Fighting Stance?

[Torvus]

I've been wondering, with the shield wielding soldiers of the Ancient world, did they stand with their front leg on the same side as their shield, or vice versa?

And... did the Romans use an Argive grip on their shields, or a center grip?

[Apgad]

I don't really know for sure, but practising with a saucepan lid and a kitchen knife I would stand with my shield leg forward, and sword leg back. That allows you to brace against a direct charge, or step forward into an attack.

[Watchman]

Left leg forward was the standard "international" basic guard with shields, particularly big ones.

While the Romans of course used the loop-and-handle arrangement in the hoplite panoply they'd picked up from the Greeks, the scutum instead worked with a single central grip.
...and given what that thing weighs, the troopers ought to have developed some pretty impressive muscular definition in their left arm and connected muscle groups... :sweatdrop:

[pezhetairoi]

They most probably did, considering that while the scutum weighs 5 kilograms, they practiced sparring with double-weight scuti in pre-campaign training...

[Gebeleisis]

5 kilos? that is too little m8.


the weight of a scutum was about 20+ pounds so around 10 kilo's
even that weight is small considering the fact that its a large shield and comparing it with the spartan one (45kilos+weight os the piece of leather that guarded the legs)
:2thumbsup:

[Stone and Blood]

...and given what that thing weighs, the troopers ought to have developed some pretty impressive muscular definition in their left arm and connected muscle groups... :sweatdrop:
Would be something like a left handed tennis player xD

[Ayce]

What about left handed warriors, were they thought to reverse their usage, or were they left to their own devices (except in some formations like phalanxes which needed coordination)?

[konny]

5 kilos? that is too little m8.


the weight of a scutum was about 20+ pounds so around 10 kilo's
even that weight is small considering the fact that its a large shield and comparing it with the spartan one (45kilos+weight os the piece of leather that guarded the legs)

I think the early oval Scutum was about 10 Kg, while the later rectangular model was about 6 - 7 Kg.

[Stone and Blood]

A left handed warrior in a phalanx would create a weak point. If I were a general, I would give him another task, like being a shok infantry, or archer.

[Gebeleisis]

I think the early oval Scutum was about 10 Kg, while the later rectangular model was about 6 - 7 Kg.
the rectangular is 10 :)


(browsed on the internet:2thumbsup: )

[English Patriot]

What about left handed warriors, were they thought to reverse their usage, or were they left to their own devices (except in some formations like phalanxes which needed coordination)?


Not sure about the ancient period, but in the middle ages, left handed children were taught to use their right hands, with things like phalanxes, I think it would be important all the soldiers use a right hand sword grip..

[Watchman]

the weight of a scutum was about 20+ pounds so around 10 kilo's
even that weight is small considering the fact that its a large shield and comparing it with the spartan one (45kilos+weight os the piece of leather that guarded the legs)
:2thumbsup:A) you're thinking of the "Argive" aspis, which was in universal use among hoplites and populary copied. Nothing particularly "Spartan" about it.
B) the weights I've seen quoted for those things are around 8-9 kg, actually a bit lighter than full-sized scuta in other words.
C) 45 kg is the kind of mass that ranks as massively heavy for full body metal armour - only some immensely strong full panoplies worn by some heavy cavalrymen solely for mounted action reach that kind of weight. For the sake of comparision, an Early Modern "three-quarters" cuirassieur plate armour (covering everything except the shins down and the backs of the legs) with a double-thickness bulletproof breastplate only weighs a bit over thirty kilos - and that was universally viewed as so heavy only the cavalry ever wore such.

[konny]

the rectangular is 10 :)


(browsed on the internet:2thumbsup: )


Than you are browsing different sites than me, provided we are talking of the netto weight without covers and the like.

