Celtic shield do the same thing your saying here, and it would make for more efficient shield moving I gues.

[Ca Putt]

most interesting, so whereas the Argive grip is superior when you are actually fighting, the horizontal scutum grip is more suitable when you have to stand around for some time near the battle(like the Princeps).
-> so the romans were good at idleing :P

[Lanceari]

Could it be possible that the scutum was held from the bottom up, with the arm forming a right angle at the elbow(like doing bicep curls)?:

There are some problems with this theory:

The shield is four feet long, which means you have two feet above the handle. If a short man with short arms were to hold the shield as you suggest (elbow at right angle), the shield would raise above his eyes and he would not be able to see a thing.

Furthermore, if you hold the shield as suggested, the shield would be a good foot away from your body. In the hoplon and riot police shield the vertical handle allows you to bend the arm at 90 degrees but still keep your shield close to your body. When wielding a large heavy shield, you want to keep it as close as possible to your body. Keeping such a large shield away from your body would result in terrible leverage, lack of balance and lack of control.

Finally, if you hold the shield as suggested an opponent pressing or hitting either the top or the bottom of the shield would make the shield swing towards you... The enemy pressing on the top or bottom edge would have two feet of leverage against your single hand horizontal grip. The Roman soldier would be unable to control his own shield. Whether you enter the hand into the handle from the bottom or from the top, you still need to find a way to brace the shield to control its leverage.

If the Romans intended to use the shield the way you suggest, they would have used a vertical handle. A vertical grip works a lot better if you intend to keep your arm at 90 degrees.

[antisocialmunky]

The underhand grip also decreases your range of motion. You can't turn it left at all with how your wrist and forarm is built. Plus its not the greatest way to absorb shock since your arm and wrist isn't as flexible due to the above reason.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The underhand grip also decreases your range of motion. You can't turn it left at all with how your wrist and forarm is built. Plus its not the greatest way to absorb shock since your arm and wrist isn't as flexible due to the above reason.
How would you know that? There is too much original "research' (sic) on these forums, with people imagining how it might have been, 95% of the time, utterly incorrect. now, I do not know about you, which is why I ask.

[antisocialmunky]

Pretend you're doing this:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_IlJ_AmbgxEA/R8KZdm81wBI/AAAAAAAADjA/mQYDL-wqIjg/legionarymain3.jpg

Turn side ways with your left leg forward, your right leg back. Put your weight on the right leg. Now pretend you're holding shield to with an underarm grip using your left arm. Turn your arm left and right. Now pretend you're holding something with an overhand grip with the same hand. Turn it left and right.

You tell me which is more practical. I hope you enjoyed your first anatomy lesson. When you've been trying to draw the human figure for 7+ years, you get to know what's impossible and what is. Not to mention, you could have actually just tried to move the range of motion and then discovered the answer in about 2 seconds.

EDIT: Maybe if you're female the udnerhand position would be less unnatural but it would still be unnatural.

EDIT2: Incase you're a mutant, this is the normal human range of motion:
https://img190.imageshack.us/img190/1484/thisisdiagram.png

EDIT3: I forgot to do the wrist ranges... but I think my point is made.

EDIT3: I'm aware that you can pull your arm back behind if you're holding underhand but the coverage is sitll the same.

[mountaingoat]

you forgot to add this picture

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.wowinsider.com/media/2008/09/az_shieldcombat.jpg



edit .. on and this

http://www.romanarmy.net/images/Pages/articles/shield1.jpg

[Lanceari]

How would you know that? There is too much original "research' (sic) on these forums, with people imagining how it might have been, 95% of the time, utterly incorrect. now, I do not know about you, which is why I ask.

I am not sure what "original research" and "people imagining" means. Clearly none of us have a time machine. But just in case...

I have over twelve years of martial arts experience in the system I currently practice, plus another year in a different system. I am a 3rd degree black belt. I have been teaching martial arts for over six years. I also took fencing lessons many years ago.

