Big Shields

[Lanceari]

Aspis covers eyes to knees and shins are covered by greeves. Scutum covers eyes to ankles and you cover the leading leg with a greeve.

Its comperable.

Greek Levy Hoplites do not wear greaves and some of the other armor... Yet, they have a Shield Rating of 4, same as Rorariis and, same as Classical Hoplites. If the shield value is supposed to include the value of this armor, Greek Levy Hoplites should have a lower Shield Rating than Classical Hoplites (which wear more armor). Yet they have the same Shield Rating.

I understand, Armor is represented by the Armor Rating assigned to the unit. If so, a unit wearing more armor should have a higher Armor Rating, not a higher Shield Rating.

On the other hand, I understand heavy and cumbersome equipment should reduce the weapons skill level of a soldier. There is no free lunch. A larger shield offers better protection but it is heavy and cumbersome. The challenge is how model this trade off in a game.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I don't understand why phalangites has 5 shield value: the phalanx formation could protect from arrows? How? In fact they have small shields, and when in formation they can't easily adjust their stance in order to protect from arrows.

No, that was done to make the phalanx more vulnerable to flanking attacks: shield only protects you from the left and front, not the rear and the right. In reality, however, it does not work as the soldier in the unit will simply turn around to face a flanking adversary. But now this also imbalanced the phalangites vs archers contest...

It would have been better to increase defence skill instead, which only protects a soldier from the front. And the pikes will not protect their own phalangites from arrows, only offer some meagre protection to the units behind the phalanx.

[Mikhail Mengsk]

That's why i lowered their shield value to 3.

[Lanceari]

... It would have been better to increase defence skill instead, which only protects a soldier from the front...

Unfortunately, it does not work that neatly. I quote from the RTW EDU Guide cited above:

The unit's defensive stats.
[armour] : Unit's armour value. Taken into account in all occasions (soldier attacked from any direction, melee and ranged). It measures the amount of protection a soldier's armour offers. Max value is 63 and everything higher will be considered 63.
[def_skill] : Unit's defensive skill, taken into account only in melee and only against attacks from the front or the right side. It doesn't affect defense against missiles. It represents a soldier's ability to parry(rather than block) and dodge strikes. Max value is 63 and everything higher will be considered 63.
[shield] : Unit's shield value, taken into account against both ranged and melee attacks, but only when they come from the front or the left side. Against missiles from the front it offers twice the protection it's value suggests. Measures the blocking capabilities of a unit's shield. Max value is 31 and everything higher will be considered 31.

So defense skill increases protection from front AND RIGHT ...which is not the result you were looking for.

[Lanceari]

I was looking through some history books for more information on the actual size of the Roman Scutum.

According to The Complete Roman Army, by Adrian Goldsworthy, the size and shape of the Roman Scutum varied through the centuries.

Apparently, remnants of a shield from 300 BC were found in an archeological dig. The shield we oval shaped and about three feet nine inches long. Goldsworthy does not say the actual length of the shield, but scale drawings of the shield are placed next to another shield for which the author gives the exact length...

A second shield from 300 AD was found on another archeological dig. It is square and about 3 feet 3 inches. But shield from 300 AD is also wider and wraps further around the soldier holding it.

Apparently, no shields have been found for the period between 300 BC and 300 AD. However, the leather case for a shield from about 100 BC suggest that the shield carried in that case was somewhere in between the 300 BC and the 300 AD, but closer to the 300 BC type.

What I have not found is an adequate description of the the shield was handled. It seems that the shield had one horizontal grip right in the middle. But, just one horizontal grip, with no point of leverage, for such a large shield seems too awkward. A soldier holding a shield like that would have no control over it. An opponent pushing the top or bottom of the shield would make the shield swing back and forth wildly and live the poor roman soldier hopelessly exposed. Maybe the shield most have had some leather straps through which the soldier stuck his arm or wrist, and (maybe these leather straps rot away and were never found in the archeological digs).

Any of you know of a source that has actually conducted some research as to how the shield was wielded in battle?

[teh1337tim]

i a under th e impression from one of the good youtube videos on spear tactics used in the ancient world that someone posted in another thread.

