Militia vs Trained

[BigTex]

One of the main reasons the spear a usually supperior weapon wasnt used by nobles was the fact that it was also a team weapon. A battle was a competition of sorts for nobles, teamwork existed but fighting as a cohesive unit wouldnt work when you out to best the man beside you. So most ditched the spear and went for the sword, mace etc. The sword was also favored for chivalry reasons, it represented a cross. You will notice though that as the medieval period went on, the sword steadily became elongated and slowly became to be like a spear though. By the time of the repier you can no longer slash with it, it is purely for thrusting like a spear.

As for the gladius, thats something of a different beast. It wasnt just the gladius though, it was used with a large skutum the two complimented each other well. It allowed for more flexibility then the pike and spear but the close range weapon also forced it's user to be in a disciplined formation. Imo though the gladius was truly one of the better weapons created throughout history.

[Carl]

2 points spring to mind here:

1. The Romans had those big shields and fought in disciplined formations. the result was that their would have been only 2 places a pike could have been pushed through. Over the top of the shield, but it could bounce of the helmet their if you weren’t careful. The second place was the gap between shields, but it probably wouldn't hit the guy holding the shield at the front and the next man back would have his shield in the way. As a result it would be extremely difficult to actually hurt a Roman Legionnaire in formation with pikes or spears.

2. (Something I picked up from a documentary on Spartacus a couple of years back). The Short Sword used by the Legions WAS NOT the Gladius. That, as the name implies, was used by the Gladiators and by extension Spartacus. The Legions short sword wasn't as wide, although it was a touch longer.

[dopp]

I think as much attention needs to be focused on the pilum as on the penknife the Romans used. It wasn't just something to "even the odds" a little before the serious stabbing part, it was crucial to a successful attack. A well-timed volley would seriously dent the enemy's line, and then it wouldn't really matter what your men were armed with when they rushed through the openings created. As long as it poked the bad guys and they fell down, good enough.

[Siebharrin]

2 points spring to mind here:

1. The Romans had those big shields and fought in disciplined formations. the result was that their would have been only 2 places a pike could have been pushed through. Over the top of the shield, but it could bounce of the helmet their if you weren’t careful. The second place was the gap between shields, but it probably wouldn't hit the guy holding the shield at the front and the next man back would have his shield in the way. As a result it would be extremely difficult to actually hurt a Roman Legionnaire in formation with pikes or spears.

2. (Something I picked up from a documentary on Spartacus a couple of years back). The Short Sword used by the Legions WAS NOT the Gladius. That, as the name implies, was used by the Gladiators and by extension Spartacus. The Legions short sword wasn't as wide, although it was a touch longer.

^^

And by pushing into the enemy formations you'd put any weapon that
needed free space to function (be it axes, polearms, spears, pikes,
two-handers) at a disadvantage. While you could use superior smaller
weapons, training and numbers (in the limited area) to good use.

[Kraxis]

Check my location... I live in Denmark. I believe I would find it fun, but I simply don't think I have the money to pay for the stuff.

I cincerely doubt the Macedonian dropped their pikes at Cynoscephalae. That Polybius, who would have been able to hear about from veterans, doesn't comment on it, and Livy who used several sources doesn't either, places a clear indication that the phalanx was acting as usual. In fact both historians tend to specifically mention when an army does not act as usual, and dropping the pikes would be a rather huge event.

And the surrendering troops were definately from the right, the left flank troops fled and were actively being chased. They woul at best surrender individually, which tended not to be very successful in those days.