The ideas I propose here are not based on "imagination" but they are variations on standard techniques used in many oriental martial arts. I have practiced and taught these stances and techniques to both children and grown ups for many years.

The side back stance is the basic fencing stance (except I propose inverting it to place the shield up front). If you ever watch a fencing match, you will notice how quickly these guys move using the very same stances I proposed in the charts attached in a prior post.

The side back stance is also what we call in karate a Kokutusu Dachi. My 10 year old students spend hour long sessions doing katas in this and similar stances. If my 10 year old students can do this, fully grown tough legionaries should have no problem.

Because of my training, I am familiar with hand to hand combat. I am also familiar with the use different artifacts in self defense, whether weapons or other tools. Furthermore, I draw on the accumulated knowledge of the many martial artists that contributed to the development of the style I practice. When you train and subsequently teach martial arts you become quite familiar and conscious of how your body moves, what is possible and what is not possible. This in turn allows you to draw insights that may not be obvious to others. Your are welcome to accept or disregard these insights, but, please do not characterize them as "imagination".

When I say that a Roman Soldier most have found a way to brace the top and bottom of his shield, I am not imagining this. I know in hand to hand combat you need a good firm grip of your tools. You cannot allow shield or weapon to be leveraged against you. A poor grip of either shield or sword was not an option. And, upon studying the scutum, you are left with remarkably few options to achieve a good grip. Again, you may accept or disregard these insights, but, the underlying facts won't go away.

Finally, I should add I tried the techniques and stances I propose here. I found I could advance, retreat, parry and attack with great ease and speed. Of course, I used props instead of real scutum and gladius. And, of course, I am well trained in these stances, but Roman soldiers would have been just as well trained.

In case any of you is interested, you can find fencing videos here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1478623914238877457#


You can find a demonstration of oriental figthing techniques based on the Kokutsu Dachi here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STg3QjQyxH8

[Phalanx300]

The Roman fighting style is hiding behind you shield which covers almost your entire body, and when you see an opening stab with your gladius and then do the same over and over again. If you hit the belly then thats one opponent less because of the nasty wounds its able to cause.

And doing Martial Arts, unless with weapons, can't be compared to ancient warfare. And even with weapons it mainly focusses on one on one fights.

And fencing doesn't really equal ancient warfare as well. Fencing wasn't even evolved from Medieval warfare as many seem to think.

[Lanceari]

The Roman fighting style is hiding behind you shield which covers almost your entire body, and when you see an opening stab with your gladius and then do the same over and over again. If you hit the belly then thats one opponent less because of the nasty wounds its able to cause.

If you have a long narrow shield, the best way to cover your body behind this shield is to stand sideways. Furthermore, if you want your shield to protect you, you must find an effective way to hold it and keep it where you want it to be.

I have no problem with underhand attacks. They could be executed just as easily with the stances and techniques I described above. However, some ancient soldiers had armor protecting their torsos. If your opponent had armor protecting his torso, but his face was exposed, it might be best to strike overhead. Also, some celts used long body shields that protected the lower body (if properly used of course). Again, if your opponent's shield protects the lower body, it might be best to attack the unexposed face. The techniques I suggested can be used effectively with both underhand and overhead strikes... even though the overhead strike might have been a bit easier to execute.

As far as fighting in a formation, I fully realize it would require linear techniques. The stances and techniques I described in the charts above are linear, so they would be well suited for fighting in a formation. The karate clip I posted included non-linear techniques, but I was hoping you would be able to parse the linear and non-linear techniques and use your common sense to figure out which among those techniques could be relevant to our discussion.

You are right to point out fencing was developed centuries later, and martial arts evolved for one to one fighting. However, the human body behind all these fighting styles is the same. Our anatomy has not changed much in the last 2,000 years. And the principles of hand to hand combat remain the same.