[aftzengeier]

Ehm... Ancient Roman men had an average height of 1,50m - max 1,65m (!!!) I don't think giving these dwarves such heavy shields would be of some use. I just can't imagine how to get a shield that heavy without smothering it in steel! http://ugly.plzdiekthxbye.net/small/s246.gif Weren't the roman shields quite thin?

[Geoffrey S]

With a bit of training 5-10 kilos is certainly doable. 45 kilos is ludicrous - just try rapid movement with a dumbbell of that weight, or lifting it a couple of times...

[Gebeleisis]

well 10kg is easy for even a child m8.
and the thing is that the shield is HUGE in dimension.only the wood would weight more.

i dont think they were thin due to the fact that they were one of the most usefull shields in antiquity (but a falx can cut it from one blow)
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/falxcut2.jpg

anyways i dont seem to agree with the height of the men back then.
1,50 - 1.65 is preety small compared to the descriptions of the time and all the stuff found in roman relics.:2thumbsup:

[Watchman]

The 160-something range of the average would sound like the about standard distribution for a premodern society subsisting on a functionally vegetarian diet.

Anyway, the scutum was made with triple plywood construction so it obviously wasn't going to end up all that thin no matter what you did. Add in the hide covering and the metal reinforces, and you end up with one pretty hefty piece of armament. 'Course, a shield that strong and massive also has a fair number of advantages...

Incidentally, if that's the furthest the falx blow cut into the shield it's not really much to write home about. Granted it's probably a bit of an achievement to get the blade in that deep actually, but the practical usefulness is kinda so-so - in fact, the weapon is now more likely than not sort of stuck in the sheld, which isn't an exactly healthy situation to be in particularly if you don't have a shield yourself.

[Geoffrey S]

well 10kg is easy for even a child m8.
and the thing is that the shield is HUGE in dimension.only the wood would weight more.
Oh, I agree 10 kilos is light enough. But not for hours at a time, let alone while parrying blows.

[Watchman]

Thankfully, it'd have been unusual indeed for them to have to do that without breathers. Not exactly the most "user friendly" protective device in any case, that much is clear - particularly as the grip was horizontal, which would seem to me like resulting in a bit uncomfortable position for the arm.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually, the hoizonatal grip has been shown to provide better stability when recieving blows in most cases.

[Watchman]

Well, I did assume there was a good reason for it. But it seems a bit on the uncomfortable side all the same, plus you won't be able to hold a spare throwing-spear in the same hand like you can with vertical grips.
Tradeoffs, tradeoffs...

[Dhampir]

Not sure about the ancient period, but in the middle ages, left handed children were taught to use their right hands,

This holds true until the 1950s, for the most part, in America.

[Watchman]

Trying to force leftie kids into becoming right-handed was AFAIK more of a "Victorian" thing that went on until relatively recently; tended to cause all kinds of neurological issues too. I'm under the impression folks of earlier times cared rather less (in fact, at least one Scottish highland clan's keep was built to take advantage of the high proportion of "southpaws" in the family), but presumably warriors were expected to also learn to wield their arms in the usual order so they didn't screw up shieldwall lines.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In some instances lefties were used on the left flank, the seem was considered a trade off worth the protection provided to the flank.

[Ayce]

This holds true until the 1950s, for the most part, in America.

And until the end of the commy period here. Being left haded, I think I'd be used as a skirmisher/archer/slinger back then (or strategist :P)

[cmacq]

And... did the Romans use an Argive grip on their shields, or a center grip?

The key to understanding the use of the Scutum is the design of the boss and grip.


http://www.realarmorofgod.com/shop/popup_image.php/pID/428

http://www.realarmorofgod.com/shop/popup_image.php/pID/426

http://www.realarmorofgod.com/shop/popup_image.php/pID/302

http://www.realarmorofgod.com/shop/popup_image.php/pID/399

http://www.romancoins.info/DuraEuroposScutum.JPG
Photo of the Dura Europos Scutum.

http://www.romanarmy.net/images/Pages/articles/shield3.jpg
Reconstruction of the Doncaster shield board.

