Big Shields

[Lanceari]

So I am going to join the others in saying that you are getting a bit carried away by your enthusiasm. I've enjoyed reading your arguments, though, and who knows: you may be right. But I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

O.K. I got a bit carried away with greaves...

Still, how could a soldier wield a 4 feet long scutum in battle using only a small horizontal handle in the middle? How can this soldier hold it? How would he stop the enemy from pushing the top of the hill and breaking his nose with his own shield?

If I was a Gaul facing a roman soldier, and the roman soldier was holding the scutum in the manner shown in movies and history channel...

Well, I would just kick the top of the shield, and break his nose. However, if you don't feel comfortable with kicks, you could slam your shield against the top of the Roman scutum, and the unbraced scutum would collapse on the bearer's face.

But, why even bother... In the movies and documentaries the scutum is held high and vertical. It offers no protection to the front foot. Hoplites could afford to do that because they had a long spear to keep the opponent at a distance. But the gladius was too short for that. If Romans held the scutum the way currently shown in movies and documentaries, a Gaul holding a spear, would simply stab the Roman's front/left foot. (Notice the stances I propose offer a way to block such downward strike).

At least, I hope you will grant me Romans did not want the enemy to break their noses or stab their feet... if you don't mind getting carried away with me just a little a bit.

Don't get me wrong, I find your skepticism helps me work harder at my point. I just wish you all would be equally skeptic about the standard image so often presented of how roman's fought. I agree my theory is short of supporting data, but the standard image has even less going for it. In fact, it has so many holes in it, a full pack of whales would have no problem getting through.

[antisocialmunky]

You use your left shoulder and your left leg to brace it while holding it with an overhand grip. You should talk to some reenactors.

[Geticus]

I think the reality might have been variable, with extreme defensive/othismos push of shields tactics entailing something like what Epi proposes, a defensive stance within a pretty tight formation, with the right foot held back and turned 70 or so degrees away from the direction of the left, shoulders and/or knees as well as left forearm bracing the scutum. But one must also leave room for aggression, Roman soldiers campaigned under severe discipline and they were oathbound to obey the imperial commanders under power of life and death. So one year you campaign under say Fabius Maximus Cunctator who was famous for defensive caution, years later others campaign under Scipio Africanus who was capable of Caesar-like blitzes. Soldiers take after their commanders. Pompeius' legionaries fought defensive in tight ranks, Caesar who was famed for his celerity spread out and charged, and Marius' legionaries used the shieldboss as a blunt weapon. Also Romans were capable of well protected defensive retreats like the Caesarians in Africa vs. the Numidian light cavalry horde, so in that case they marched and at the same time faced their shields against the enemy on all sides, levelling pila against them whenever they came to close, all the while marching. But in general when a Roman charged they charged forwards, not facing away from or perpendicular to their opponent. So a variable stance seems credible to me, depending on the fluctuation between defensive and aggressive fighting, the morale, lethality, defensive ability, and endurance of their opponents, as well as any needs for marching and movement. Opponents who were pilum fodder were often charged and mowed down in droves like the Tencteri and Usipetes during Caesar's Gallic campaign, there was little need for an extreme defensive stance when the opponent routed so easily, but firmer opponents like Hannibal's men were probably opposed with much more cautious and guarded impetus.

[Lanceari]

I agree with antisocialmunky Roman soldiers must have braced top and bottom. I am proposing techniques to do this. I also think these techniques have some implications for EB. First, a side fighting stance calls for a tighter formation. Second, if the shield is wielded as suggested in my chart, the shield protects the entire body from a front attack, which in turn calls for a higher shield rating (higher than the Hoplon). Third, maybe we should reduce the attack strength...

I agree with Geticus the techniques I have described only show how Roman soldiers would stand while "holding the line". In particular, I agree with with Geticus the stances and techniques I described do not allow for the charge. In Monday's post I included a note explaining I am still working on the charge. I said back then:


V THE CHARGE, RUNNING WITH SHIELD, TACKLE WITH SHIELD

I am now working on the charge. I need to do a bit more research before I am ready to post on this subject.