You would balance the shield with your leg, basically your greaves and your leg will help keep it from going down. I am not a real expert on this stuff, but I know for sure, theres something calleda boss in shields which balances out the scrutum.


I can really explain it, but look at pictures of a Scrutum or any other shield. There will be a big round thing near the center, basically you hold that on the other side and the shield will be balanced.

[Lanceari]

I have been doing some more research on the Scutum. I found this great article on ancient shields. I encourage anyone interested in this subject to look at it.

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_shield.html

The article includes a picture of a real Scutum from the 2nd century BC. It is much narrower and curved than I ever imagine they would be. Again, I encourage you all to look at it.

I had heard that Roman soldiers used their swords on the right hand side because the shield would not allow them to retrieve them on the other side. Only upon seeing the picture how narrow and "curved" is the Scutum in the picture shown in this article did I realize how constrictive the Scutum could be.

I was particularly interested on the authors description of how the Roman Scutum was used in battle. According to the author, and I quote:

" ...the legionary would often rest his scutum on the ground and fight from behind it while crouched. This would lower his center of gravity, making it harder for him to be pushed back or knocked off-balance, and would also allow for more of his body to be protected by the shield... It should be stressed that this technique would result in a rather static position, and Roman tactics tended to rely on moving forward, so the soldier might have advanced with subsequent short charges whenever possible, and it is certain that, when called for, he would have held his shield in front of himself and continued to press forward."

This has huge implications for RTW/EB. The Roman soldiers were carrying a portable wall which they would actually place in the ground in front of them and thereafter fight from behind this wall. This is a truly static possiton. Much more static than the phalanx or any other formation from the period. More important, for EB, if this article is right, legionaries should have a lower attack ratings but a higher shield ratings.

Another section of this article deals with the charge, and I quote again:

"During the charge, the legionary would hold his shield in front of himself so that the force of the impact would, hopefully, knock his opponent to the ground. In this way, the scutum could serve as an offensive weapon by battering the enemy with the central boss and by hacking at him with the metal-bound edge."

If this author is right, the legionary should have a very high charge value, a very high defense shield value, but a very low attack value once the charge was over.

As a martial artist familiar with the way people behave in combat, I find this article very very convincing. It is by far the best explanation I have heard of how Romans might have used their Scutums.

The author points out that modern scholars do not realize how important this shield was in shaping the Roman Army and contributing to its success. After reading his interpretation of how the shield was most likely used, I must agree. If the author is correct about the way Romans used their shield, the Roman Scutum caused a truly monumental change in fighting techniques. It was not just a bigger shield, but a moving wall to be rested on the ground in front of you. This calls for a completely different set of fighting techniques and allows for whole range of new tactical options.

In fact, it also allows for a new understanding of the triple axes formation. First of all, if each soldier was carrying his own little section of a moving wall, then each maniple in the hastati line could charge the enemy, do as much damage as possible, and then "build" a small fortress leaving gaps in between each separate little fort in which the velites could move around.

After this initial stage, if the enemies tried to surround one of the Hastati forts, the principes in the second line could use their powerful charge to press the enemy against the little fort built by the Hastati Maniple up front. The enemy would be squeezed between a rock and a hard place. However, if the charge failed, the pricipeps would proceed to build their own little fort, and wait for the triariis to stabilize the line, the old fashion way.

Now, this has the ingredients of a true revolution in military thought. Something completely different from the fighting techniques of greeks and other ancient people.

I think more research on this area is worth it. I would also encourage the EB team to consider, and maybe playtest a version of EB where legionaries have a very high charge value, a very high shield value, and much lower attack values. It might make for a very different, and potentially very interesting experience.

[DaciaJC]

An insightful theory, but are there no references in classical texts referring to the scutum and its applications?

[antisocialmunky]

I think the primary secondary source for Imperial Era tactics is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Re_Militari by Vegetius. As far as I know, the Chinese used shields of similar size to set up defensice positions that their halberd infantry fall back to and for their massed crossbowmen to fire from. Or that's how its interpreted in movies anyways :-p.

There is also modern riot police shield tactics if experimental archeology is your thing.

