Big Shields

[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.