Also, while there is indicators that the Macedonian right might have been a larger part of the army, there is no indicators of the phalanx being particularly deep. The two armies were roughtly even in size, but the phalanx put more men in a smaller place. So the Macedonian army would actually be less wide on the battlefield. Since they could match the Romans for length it seems a disproportionate number of Romans chased of the left. Leaving outnumbered troops to fend off a larger section of phalangites.
When struck in the rear the Macedonians were baffled and confused, but had they been using their swords they would be more mobile, it would have been possible for the rear-rankers (NCOs more or less) to order troops to reform, or at least just turn to engage the enemy. That would have led to some heavy fighting for a while, yet it seems the Macedonians were just steamrollered by relatively few troops. With pikes the rear ranks would be slower to reform and would be at odds to what to do... carry on or turn? Their pikes might still be important ahead.
Besides they had pushed the Romans far enough back to have left their dropped pikes 'far' behind (at least outside of reach), so the surrender was definately some they carried themselves. And the practice meant all pikes, that made it clear to the enemy (though not the Romans) that the entire unit was finished. Hence another reson to keep the pikes at hand, to indicate you surrender.

Actually the republican scutum seems to have been a copy of the Samnite shield which in turn, cropped up around the time the Gauls invaded Italy (and sacked Rome). The large oval shield and the curved tower shield were celtic first. Only specialised troops used the smaller buckler-styled square shield, such as slingers and berserker type troops (not berserkers, but you get their way of behaviour). And yes they didn't use swords all of them, a lot of spears. But these were short spears, easily useable inside the phalanx if it came to that.
A longswordsman with a large oval shield would have just as much going for him for breaking in, as a legionary, but being a better swordsman he would have a better chance. Yet they seem not to have had any success, leading to the wraparound.

Besides the centurions didn't order the men to go in small squads, they led their entire unit in. It would be more like: "Ok, form ten ranks and follow me." Making a deeper formation for smaller frontage would lead them to be able to edge into openings. There the Romans would fan out causing their mayhem.

My points of contention are the dropped pikes and the individual infiltration against a formed phalanx. A disordered phalanx would suffer both individual infiltration (where units couldn't go) and unit infiltrations, such as those at Pydna.

[Carl]

Random shield related question I forgot to add yesterday.

How can you visually tell the tougher shield from the weaker one, as all the roman shields I’ve seen seem to share the same basic idea, tall broad and hard to hurt.

I mentioned the Leather on shields just because I’d heard Egyptian Leather shields where better at resisting arrow fire than metal ones and another piece where arrows went through mail easily, but here stop by the padding underneath. (I'll admit the Egyptian bit cam from one of the history bits in AoM so it is somewhat suspect).

Hence I wondered if the leather might have acted to blunt the Pike, making it much less penetrating.

[Comrade Alexeo]

Ah, that's a shame Kraxis. But even just getting the equipment is fun, and really does help you to get a better understanding of ancient warfare IMHO. If you want to know more about some of that, do PM me

But now to our current argument

I have here a book called The Great Battles of Antiquity (Richard A. Gabriel and Donald W. Boose Jr.), and I have a few choice quotes here I'd like to share with you:

"This cumbersome body of men [the phalanx] could hold its ground and slowly advance forward only as long as the ground was level. Even the slightest uneveness of terrain tended to throw the ranks of the phalanx out of alignment. There was an additional tendency for the wings of the phalanx to move outwards from the center as it moved, and to create gaps between the individual syntagmae... as the Romans demonstrated at Pydna, it was possible to insert an infantry maniple into the gaps and hack at the phalanx from within... [as] few of the opposing forces in the Macedonian military experience were capable of exploiting this vulnerability... the gap problem was accepted as part of the normal risk of infantry combat." (pg 328)

"The comparative advantages and disadvantages of Roman infantry and the Macedonian phalanx, as revealed in such battles as Cynoscephalae, were summed up by Polybius... 'In the front nothing can stand up to the sarissa; the individual Roman with his sword can neither slash down nor break through the ten spears that simultaneously press against him. But the Roman legionary is adaptable... [t]he sarissa-bearer can fight only as a member of the entire phalanx and not even in small units... [f]urthermore, the phalanx can move only on very level terrain; every ditch, every hill, every hole, every clump of trees causes it to fall into disorder. But if it has fallen into disorder at any place at all or if Roman maniples should fall upon it from the flank, which can be easily done with the echelon formation of the Romans, then it is lost.'" (pg 332)

Again, on this point we almost seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. I reiterate my stance: the phalanx was extremely tough from the front, but as soon as anything - terrain, fatigue, Roman resistance - caused it to start to break apart, the Romans could easily capitalize on it. Are we agreed on this point?


"Philip ordered his phalanx to form at double depth, shortening his front like a hammer, and instructed his troops to arrange themselves in close-order "shield lock" formation. Then, Philip ordered the phalanx and cavalry to charge straight down the hill into the Roman left wing." (pg 337)

There's the answer to your double-depth query.

"The [Roman] left wing took the full brunt of the Macedonian charge. The open formation of the legion allowed it to flex and bend in the face of the momentum of the phalanx. Resistance slowed the Macedonian charge in much the same manner, Livy notes, as a tree branch bends but does not break before the wind. It was in circumstances like these that Roman training paid huge dividends. Almost as if on command, the legion broke into small groups and sidestepped the charge of the phalanx. As the phalanx tried to pass through the legion, small units of swordsmen fell on its flanks and began to slash it to pieces. Attacked from the flanks, the phalangites could not move their long sarissae to meet the assault, and their spears became entangled. Livy notes that someone gave the order to abandon the spears and fight on with swords."

So actually Livy does mention that the pikes were dropped in favor of swords. Again, the problem of the phalanx is reiterated here: once the momentum is lost, and once there is even the slightest disorder, the Romans could move in and capitalize on it. Your point on the Macedonians putting up more resistance in the rear if they were indeed using swords is valid but does not seem applicable. Remember that the formation of the Macedonians didn't change (as would likely have been almost impossible under the circumstances), only their weaponry. I'll again use the example of Cannae; the Romans could have given better resistance, indeed possibly have broken out, but what happened? Fear happened. The Romans were packed all on top of each other, they don't know what's going on, there is dust everywhere, screams and shouts are echoing... And it seems doubtful in any case that the Macedonians could have given much resistance anyway; as you yourself said earlier, the Romans were vastly better swordsmen than the Macedonians. The twenty maniples that crashed into the rear of the Macedonian right did so going downhill (as the fighting had carried the Macedonians down the slope), which would have added even more impetus to their impact.

Additionally, the surrendering troops probably came from the left, if only because they were still using their pikes. That the left wing crumpled and fled does not necessarily mean that they all fled. It's possible even that the "raised pikes" story is apocryphal, or at least not as meaningful as we might guess; Philip lost 13,000 men dead at Cynoscephalae out of, according to Livy, 23,500 (16,000 of those being phalangites), which was quite shocking to the Greeks, who may have wanted some sort of justification (even if it was surrender, on the argument that killing a man who surrenders is worse than the man surrendering).


You're right that the Roman shield was descended from Celtic ones. So were their helmets. Along with chainmail.

The problem was that, unlike the Romans, the Celts had no organized way of equipping their troops. A rich Celtic warlord might look a lot like a Roman; wearing a very similar helmet, chainmail, and carrying a sword and a shield. But many Celts were simply spearmen, and would be lucky to have any kind of shield, let alone a nice big one (and never mind armor or helmets).

A short spear would not be a good weapon for attacking the inside of a phalanx. A "short" spear is still much too long and unwieldy to be used effectively in such a cramped space. The same problem arises for the barbarian with a sword as well; they were terrifically skilled, there is no question, but to utilize their skill they needed space; their swords were longer, and were designed for cutting, and were thus simply too unwieldy in such a locale, and might even have given the phalangite, with his very small sword, a better chance. The Romans, of course, used the short gladius in a thrusting manner, and so did not have this problem. This sort of "cramping effect" happened at the Battle of Watling Street; the Roman position was at the narrow end of a sort of "V" clearing in the woods, with Boudicca's Britons, who vastly outnumbered the Romans, in the wide end. When Boudicca's warriors, sensing an easy kill, charged forward, they were compressed into the narrow end. The Romans were able to resist the charge, and the barbarians found themselves in too tight a space to effectively use their mighty longswords and large axes. The Romans, on the other hand, were presented with a giant mass of mostly unarmored bodies to stab with the gladius. No headway could be made, and once the Roman cavalry charged in from the woods, the barbarians turned and fled - unluckily, right into their wagon circle, which presented a wall that the Romans were able to push them up against. The result was, of course, a devastating slaughter that totally ended the rebellion.


Carl: for the most part, the Roman scutum was just several variations on a theme; the biggest different between the Imperial and the Polybian scuta are that the former has a flat top and bottom to save weight.

Scuta were covered with linen or leather, and, no, I don't know why there were both (although I can try and search for that). My best guess is that it was just different contractors supplying different things, which is also why there are different kinds of Roman helmets occuring at the same time; again, they were variations on a theme, contractors supplying the state with them and with legionnaires likely just grabbing whatever they could/what they liked when they were being equipped.

Leather would probably add more protection than linen, although the presence of either was not so much a defensive measure as just a way to keep the shield together and prevent splinters. The amount of leather or linen on a scuta would in either case almost certainly not be enough to cause any significant difference in penetration.

[Kraxis]

Yes we agree on the first part.

But I happen to sit with Livy's account right here, and it seems I have been mising a little line that seems confusing at best.

The cavalry and light infantry who had been in action he stationed on his right; the caetrati and the men of the phalanx were ordered to lay aside their spears, the length of which only embarrassed them,

So he does account an order to let the spears drop and to double the lines. And the losses amounted to 13000, but that is killed (which presumably includes the wounded who were likely put out of their miseries) and prisoners, and they amounted to 5000 in all. So 8000 were killed.

However, what Polybius has to say might shed some light on the matter.

Upon this being done, the enemy being now close upon them, orders were sent out to the men of the phalanx to lower their spears and charge,

Lower their spears and charge... Makes sense eh? Meanwhile it can also be misunderstood when you read one language as complex as Greek and write in another (Latin). So it seems Livy simply misunderstood Polybius, for he clearly states later that he used Polybius as his source because he was by far the best when it came to Greek matters.
This one would also seem odd if they didn't use the pikes.

the nature of their [the Macedonians*] arms also giving them a decided advantage on the present occasion

*- Insert by me.
A smaller shield and smaller weapon would not confer any sort of advantage in such a fight. A small shield would be better in an open more personal fight, but where total protection was needed and movement was impossible, such a shield was less than the scutum in effect. And while the enchiridion was a large dagger or small short sword, it was a slashing weapon, not a stabbing weapon (basically it looked like a small kopis/falcata). That would not be terribly great in such a fight anyway.

I think it is clear that Livy have made one of his rather numerous errors (he was a good authority on knowing sources, but apparently a bad translator).

About the left and it being them who raised their pikes.

Most of the Romans followed up these fugitives and continued to put them to the sword

General chase as we know them. Merciless, if not terribly effective. But the fact remains these troops were broken (literally as there was no semblance of formation left), but that it is also likely that they were the ones who made it away from the battle (they fled before contact).

Meanwhile after the right broke, it seems Flaminius stumbled upon a unit of the phalanx who had been somewhere between the left column and the right line. They were formed and on the summit (a position the left only barely reached before being on flying).

When he noticed that the Romans in pursuit of his left wing had already reached the summits, he decided to fly, collecting hastily as many Thracians and Macedonians as he could. Flamininus, pursuing the fugitives and finding when he reached the crest of the ridge that the ranks of the Macedonian left were just attaining the summits, at first halted. 10 The enemy were now holding up their spears, as is the Macedonian custom when they either surrender or go over to the enemy, and on learning the significance of this he kept back his men, thinking to spare the beaten force. But while he was still making up his mind some of the Romans who had advanced further fell on them from above and began to cut them down. Most of them perished, a very few escaping after throwing away their shields.