[Geticus]

Roman military histories, e.g. Livy, Appian, Sallust, Caesar, Velleius Paterculus, Tacitus, Ammianus Marcellinus who wrote in Latin as well as the Hellenic historians such as Dionysios of Halikarnassos, Dio Cassius, Plutarch tend to reflect the concerns of wealthy men of letters and as such they usually do not convey much insight into the tactics and physical mechanics of combat. Homer is the peerless source for that, but unfortunately he only described the late Bronze. But off the top of my head I can recall two historical incidents that were archetypal as to the use of the scutum as a striking weapon.
One is the famous dual between Titus Manlius Torquatus and the Gallic champion in the mid 4th century BCE. Livy records that Torquatus struck the huge Gallic champion with his shield and knocked him off his feet and slew him with a sword strike (to the vitals IIRC). Torquatus' victory in this single combat terminated the battle. Torquatus was incidentally one of the great masters of Roman military discipline during the Republican era, so his exploits inspired Romans for centuries.
At the turn of the 1st century BCE Gaius Marius was famous as the master of military discipline and the most physically capable soldier of his generation, and during his campaign against the Teutons and Ambrones he instructed his soldiers to strike with their shields and destabilize the Teutons that way. Basically, press of shields was fairly common in ancient warfare, both Roman and Hellenic, and the upwards shieldstrike or block followed by a gladius thrust to the vitals was a fairly common Roman tactic.

[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]

An insightful theory, but are there no references in classical texts referring to the scutum and its applications?

There might just be... I vaguely remember some readings consistent with this author's theory... but at the time I read those I was not paying particular attention to the use of the Scutum. I will review my books and let you all know...

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.

...I absolutely agree we must do some more research here. Please note I raised that flag in my initial quote. As I mentioned in my last post, I will further research this, and share with you anything I find. I would also appreciate reading anything any of you may find.

On the other hand, I also want to underline two points:

(1) There is surprisingly little stuff available on how the scutum was used. The article I cite may have (and probably does have) a lot of conjecture. However, it is also a conjecture to assume that the shield was used just like any other shield... which is what I, for one, had been doing all along until I read this article. At this point, I just realize I really don't know, and, I am willing to question the commonly accepted conjecture that the Scutum was used the same way as other shields.

(2) The size, shape, and handle of the Scutum are very odd. It would be very very awkward to use the Scutum the way the Hoplon was used. It might be that the Scutum was not used the way this author suggests. Maybe it was used in a completely different way I can't imagine. But, my gut feeling is that the Scutum was not used the same way as the Hoplon. If you want to use a shield the way you use a Hoplon, why not use a Hoplon in the first place? For that purpose, the Hoplon is a lot better.

Again, I just think we should be willing to challenge the assumption that the scutum was used in the same manner as other shields. After all, didn't someone once challenged the assumption the earth was flat?

[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.

[Geticus]

When you say that soldiers crouch, I somewhat agree, but I think that crouching too much can also be an energy drain, so I personally think that the crouch was not too pronounced.

When you cite a height of 5 foot 4 inches, I wonder what the author's basis was. I could counter cite Vegetius who enumerated the list of traits belonging to the ideal soldier, among them was that he be tall and long fingered. He also advocated that the best recruits came from the northern imperial provinces, so this may reflect the barbarization of the Roman military. However Vegetius did aim to renew the ancient values and system that made the Roman legions great. So whose skeletons was your figure of 5'4" based on? One thing is for sure, the Roman legionaries developed exceptional, battle-winning powers of endurance through Roman military discipline.

Epi you propose that the separate echelons of the so-called Camillan and Polybian legions might have been armed differently. I should say in advance that my specialty is Classical martial psychology and moral ideology, so I claim no primary expertise in Roman weaponry and arms. That said, I know no primary literary evidence that supports or refutes your idea. They might have been different. It is certain that the hastati were the young Romans in the blossom of youth, whereas the Principes were men of full maturity and strength. I tend to think of the hastati as psychologically less resolute, with somewhat weaker morale than the principes. Thus I see the hastati in some way as the "lighter" infantry out of the two. In general my sense is that during the mid Republic, when the Romans were wary of war with the other Latin cities who fought exactly the same as the Romans did, and also often fought the Samnites who fielded high quality infantry armies, the Romans sought to conquer through endurance by fighting in successive waves of all age groups, and the principes in this system represented the core strength of the Roman army, seasoned by greater mental maturity and still yet in their physical prime. So if one group used heavier shields and arms, I would lean towards the principes being the more heavily armed and the hastati using the lighter shields.

