Assorted Historical Questions - Gertrude et al, ask them here!

[QuintusSertorius]

The Roman infantry shields are remarkably light.

You call 20lbs light?

[Tellos Athenaios]

You call 20lbs light?

No: the oval scutum certainly isn't light; however the rectangular one is remakably light. I trust it to be not actually very light at all; but in any case you don't get the impression to hold very much weight when lifting a Roman rectangular scutum.

[Dhampir]

You call 20lbs light?

It's not heavy.

[QuintusSertorius]

No: the oval scutum certainly isn't light; however the rectangular one is remakably light. I trust it to be not actually very light at all; but in any case you don't get the impression to hold very much weight when lifting a Roman rectangular scutum.

Fair enough, I was just thinking of what something that weight would be like after a few minutes holding it up.

Sure 20lbs is easy to move from one place to another over the course of a few moments, even one-handed, moreso a lighter, smaller shield.

It's not heavy.

Hold it in a ready position for a half an hour and say that.

[The Persian Cataphract]

It's not heavy.

You must also realize that wrists tire quicker than your upper arms; Twenty pounds is more than sufficient to put your grip strength at a severe test after prolonged usage. One must never forget one rudimentary maxim of human strength: You are only as strong as your weakest link.

Anyone who has done some wrist and grip exercising with an unloaded bar-bell knows how tough it can get. Kettle-bells are an even better example.

[paullus]

thanks, MP, that's a much better picture. Interesting theory on the rhomphaia, though it doesn't seem any of these carry rhomphaia...their blades seem--and granted I'm not looking at EVERY soldier to confirm--to be sica, or the one-handed falx (in general, more sharply curved than the rhomphaia blades we have). If that were the purpose, wouldn't it be more useful if the loops were perpendicular to the spine of the shield, rather than parallel?

[MeinPanzer]

thanks, MP, that's a much better picture. Interesting theory on the rhomphaia, though it doesn't seem any of these carry rhomphaia...their blades seem--and granted I'm not looking at EVERY soldier to confirm--to be sica, or the one-handed falx (in general, more sharply curved than the rhomphaia blades we have). If that were the purpose, wouldn't it be more useful if the loops were perpendicular to the spine of the shield, rather than parallel?

I agree that all the weapons depicted on the Kazanluk tomb seem to be rhomphaiai, but I thought that maybe these were just standard attachments for such shields in case the bearer wished to use it with a rhomphaia. The Kyustendil shield was found in the same region of southwestern Bulgaria where almost all excavated examples of rhomphaiai have been discovered and has also been dated to the very early 3rd c. BC.

I've thought about the orientation of the loops a bit and I think that perhaps with the two loops in the middle section of the shield being quite close to either edge, the bearer might have been able to hold it almost diagonally (this is a little hard to explain, but imagine putting your arm through one of the loops on either extremity of the shield and then through one of the two central grips), though I have no idea how practical that would have been. Again, this is just a hypothesis which is obviously speculative in the extreme.

I forgot that one of the warriors from the Alexandrovo tomb paintings also carries this type of shield and traces of loops can also be seen there: