Big Shields

[Lanceari]

I frequently ask myself if big shields should have higher defense values.

At first glance, they seem fine. But chevrons change the story. While playing the campaign map, my missile troops rack up lots of chevrons. I have quite a few horse archers with one or two gold chevrons, and mercenary cretan archers with two and three silver chevrons. It is very easy for archers to accumulate chevrons because they have lower casualty rates.

Large shields were very effective at blocking arrows, regardless of the skill of the archer. And since archers rack up chevrons so quickly... My guess is that the defense value of these shields should be measured, not against the the basic attack value of an archer, but against the attack value of archers with a few chevrons on their belt.

On the other hand, I was very impressed by two books I read recently. One of them, narrates how Caesar marched ahead of his soldiers who were afraid to attack uphill against an opposing Roman Legion (during the civil war). He grabbed a shield from a soldier and marched halfway up the hill. The opposing romans threw a volley of pilums at Caesar. He ducked behind the shield and survived the whole thing. After that, his legion attacked and won the day.

The other book explains that the Roman soldiers were shorter than the average man today (perhaps about 5'4" or 5'6") Yet, the shield was over 4' top to bottom. If that is so, and you further assume that the soldier would tend to crouch behind his shield when approaching his enemy, what you have left sticking out of the shield was probably just the soldiers' helmet. So, these shields were almost like a moving wall the soldiers carried in front of them.

...any thoughts?

[DaciaJC]

This is a somewhat related question: I very vaguely recall reading somewhere that chevrons for missile troops only increase their range and/or accuracy and not their damage, contrary to what may be shown on the unit card? Is this true?

[bobbin]

This is a somewhat related question: I very vaguely recall reading somewhere that chevrons for missile troops only increase their range and/or accuracy and not their damage, contrary to what may be shown on the unit card? Is this true?

For the answer to that question and a lot more you should read the Ludus Magna.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Yes, everyone seems to concur that missile units do not get higher attack with chevrons, but merely accuracy. In any case, there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between fresh archers/slingers and seasoned ones. Whether it is the accuracy or attack, but with missile units, increased accuracy is attack. You ever notice how many missiles do not hit targets? Yeah. Chevroned missile units are priceless. My Rhodian Slingers and Cretan Archers are unstoppable with their silver chevrons.

[Geticus]

Regardless I agree with his basic premise. Roman martial culture advocated the use of shield + body armor, but other strong cultures like early Frankish, old Germanic and Viking all prioritized the shield and mail was rare. The standard panoply of the Viking warrior was shield + helm + spear, and sword if he was well off. And the vikings armed in that way were very effective, winning the field many times against the Frankish knights who were the hardest hitting cavalry in the world at the time. While some of that may be attributed to their skill with spears regardless Viking successes in Asia and Europe as well as the rise of the Goths and Franks towards the tail end of the Roman empire demonstrate that the heavily armored way is not the only viable approach to infantry power.

[Julius Augustus]

Yes, bigger shields undoubtedly deserve a higher defence value. In EB, shields make up a relatively small part of a soldier's defence. A shield defence rating of 4 is kind of ridiculous (To me, maybe the EB team has some reasons?) when you consider that many units have a defence skill of three times that. My guess is that all scutum and aspis shields should get a shield defence of 6, not 4.

[DaciaJC]

For the answer to that question and a lot more you should read the Ludus Magna.

Yes, I took a gander there and didn't find any thread related to something I recall reading here in the EB forums... and I had no desire of meticulously going through every thread in the hopes of answering my query, not with a soccer match a mere twenty minutes away.

But my question was answered nonetheless.

[Azathoth]

Yes, bigger shields undoubtedly deserve a higher defence value. In EB, shields make up a relatively small part of a soldier's defence. A shield defence rating of 4 is kind of ridiculous (To me, maybe the EB team has some reasons?) when you consider that many units have a defence skill of three times that. My guess is that all scutum and aspis shields should get a shield defence of 6, not 4.

Phalangites have 5 shield, and they're almost impervious to missiles. I think the PhalanxMod does give hoplites 6 shield though.

[antisocialmunky]

Never compare phalangite vs missiles to anything else vs missiles. They get a ridiculous frontal bonus. If you guys haven't noticed, missiles are fairly how attack weapons in EB due to the 100% lethality. The average missile attack is 4 for archers and 1.5 for slingers. Big shields average 3-5.

Also shield defense does not get APed in half.

[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?