When one discusses Roman legionaries I think it is good if one has read a fair amount of the primary source material on their military drill and endurance. Marius' mules were famous for carrying great loads without complaining. A Roman legion could dismantle a fort, march 10-20 miles, then dig a ditch and pile up a mound and palisade and lay out and establish a new fort in one day, all the while being prepared for battle. Caesar's legions built a bridge over the Rhine, then burned it behind them, only to build another bridge to recross back west when they left Germania. Caesar's legions likewise built siegeworks of such magnitude, piling mounds and constructing siege shelters so rapidly that one of the Belgae factions surrendered when they saw the speed of the siegeworks, avowing that the gods were on the side of the Romans to enable them to do works of such magnitude. Again Caesars siegeworks at Alesia, and the circumvallation and contravallation race between the Caesarians and Pompeians at Dyrrhacchium all demonstrate the tireless quality of well drilled Roman legionaries. In the histories there are many more examples, the drills of Scipio Aemilianus in Africa and Spain against the Numantians come to mind.

I think a pertinent question is, is it possible for a man to sustain a 20-22 pound weight with one hand for consecutive hours. I think it is for a man of exceptional endurance and forearm strength. Myself I work in the carpentry business and the heavier worm drive saws that are common in the western US weigh around 14 or 15 lbs. East coast carpenters commonly complain of their weight and won't use them. But experienced framers who use them every day swear by them, and they can carry them continuously like an extension of their arm, to the point that one might even forget that one is carrying it. Stronger framers can straight arm them out in front of themselves or at an angle above their head. And those are just framers. They are not training for life and death conflict. I think with sufficient drill and cultural pressure men could have been mass drilled into a physical state where they could hang a scutum from their left hand for hours, occasionally raising them to deflect a powerstrike like the celtic overhand. Afterall, when the bolder men in the front ranks of the enemy are worn out through repeated strikes, unsteady nerves and the press of shields, a Roman front liner only needed to kill a certain number before the more cowardly enemies would start to lose morale and waver.

Would a legionary find reason to rest the shield on the ground sometimes in combat? It seems reasonable to me. I could imagine them resting them on the ground and maybe bracing them with their foot or knee during a press of shields. But when the javelins were flying the Romans raised their shields to ward them off. And the gladius thrust to the enemies' vitals was sometimes performed under a raised shield. Also remember shield bashing, the Romans bashed their opponents, even knocking them down. Titus Manlius Torquatus is remembered as shield bashing a Gallic champion off his feet during a famous dual that took place c. 350 BCE. That took a lot of strength and it was obviously not performed with a grounded shield.

I like your concept of grounded shields and it may well have some basis in fact but I think you are underestimating the strength and endurance of the Roman soldier. The Romans were very clear in their history, they conquered the world with superior manhood, so IMO average concepts of human endurance do not count for much when evaluating the physical conditioning of well drilled Roman soldiers when on campaign.

[gamerdude873]

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)

[Lanceari]

... When you cite a height of 5 foot 4 inches, I wonder what the author's basis was. I could counter cite Vegetius who enumerated the list of traits belonging to the ideal soldier, among them was that he be tall and long fingered. He also advocated that the best recruits came from the northern imperial provinces, so this may reflect the barbarization of the Roman military. However Vegetius did aim to renew the ancient values and system that made the Roman legions great. So whose skeletons was your figure of 5'4" based on? One thing is for sure, the Roman legionaries developed exceptional, battle-winning powers of endurance through Roman military discipline.