The back stance is effectively used by fighting styles developed so widely apart as western fencing, Okinawan Karate, and Chinese Kenpo. This tells us a few things. First it tells us it is an effective fighting stance. Just from watching these guys you can tell people can move with great speed while using this stance. It also tells us it is versatile, it can be applied to extremely different fighting styles. Finally, since we know people from different cultures adopted it independently, it is reasonable to expect others might have adopted it as well. In fact, it is quite common and some martial arts beginners adopt it without even realizing they are doing so.

[Lanceari]

I was watching chapter's three and four of the History Channel's last documentary on Rome. The shields used in the documentary have the argive grip. Every now and then you can see the soldiers from behind and observe the handle in their shields. They used the wrong handle for their shields.

Did anyone else notice this?

[A Very Super Market]

The History Channel has not been well known for historical accuracy over the last few years. You'll find their expertise is now limited to blue (And blood red)-collar workers with a tendency to work blue as well.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Honestly, I look down on so-called "documentaries". No serious historian would pay too much attention to them. They are very limited in what they say, and their accuracy, especially of their video, is often disputed. Just read books, and cite books, and you will be fine. For one, unless you are just watching them for fun, documentaries are for indolent individuals who do not wish to learn, but want to act like they know something without actually reading tedious and dry books.

[antisocialmunky]

You know... technically, just because one hasn't been found with a stupid grip doesn't mean it wasn't used FYI.

Its typical logcial fallacy of thinking N implies M makes the claim that NOT N implies NOT M is valid. The only thing you can conclude from N implies M is NOT M implies NOT N:

More specifically:
If the Romans didn't use Argive Grip Shields, then you won't find any.

implies

Therefore if you find some shields with Argive Grips, then the Romans used them.


Isn't logic fun? Don't yell at me about the claim, just saying your argument of:

If the Romans didn't use Argive Grip Shields, then you won't find any.

does not imply

Therefore if the Romans used Argive Grips, then you would find some.

[Lanceari]

I found this great picture of the Dura Europos Scutum - a Roman Scutum recovered in an archeological dig in Siria. See picture attached

The shield is very cylindrical, very curved. In his book, The Complete Roman Army, Alan Goldworthy draws a top view of this shield. According to Goldworthy's illustration, the shield is almost a full half cylinder.

Because the shield is so curved, a substantial part of the shield's width goes into wrapping around the soldier. Thus, the resulting frontal cross section is rather narrow - as you can tell from the picture. My best guess is that the effective width of this shield was under 18 inches. I am looking for a source that will provide the actual measurements of this shield. If any of you know of one, please share it with me.

In any event, this shield is so narrow, a good chunk its user's body would be exposed unless its user stood sideways behind the shield. This, of course, is consistent with friezes dating back to Roman times.

Of course, skeptics may argue this particular shield was unusually cylindrical/curved. I have been looking for other sources corroborating that Roman Scutums were quite cylindrical/curved. I am attaching a picture of a frieze from Trajan's Column where a Roman soldier is carrying some plunder on his shield. You can appreciate the curvature of the shield.

[Vilkku92]

Just asking, Epi.

Could you think of any OTHER ways to effectively use a shield with a horizontal handle than being wholly sideways to the enemy?

And would celts (whose shields also had horizontal handles) have also fought in kokutsu-like stance?

[Lanceari]

Just asking, Epi.

Could you think of any OTHER ways to effectively use a shield with a horizontal handle than being wholly sideways to the enemy?

And would celts (whose shields also had horizontal handles) have also fought in kokutsu-like stance?

Let me start with the second question first. I understand the Celts had a long full body shield simiar to the Roman Scutum. I remember reading an article where it was suggested the development of the Roman Scutum may have been inspired by the full body Celtic shield. I have not done as much research into the Celtic counterpart, but my guess is that it would have been used similarly to the Roman Scutum. However, note the Celts had many different types of shields. I am not sure which types of shields were most prevalent... It might be that the full body Celtic shield was only adopted by a few tribes. I would not know.

