Big Shields

[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.