I appreciate you press us to check on our sources. I mentioned earlier, i cited from page 8, Cesar's Legion: The epic saga of Julius Cesar's elite 10th legion and the armies of Rome, by Stephen Dando-Collins. Dando-Collins main source seems to be Cesar's Memoirs. He cites them all the time, and in Appendix G of his book he explains that for this particular section of the book he relied heavily on Cesar's Memoirs. He does cite plenty other sources, and I cannot be absolutely sure where he got the exact number from. However, it does seem to be a well researched book, and I have no sources contradicting this number.

Your correctly state that, during Vegetius time, soldiers from the "northern imperial provinces" were much taller. However, during most of the period covered in EB, and particularly during the Polybian Era, these provinces were not under Roman Control.

We know shields changed from the Polybian to the Imperial Era. There are archeological findings of Camillian/Polybian Era Shield and an Imperial Era Shield. The earlier shield was oval and longer. The later shield from 2d century B.C. was shorter and square. Vegetius is describing an Army that had already made a transition from the old oval/longer shield to the newer square/shorter shield. Not only they had a different shield, but they also had a different sword. By 4th century B.C. the Roman Army had dropped the gladius and adopted a longer sword.

I am the first to grant we have limited data to work on. But what this limited data seems to tell us is the following: During the polybian and early marian times we had very short men wearing very long oval shields and very short swords. Six hundred year later, when Vegetius writes, we have bigger men from the northern imperial provinces using a shorter square shield and a longer sword. But these instances are 600 years apart.

Unfortunately, popular media always presents roman soldiers wearing the imperial shield. This is not historically accurate. To make maters worse, the shield commonly presented in the movies, is not even an accurate representation of the imperial shield. There is one imperial shield recovered by archeologists and dating back to 2nd century BC. This shield is longer, narrower and more curved than the shields commonly popularized by the media. See pictures here:

Imperial Shield
http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_shield.html

And, for a picture of a replica of the Polybian Shield
http://www.swan.ac.uk/grst/student%2...p%20shield.htm

...I found some excerpts describing actual man to man combat. They are by no means a manual in shield techniques, but they give us a better sense of how these men fought. I will copy them in my next post.

[Lanceari]

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.

[antisocialmunky]

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.

[gamerdude873]

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:

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:

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?

[Geticus]

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.

[Lanceari]

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.

[Geticus]

Well I am interested in your concepts though I think point three is overly radical in that Republican legionaries wore a greave on the left leg and the greave defends the front, not the side, so why invest all that money in greaves if you fight facing right? Since shield bashes were used and since Romans sometimes countered a overhand slash by raising the shield to block and thrusting beneath it to the vitals, I think your thesis would have to account for those motions, i.e. you run the risk of overgeneralizing if you state that shields were as a rule grounded.

As far as how tight the sheild walls were, I lack primary source material on it at hand. I think Vegetius is one place to look since he spoke about the "murata ferrea" or iron wall formed by the legions. I read it long ago so I don't recall any precise points but it is a very key source for this kind of thing.

I strongly agree with your point #4.

I recommend Caesar's Bellum Gallicum, Bellum Civile, and pseudo-caesar's Bellum Africanum which has very good descriptions of Caesar's army doing a long defensive retreating march while surrounded by Numidian skirmisher cavalry and pelted on all sides by javelins, Roman shields had everything to do with their survival during that march.

Vegetius and Velleius Paterculus as well as Sallust on the Jugurthine war and of course Livy are all very relevant to Republican era warfare.

[Vasiliyi]

Just read this entire thread, and Im impressed with its depth. Excellent work to those who qouted and sited their sources. Hope theres more.

[Lanceari]

Well I am interested in your concepts though I think point three is overly radical in that Republican legionaries wore a greave on the left leg and the greave defends the front, not the side, so why invest all that money in greaves if you fight facing right? Since shield bashes were used and since Romans sometimes countered a overhand slash by raising the shield to block and thrusting beneath it to the vitals, I think your thesis would have to account for those motions, i.e. you run the risk of overgeneralizing if you state that shields were as a rule grounded.

As far as how tight the sheild walls were, I lack primary source material on it at hand. I think Vegetius is one place to look since he spoke about the "murata ferrea" or iron wall formed by the legions. I read it long ago so I don't recall any precise points but it is a very key source for this kind of thing.

I strongly agree with your point #4.