To figure out how roman soldiers used the shield during the charge, we first have to figure out how romans carried their shield while running. I am looking for contemporary art (friezes, statutes, etc. showing legionaries running) I have found only one. If any of you have any useful source, I would appreciate you share it with me.

After we figure out how Roman soldiers carried their shield while running, then we have to figure out the techniques (shield and body movements) they used to transition from a "run" to a "tackle". Again, I am working on this.

[Ludens]

In my humble opinion, Epi's enthusiasm is much more welcome here than, say, this example of rabid passion. I am enjoying reading both sides of the argument.

No argument here. I just want to point out you should be careful with such speculation. It's easy to get carried away by new ideas, even (or especially) when there is not that much information available.

Don't get me wrong, I find your skepticism helps me work harder at my point. I just wish you all would be equally skeptic about the standard image so often presented of how roman's fought. I agree my theory is short of supporting data, but the standard image has even less going for it. In fact, it has so many holes in it, a full pack of whales would have no problem getting through.

Scepticism is good. But I am still not convinced that the traditional representation of the legionaries fighting stance is an impractical as you think. I shall have to leave the discussion to more knowledgeable members, though.

[Lanceari]

The Argive Grip is the best grip if you intend to use the Scutum as suggested by the traditional representation. That's why modern riot police shields use the Argive grip. That is also why hoplons used the Argive grip.

The Roman's were familiar with the Argive grip. Triarii shields used the Argive grip. Still, Romans chose not to use the Argive grip in their scutums.

This begs the question: if the Argive grip was the best suited for the traditional representation, and, if the Romans were familiar with the Argive grip, why would they drop the Argive grip in favor of the horizontal handle?

Their choice of handle indicates Romans did not mean to use the shield as depicted in the traditional representation. It might have been used in such a manner under exceptional circumstances, but, it was not meant to be used that way.

[Geticus]

I can chime in a bit on the horizontal handle. One should bear in mind the wars that the Romans fought during the 5th, 4th and 3rd century BCE often came down to gruelling infantry slugfests.

During this era the Romans fought wars every single year with limited means and their supremacy was attained by a system of three wave infantry attack, the so-called triple echelon system. Unlike during the Pax Augusta, during the Camillan era the entire citizen population was militarized. All Roman men were likely subjects of the draft. Virtually all would fight in the legion, and the excellence of the Romans was based first and foremost on superior endurance. The Romans won war through superior total endurance of the entire male population combined, the young (hastati), principes (middle aged), and the triarii (old able bodied veterans). So the intent of the Camillan triple echelon is for the hastati and especially the principes to withstand, exhaust and if possible route the opponents via superior defense and endurance, and failing that, for the triarii to make one decisive charge and push and break the enemy line decisively.

So the design of the scutum is based on this era, the struggles with the Aequi, Volsci, other Latin cities, Sabines, Samnites, Etruscans and Gauls to create the supreme, most durable and steady infantry lines in all Italy. The scutum design reflects this. It is intended to offer the greatest protection against massed javelin showers, spears, and swords, for the least energetic drain so as to maximize the combat endurance of the legionaries. Therefore the handle has the position that the left hand takes naturally when hanging at ease, i.e. horizontal. It is designed basically for maximum protection for least exhaustion. It is less aggressive than the Hellenic aspis which was used as a blunt weapon during phalanx othismos. The scutum in contrast is intended for huge protective benefits while minimizing loss of endurance. It is meant to be held for hours if need be, in the most comfortable and natural position to help the hastati/principes ward off the total impetus of the enemy until they become exhausted, without the Romans becoming exhausted themselves. So that's basically it, natural hand position with the arm eased as much as was practical in battle, to enable the endurance of the legionaries to outlast the enemy until they became exhausted, morale collapsed and they broke.

Basically the Romans won more through superior endurance, while the Hellenes won through superior aggression and forward pressure, hence the difference in shield design.

[antisocialmunky]

You can still punch people in the face. It takes abit to stop 22 pounds even if its not bieng too fast.