As for the first question, the two main factors that have to be considered are #1 the horizontal handle, and, #2 the length of the shield. What I find most peculiar about the Roman Scutum is the combination of a horizontal grip with a long shield. Generally speaking you would expect the handle to be oriented along (parallel to) the longer side of the shield so a soldier can better control the leverage of the shield. Look for example at the Zulu shield. Look also at Roman and Celtic flat shields of ancient times.

If the shield was shorter, leverage would not be as important. But the Scutum was a very long shield (the Imperial Shield was 42" long and the Polybian shield was 48" long). If your shield is 42" to 48" long, the top of your shield is 21" to 24" above the handle. Imagine your opponent presses the top quarter of the shield, say 18" above the handle. The enemy has 18" of leverage. Because your handle is horizontal you have absolutely no leverage. Friction from your hand rubbing against the wood handle is the only control you have against your opponent's leverage. That is just not enough. So, the soldier must find some other way to control this leverage.

My theory is that the Roman soldier had to put his (left) shoulder against the upper part of the shield to brace it. He had to do this, while keeping his eyes above the shield, but keeping his head far away from the enemy so he would not be struck in the face. Because your shoulders are on the side of your torso the best way to brace the shield with your shoulders while keeping your head somewhat behind the shield is to stand sideways. There are many reliefs from Roman times showing Roman soldiers fighting with their scutum braced with their left shoulder. More on this later.

Then there is the curvature of the shield... As you can see from my most recent post I am looking at the exact curvature of the shield (imperial and polybian). The curvature of the imperial shield was quite tight. The curvature of the polybian shield was not quite as tight as that of the imperial shield, but still fairly tight. The curvature of either shield was much tighter than the curvature of replicas used in movies and documentaries, much tighter than the curvature of a modern riot police shield, and much tighter than anything we are familiar with.

I am having a hard time finding the words to explain the implications of the tight curvature of the shield. I am looking for a drawing tool that will allow me to 3d this shield and place a human body next to it. If and when I finally manage this, I hope you will see that the curvature of the shield also calls for a side stance.

Finally, I would like to cite from Adrian Goldworthy's: The Roman Army at War 100 BC- AD 200 page 218-219:

"The soldier stood behind it [the scutum] in a slight crouch his left leg towards the enemy, and his right side turned away. This is the fighting stance depicted on Trajan's Column, the Adamklissi metopes, and the relief from Mainz. The shield covered a man's torso, the top of his legs, and the bottom of his face."

The fighting stance described by Goldworthy is a side stance. I have been looking at pictures of some of the Trajan Column reliefs, and these soldiers are indeed using a side stance and bracing the shield with their left shoulder. I am trying to get pictures of the other cited reliefs and will later attach all I can get to my posts.

Having said all the above, there are other "exceptional" uses of the scutum I have not touched. For example: How do you carry your scutum while climbing an enemy wall? How do you charge with the scutum. How do you block arrows comming from above with the scutum? And, how do you strike the enemy with the scutum (we know Roman's did this)? I am working on all these. The reliefs I will copy later will offer insights. Let me be clear on one point: what I have described so far is the way the shield was wielded by soldiers "holding the line" in front of the enemy. Of course, different circumstances will require different techniques. I will be answering these question in my future posts.

[Lanceari]

As offered in my previous post, I found several reliefs that offer us interesting insights into how Roman's used their shields. Unfortunately, the forum manager limits the amount of space we can use to post pictures, and I am running out of space, so I can only show some of the pictures I found.

The first image I want to share with you comes from a Roman Fortress in Mainz. The image shows two legionaries, one in the foreground and a second behind him. Both are important.

Allow me to discuss first the soldier in the foreground. Notice he is standing in what I described above as a front side stance, or my fighting stance #2. See my pdf files attached above. We know he is standing sideways because (1) his shield wraps around his left shoulder, (2) his head point in the direction of his left shoulder and away from his right shouldr, (3) his shield only covers his left shoulder, but leaves his right shoulder fully exposed, (4) his shield fully covers and wraps around his left hip, (5) his shield does not cover his right hip, (5) his left put is pointing in the same direction of his shield, but his right foot points of to the side.