[Gebeleisis]

well i am a lefthanded person and no one told me i have to be trianed as a right handed one,it seems unfair.

anyway back on topic.


i dont know,if the romans were so bright why didnt they add another grip or how do you call it for the upper part of the hand like a hoplite has?
http://www.ancientsculpturegallery.com/images/024_side1.jpg
it could've provided a more comfortable way of using it and even reducing (sp?) the pressure of the shield weight upon the hand giving the bearer a more powerfull grip and a more flexible and fast way of movement:2thumbsup:

[Watchman]

There's a variety of pros and cons in either method. For example, with the center-grip you can "hold out" the shield rather further away if necessary - probably a good idea too if you expect heavy shield-piercer javelins incoming, too. It's also generally more maneuverable that way.

'S a matter of tactical preferences and specific fighting style.

[Gebeleisis]

well a textile one could be easily removed and added back to place,depending on the situation,no?:2thumbsup:

[Watchman]

Given what the other necessary arrangements for the arm-strap method are like, and the fact the central-grip method all but requires a shield boss, no, not really.

[cmacq]

As stated above, weight was far less so it could be used more effectively as a blunt edged-weapon. Single hand grip provided the bearer, a greater range of movement, ideal for the individual maneuvers preformed within the type of formation fighting the Romans preferred.

[Apgad]

I never realised that photography was so popular in the legions... Obviously this came in later when LS was in use, which is why cameramen aren't depicted in EB :inquisitive:

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
It was the Kelts who invented photography. Romans just usurped it.
.

[cmacq]

.
It was the Kelts who invented photography. Romans just usurped it.
.

And I though it was Ibn al-Haytham?

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
That's Leonardo's hoax. :listen: And Livius's propaganda of course. :yes:
.

[cmacq]

Of course.

[Tancredii]

well 10kg is easy for even a child m8.
and the thing is that the shield is HUGE in dimension.only the wood would weight more.

i dont think they were thin due to the fact that they were one of the most usefull shields in antiquity (but a falx can cut it from one blow)
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/falxcut2.jpg

anyways i dont seem to agree with the height of the men back then.
1,50 - 1.65 is preety small compared to the descriptions of the time and all the stuff found in roman relics.:2thumbsup:

Now your falx is stuck welcome to my shortsword.................:beam:

[Gebeleisis]

dont think if you can hurl it like that into the shield you cant take it out :beam:

[Tancredii]

With my sword in your ribs you might have other things on your mind. The falx would not come "easy" - twist shield slightly - step - stab - reform. I am not about to let you keep taking chops at my shield without giving you a bad day am I?

[General Appo]

Sure, but at the time you do you´ll have a dozen mortal wounds from a gladius. Besides, all that naked flesh and no shield gives virtually no protection from a thrown pila, so the front rows would have to rely on pure luck to survive. I´d even rather fight as a Gasatae, at least they have a shield.

[Ayce]

With my sword in your ribs you might have other things on your mind. The falx would not come "easy" - twist shield slightly - step - stab - reform. I am not about to let you keep taking chops at my shield without giving you a bad day am I?

The guy with the falx said he didn't put any power behind the shot, he wanted the weight of the weapon to do the job.

[Watchman]

I don't really see how that changes the issue that having your weapon embedded in the other guy's shield is just a Bad Idea in general though. Heck, people sometimes specifically didn't give shield edges metal reinforcements just so enemy blades would be more likely to get caught...
That kind of one-second opening is just the stuff that makes the difference in a fight. As one practicioner has concisely summed it up, "you win a sword fight by cutting the other fellow first."

[Tancredii]

The guy with the falx said he didn't put any power behind the shot, he wanted the weight of the weapon to do the job.