I recommend Caesar's Bellum Gallicum, Bellum Civile, and pseudo-caesar's Bellum Africanum which has very good descriptions of Caesar's army doing a long defensive retreating march while surrounded by Numidian skirmisher cavalry and pelted on all sides by javelins, Roman shields had everything to do with their survival during that march.

Vegetius and Velleius Paterculus as well as Sallust on the Jugurthine war and of course Livy are all very relevant to Republican era warfare.

Your point about the greaves is quite important, and well taken.

In Karate we have two important side fighting stands. One of the them is called Kiba Dachi, in which your feet are sideways, as suggested in your comment above. But there is another side stand called Kokutsu Dachi. (Dachi = Stand). In the Kokutsu stand, your front foot is facing your opponent, while your hips, shoulder and rear foot are sideways. Furthermore, in the Kokutsu stand, you hold your head and chest a bit back, so three quarters of your weight fall on your rear foot. This Kokutsu stand is similar to the fencing position, except for the fact that you hold your head and shoulders a bit further back.

Most grown ups feel uncomfortable when they first learn the Kokutsu position. But, after a while you start feeling comfortable with it.

I believe Roman Soldiers adopted a position similar to the Kokutsu stand when making their shield walls. The Kokutusu position would allow the soldier to anchor the shield on his left shoulder and left knee or floor. I will develop this further on an entry I am already preparing...

The Kokutsu stand is also a great position from which to launch an overhead strike. In fact, there is a particular variation of the Kokutsu stand called Okinawan Kokutsu in which your right hand is up, as if ready to execute an overhead strike with a gladius. If you have a whole troop of men standing in Kokutsu, statistically speaking, you will find many overhead strikes. This of course is consistent with the anecdotal evidence cited above. Again, more on this later...

Geticus comments also helped me realize something I had been trying to figure out for a while. Geticus points out Legionaries used greaves on their left foot. The odd and interesting thing about this fact is that they only used greaves on their left foot, but not on their right foot. Other soldiers in ancient time wore greaves on both feet. Romans did not. Why? But, of course! If the rear foot was held sideways (as described for the Kokutsu), the greave for the right foot would be useless, as noted by Geticus! Furthermore, in the Kokutsu stand, your right foot is so far back it would be quite safe form being hit. So the Kokutsu stand explains both the fact that they wore greaves on the left foot, and the fact they did not wear greaves on the right foot.

I will try to get the book suggested above, Bellum Gallicum.

As far as the attacks on the genitals... I would like to find accounts of battles where these attacks were executed, hoping I may notice something that explains how they were holding and pushing their shileds. The Scutum is very long; which means leverage can build up from one extreme to the other. Used properly, you can use that leverage very effectively against your opponent. Lose control, and your opponent will use your shield against you. Tackling with a shield four feet long must have been an art; brute force alone would not suffice.

I was saving this for my post on the ergonomics of the shield, but, at the risk of getting ahead of myself, consider the following: Lets say a soldier adopts a Kokutsu stand, and braces his shield with his left shoulder and left knee (or ground), pulling through the center handle towards him to lock the shield. As the roman soldier adopts this position, his shield will lean back towards him it at an angle of as little as 15 degrees or as much as 45 degrees (depending on how much the soldier bends his rear/right knee). If an opponent is foolish enough to bash his shield against a roman scutum held in this manner, two things will happen: First, the opponent's shield will flatten against the shield of the roman soldier, angling away from the opponent's head and exposing his face and neck. Second, the opponent himself will be off balance, as his feet cannot advance as far forward as his center of gravity. This brakes the strength of his tackle, and, furthermore, makes it more difficult for him to parry an overhead strike. An opponent bashing his shield against a roman scutum held this way will quickly find a gladius in his face or neck. If I am correct, a scutum wielded in this manner would turn against the opponent his own attempt to tackle you (think of judo or aikido).

[antisocialmunky]

Yes this much is true, they used it in a bracing position like that with the shield raised from the ground. That way, the shield transfers the impact to the arm, upper body, and then the legs into the ground. If you rest your shield on the ground, then you risk that the shield falls into you because it gets caught on the ground and then you domino into the guys behind you

You can also maneuver your sword more effectively.