1 Attachment(s)
Frieze from Polybian Era depicting Roman Shields
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.)
Re: Frieze from Polybian Era depicting Roman Shields
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.
Re: Frieze from Polybian Era depicting Roman Shields
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)
An Account of Frontline Roman Combat
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.
Re: An Account of Frontline Roman Combat
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.
Re: An Account of Frontline Roman Combat
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:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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?
Re: An Account of Frontline Roman Combat
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.
Re: An Account of Frontline Roman Combat
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.
