Printable View
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
There are some problems with this theory:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lignator
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Pretend you're doing this:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_IlJ_AmbgxEA/R8...onarymain3.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/...sisdiagram.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.
you forgot to add this picture
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.wowinside...ieldcombat.jpg
edit .. on and this
http://www.romanarmy.net/images/Page...es/shield1.jpg
I am not sure what "original research" and "people imagining" means. Clearly none of us have a time machine. But just in case...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
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?do...3914238877457#
You can find a demonstration of oriental figthing techniques based on the Kokutsu Dachi here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STg3QjQyxH8
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx300
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vilkku92
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.
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.
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.
Mainz Relief #1 has the same proportions as a Warhammer 40K Space Marine miniture FYI.
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?
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
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?
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.
I agree with most of what you just said. However, I would like to add to the three remarks cited:Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
(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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Epi
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/
From ancient Rome, here is an example of an Auxilia Shield with Vertical Handle.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoSpartan
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=9ol...shield&f=false
And then there is the Zulu Shield:
http://www.designtoscano.com/product...oductID=104209
http://books.google.com/books?id=v32...shield&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.