Still focusing on the soldier in the foreground, notice how the shield curves around his left shoulder and left hip. Notice the shield has a very tight curvature. This is consistent with the tight curvature on the picture shown above for the Dura Europos shield and it is a theme we will revisit later. (Some people have question the reconstruction of the Dura Europos shield, and we will also deal with that in a later post).

We know these soldiers are very close to the enemy because the first rank soldier has drawn his sword, and he is crouching. Notice his shield is very close to his body. It is reasonable to assume he bracing his shield with left shoulder.

Allow me now to focus on the soldier in the background. Look at the curvature of his shield. Again, it is has a very tight curvature; you can fully appreciate it makes a half circle. This is consistent with the Dura Europos reconstruction and with the relief copied above from the Trajan column showing soldier carrying plunder on top of his shield.

This second soldier seems to be a soldier from the second rank of the maniple using this shield to protect or support soldiers in the front row. We know it is not a centurion, optio or signifier because he does not the have the centurions funny stuff on his head and he is carrying a pila instead of a stick (optio) or standard (signifier). Since he is not an officer, it does not make sense for him to be pointing. Instead it makes more sense to assume he is using his shield in support of the first row soldier.

I find the possition of the background shield most interesting. If he was trying to cover the head of the first row soldier, his shield would be on top of the first row soldier's head. Instead, his shield is over the shoulder of the front row soldier.

There is one other possibility, though it may strike as odd at first glance. If the shield has the dimensions suggested by the Duro Europas reconstrtion (with a cord of approximately 16 inches) it would be possible to execute a jab with the shield, and it would look just the way it shows here.

This is most interesting! Because the shield was so long, a soldier from the second row could take a long jab at an enemy over the shoulder of a first row soldier. This reminds me of Plutarch's description of the death of Crastinuss at Pharsala cited above:

"Crastinus threw himself at the shield line, aiming to show his men how to reach over the top of an enemy shield and strike at the face of the soldier on the other side with the point of the sword. As he did, he felt a blow to the side of the head. He never saw it coming. The strength suddenly drained from his legs. He sagged to his knees. His head was spinning. Dazed, he continued to call out to his men to spur them on. As he spoke, a legionary of the 1st Legion directly opposite him in the shield line moved his shield six inches to the left, opening a small gap. In a flash he had shoved his sword through the gap with a powerful forward thrust that entered the yelling Gaius Crastinus's open mouth."

The first blow to Crastinus head must have been a hard blow to stun him despite the fact he was wearing a helmet. Is it possible a second row soldier using his scutum as shown in this reilef hit him on the side of his head?

More comming in my future posts.

[Lanceari]

I attach here of pictures of a few Adamklissi Metopes. The Metopes are not as well preserved as the Mainz Reliefs or the Trajan Column. And the artwork is not as good. However, a few of them are quite interesting.

The first image shows a Roman Soldier executing an underhand strike against a Dacian Falxman. Notice the shield only protects the left side of the roman soldier. The right shoulder and the right hip are fully exposed. Again, during the actual fight, we see the shield on protecting only the left side of the Roman soldier. But, most important, the shield is held flat against the left shoulder and knee. The left shoulder braces the shield.

The second image shows a Roman Soldier executing an overhand strike against a Dacian Falxman. Again you can appreciate the shield covers the left shoulder and hip, but does not cover the the right shoulder and hip. The left foot points at the enemy, but the right foot is pointed off to the side. This soldier is standing sideways. And, again, and most important, the shield is held flat against the left shoulder. The left shoulder braces the shield.

Then we find these very special images 3 and 4. In both images the Roman soldier bent his left elbow until he brought his left hand all the way to his left shoulder, covering his entire face with his shield. in one instance he is executing this technique to protect himself from arrows (look at the enemy archer on the right).