Fair enough but look at his body position. He is completely open to counter thrust to throat/upper body or with a little movement pretty much anywhere else. Stab is a lot easier than pull back and chop. Not saying falx isn't a fearsome weapon - it is, but hacking 12 inches into a shield doesn't prove very much more than what a big strong - soon to be dead - lad you are.

[Ayce]

The general idea when using the falx is to reach behind the shield and to chop the guy's hand off

[Watchman]

Then again, if you consider what role these guys played in the army and the peculiar Dacian view on death, that doesn't actually matter. They weren't out to survive the battle; they were there to cause as much mayhem, damage and distruption to the enemy line as they could inflict as the expendable first-wave "forlorn hope". In that sense it doesn't really actually matter much if the warrior gets pilum'd or gutted when his chopper's stuck halfway in some legionary's shield - that's one less pilum or one less shield for the main battleline to worry about.

There's certain useful perks in having a large body of fierce tribal warriors who think they're immortal, after all. Just ask for volunteers willing to prove their courage and valour, give them the big choppers, and set them loose. The minimalistic equipement the falx-guys seem to have carried and the comparatively simple "cheap and cheerful" nature of the weapon itself (compared to, say, the Thracian rhomphaia which was basically a big-ass sword and hence rather costly) also seems to rather emphasize this "born 2 die" character of such warriors.

Conversely, rhomphaia-armed Thracian warriors seem to often have carried shields and/or worn armour, thus clearly representing a clearly more "conventional" (the snarky might say "sane") character of such troops.

Anyway, judging by the way the Dacian Wars saw some modifications being made to the legionary helmet and the use of the laminate arm-guard by front-rankers, shields weren't the only thing the falx-swinging "suicide squads" chopped up...

[Gebeleisis]

well did you guys consider the fear factor of seeing a halfnaked man screeming his gut off running towards you with a omg giant sword like "thing" (speaking from roman eyes) and when he reaches you he cuts of half of you god damn shield just passing 2 -3 cm from your hand.
and you are not 1v1 there is an entire army there so the thing is,your shield is stuck also in his weapon -> in his hands

[NeoSpartan]

why don't you guys imagine that dude aiming at ur head and u raising your shild....
:smash:

thats why the romans had to reinforce their helmets, as both shield and helmet would break.

[Tancredii]

well did you guys consider the fear factor of seeing a halfnaked man screeming his gut off running towards you with a omg giant sword like "thing"

You ever celebrated a really big win playing rugby? Well the above happens a lot........

[Watchman]

Without the sharp ironmongery and murderous intent though, one would hope.

Although, what the heck. Would just make that damn sport interesting. Blood Bowl FTW. :beam:

[Cyclops]

Fascinating stuff, especially about the shield grips.

I'm assuming the Roman held his scutum out in front almost like a curtain, which makes sense if he expects javelins. IIRC shields in papua-New Guinea and Northern Australia were whirled to deflect javelins: the reinforced central spines of Celtic shields depicted in EB remind me vaguely of this use. Perhaps he held it closer to the body when in melee.

The hoplite depicted seems to hold his shield out a bit angled: maybe thats a better stance if he expects an overhand spear thrust? Definitely strapping the thing to your arm means more of any blow will hit the arm, so perhaps the aspis is less of a static defense (soak up force) and more of a "wave blows aside/use it to push" device.

My guess is the Roman shield is more of a javelin deflector but is versatile enough to be a decent melee shield vs a variety of weapons. The aspis seems more like a specialist tool for push-of-pike scenarios and maybe less suitable for quick whirling to deflect incoming thrown weapons, or crushing blows from axes.

I imagine the Greek stance a little more side on, with the shield angled out in front and the spear delivered over hand from behind and over the shield wall. This might leave the belly/thighs more exposed but if the enemy is also hopites fighting overhand there's less threat there perhaps.

Maybe the Roman stance is a little more squared up? Perhaps when using the gladius, although javelin-throwing stance would be similar to the Greek stance (perhaps in a looser formation as I've seen described in other threads).

Just a guess.