Big Shields

[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]

This site has some useful stuff:

http://www.swan.ac.uk/grst/student%2...p%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.