On the last image the Roman soldier executes this as he closes against a flaxmen that is in turn trying to execute an overhead strike against the roman soldier. Notice this move could not have been sustained for long because the Roman soldier cannot see his oponnent while he keeps his shield so high. This move may have been execute at the last second of a charge.

[antisocialmunky]

Mainz Relief #1 has the same proportions as a Warhammer 40K Space Marine miniture FYI.

[Lanceari]

This is a question for the EB team:

I have been doing more research on the Roman Shield. I am developing 3D anatomically correct images to mimic the Adamklissi, Mainz, and Trajan Reliefs. I am also writing a paper to accompany these images. As I make further progress on this work I am finding some interesting insights on how the Romans may have used their shield.

Although I am not quite finished, the whole thing will include many images and will take more space than I have left to post as images in your forum.

Is there a way I can submit my paper to the EB staff for them to evaluate, and, if they see fit maybe they can help me post it?

[antisocialmunky]

Is there even such a thing as a Historian who only specializes on one shield?

[Lanceari]

Is there even such a thing as a Historian who only specializes on one shield?

I don't claim to be a "historian". In fact, I did not claim my interest here was the interest of a "historian".

Though I am interested in history, my interest here is mainly that of a marital artist. It relates more to hand-to-hand combat techniques than to a "historian's interest". Nevertheless, if I was a historian trying to understand how Romans fought, I would like to learn as much as possible about the realistic options on how this equipment was used.

Having said that I should note: I have a certain interest in history. I will try to match every 3D image and every technique I describe, either with a picture of a surviving relief, or with a passage from an actual historical source.

And, by the way, I did not say the only shield I have looked at is the Roman Scutum. Nor did I say my only interest was the Roman Shield. (Last night I was reading for a second time the Memoirs of General Von Manstein. Is that diverse enough for your taste?)

I wish I could offer to work on a broad range of shields. Maybe you would like me to work on the Celting Full Body shield? I certainly would like to work on the Roman Flat shield and in the Greek Hoplon. Unfortunately, I am not a graphic artist, and, the 3D images I am preparing are taking me quite a bit of time. For now, I will have to concentrate on one thing at a time. Would you like to help me working on a second shield?

[NeoSpartan]

fellas.... this is really simple.

The argive grip style was used for heavy shields, namely the Greek aspis. The horizontal grip was the norm in most shields since they were lighter. Romans, Iberians, Celtics, Germanics, Thracians, etc made shields with a horizontal grip.

The way is was made however... is rather tricky.

You take the shield and cut a HOLE in the middle. In that hole you insert a horizontal handle. You then cover the hole with a Shield Boss.
http://www.ancienttouch.com/1309.jpg
This way you are holding the shield on its center of mass, which makes is easier to handle.

Also, even though the Roman scutum (especially the one used during the Republican era, it was longer than the rectangular) and Celtic long shield look "heavy" they are not.

----------------------------------------

About Roman fighting formation.

The "shield wall" formation the Romans (Celts/Iberians/Germanics/etc) used was A TYPE of formation, not the the ONLY way of fighting. This shield wall thing was best used when dealing with human wave assaults, and cavalry charges. It was mainly a stand off formation with its strength being in the ability to wear down the enemy line while taking few casualties, and then attacking.

Soldiers usually had a few feet space between each other, sometimes more, sometimes less depending on who they were fighting, the terrain, and what they were trying to accomplish.

[Lanceari]

...The horizontal grip was the norm in most shields since they were lighter. Romans, Iberians, Celtics, Germanics, Thracians, etc made shields with a horizontal grip.

...The "shield wall" formation the Romans (Celts/Iberians/Germanics/etc) used was A TYPE of formation, not the the ONLY way of fighting. This shield wall thing was best used when dealing with human wave assaults, and cavalry charges. It was mainly a stand off formation with its strength being in the ability to wear down the enemy line while taking few casualties, and then attacking.

....Soldiers usually had a few feet space between each other, sometimes more, sometimes less depending on who they were fighting, the terrain, and what they were trying to accomplish.

I agree with most of what you just said. However, I would like to add to the three remarks cited:

(1) Yes there were many shields with a horizontal grip, but there were also many shields with a vertical shield. The Romans for example had a flat shield with a vertical grip. Though I cannot cite specific sources, my best understanding is that the Celts also had full body shields with horizontal handles, and, medium size shields with vertical handles. The choice of horizontal vs. vertical grip had strong implications regarding its use. See #3.

(2) I agree the "shield wall" was not the only way of fighting. However, I would like to understand the detailed techniques the Roman used to wield this odd shield while forming a shield wall. A lot of my work goes into addressing this question in detail.

(3) "Soldiers usually had a few feet between each other..." Well now we are back to #1. I believe a medium size flat shield with a vertical grip would work a lot better in a lose formation, while the full body scutum with a horizontal grip would work best in a tight shield wall.

[NeoSpartan]

I agree with most of what you just said. However, I would like to add to the three remarks cited:

(1) Yes there were many shields with a horizontal grip, but there were also many shields with a vertical shield. The Romans for example had a flat shield with a vertical grip. Though I cannot cite specific sources, my best understanding is that the Celts also had full body shields with horizontal handles, and, medium size shields with vertical handles. The choice of horizontal vs. vertical grip had strong implications regarding its use. See #3.

(2) I agree the "shield wall" was not the only way of fighting. However, I would like to understand the detailed techniques the Roman used to wield this odd shield while forming a shield wall. A lot of my work goes into addressing this question in detail.

(3) "Soldiers usually had a few feet between each other..." Well now we are back to #1. I believe a medium size flat shield with a vertical grip would work a lot better in a lose formation, while the full body scutum with a horizontal grip would work best in a tight shield wall.

I gotta tell ya I have never heard/seen shields with a "verical grip" unless you are talking about a round shild, in which case the grip is the same thing.

The benefit of a curved shield is the same as any sloped armor. They deflect rather than resist a blow.

As for what shield works best in what formation.... Unless you are trying to make a shield wall with a small shield (round, oval, narrow+long, whatever), it is the weight and quality that makes a real difference.

I suggest you get in touch with some reanactors. I am not one, although I made a Celtic long+narrow shield and a round Iberian one for Halloween. From that I can tell you that both are very good to use in single combat, but they have their own little "styles" of their own.
ex: with a long+narrow shield you can keep the shield in front of you regardless of the attack you do. But you are better off with a long sword.

I suggest you check out the guys at:
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/

[Lanceari]

I have never heard/seen shields with a "verical grip" unless you are talking about a round shild, in which case the grip is the same thing.

From ancient Rome, here is an example of an Auxilia Shield with Vertical Handle.

http://www.vicus.org.uk/documents/Auxiliashield.htm

Here is an interesting article about different types of shields from south east asia. It explains how different shields were used for different purposes:

http://books.google.com/books?id=9ol3_tYLpPQC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=vertical+grip+shield&source=bl&ots=mykaMCvOxL&sig=_9gyAi6ZQd90PohiELQfc8cVwsk&hl=en&ei=goLCSqaFOtThlAfvg5ntBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=vertical%20grip%20shield&f=false

And then there is the Zulu Shield:

http://www.designtoscano.com/product/zoom.do?productID=104209

http://books.google.com/books?id=v32oHSE5t6cC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=zulu+warrior+shield&source=bl&ots=W3fSHId0XN&sig=93S6dLoxHFybJdKgjStnvcae2vA&hl=en&ei=gYXCSueWNIeslAeUx_3eBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=zulu%20warrior%20shield&f=false

Modern Zulus still practice their fighting traditions so you can actually see how they use a shield with a vertical handle. The vertical handle gives you great versatility if you are fighting outside a formation... just like the Zulus.