Take not that the quotes are in chronological order, so the left has already been routed a good time ago, and is being actively chased by the Roman right. Apparently one taxis survived, distanced from the others, or else it was the remains of the right, or possibly even a sort of reserve, many possibilities. It also seems that some of the Roman right turns back and attacks them from behind (how they can attack from above when the unit was at the summit isnot explained) and kills them (clearly they didn't become prisoners). In any case a decidedly odd incident.

Polybius gives Livy his numbers on casualties, 8000 dead and at least 5000 prisoners.

About the short spear. A short spear would be around 5-6 feet, easily turned and used, and spears are fast weapons with good properties of penetration, hence a short spearman could inflict as much damage as swordsman.
A lot has been said about celtic swords, but they had by this time abandoned the blunted sword, and used a sword that did both cut and stab. When such a swordsman got to the phalanx front he wouldn't need to get in and play Roman legionary, he would then be able to hold his distance. At that point on a single point would oppose him, wielded by a guy who could hardly see what was going on, and at this point the other 5-rankers could not turn their point to help halt another file because their own file were in the way of the move. The swordsman would thus be able to stand just outside and chop up the phalangites with wide cuts they could not deflect (unless they dropped the pike naturally) and stabs they could not respond to. But that didn't happen because the Celts failed to get people inside the pikes.

About shields (I'm beginning to sound like one of those ancient historians with those headers ).
The republican shield was roughly shaped as the shield the Hastati, Principes and Triarii have in RTW. Super-eliptic (more or less rectangular with round corners) and curved. And instead of strengtheners (like the 'L's I mentioned before) it had a central vertical spine encompassing the boss. This was apparently for strength as well as decorative functions. The shield with a spine would not be bent back too far and would be more resistant to powerful strikes, but would likely suffer more structural damage in a fight.
And Celts, unless they were skirmishers, tended to use large oval shields. A shield is relative cheap, and can easily be made and replaced compared to arms and armour. Shield and spear was a requirement for most. Armour was a benefit of station and rank.

[Musashi]

By the time of the repier you can no longer slash with it, it is purely for thrusting like a spear.

Bollocks. While there were some rapier models which did not include a sharpened edge, this was a very rare thing, and the majority of rapiers were quite capable cutting instruments. Of course they were much better for a thrust, but you could quite definitely kill an opponent with a slash to the throat.

The thing to keep in mind about the rapier is that it's a duelist's weapon, and developed for use against an unarmored opponent, a situation in which you don't need great weight to achieve an effective cut.

[dopp]

Well duelling weapons aren't even military swords to begin with, but I think he's also referring to heavy cavalry sabres and the like which emphasize the poking part.

My point was merely that spears are better for formations where their reach is utilized, while swords are better for personal combat. I'm not sure how that got translated into spears pwn swords.

[Fisherking]

For those who perhaps don't know it, the English billmen developed from peasant weapons. This is also how the ax and hammer became weapons of war. The hammer (war hammer) was particularly effective as a medieval weapon.

I have a few issues with how some of the units are classed and who has what special abilities though.

I just had a wonderful battle that used all or almost all professional troops. And one I lost using almost all militia troops. In fairness though the militia were a bit out numbered and out classed. I so bled the enemy that I could easily overpower them if I had another strong force in the area though...too bad I don't.

I must say that archers are much more effective in this game than in MTW...about on a par with RTW though, I would suppose. I fought a full stack of English with almost all dismounted knights and swords men with a few knights thrown in, with the Scots.
(sorry no pics) but I had 4 highland archers, 2 merc crossbowmen, 1 merc spear, 2 highland pikes, 2 highlanders, 3 swordsmen, 4 assorted knights and a general. The AI kept feinting a charge to try and get me to commit troops. He had no archers so mine had free range to thin his ranks...all his men were heavy armored and the cross bows did most of the damage but there were a few lucky shots by the archers as well. When his knights tried to get at the archers they found the pikes waiting for them. I circled a couple of my weaker knights to his flank...hidden in the woods. When his infantry did charge they hit the pikes and spear first and the highlanders and swordsmen went into their flanks..then in the general jumble that fallowed I hit them in the flank and rear with the knights... I lost about 300 while he lost more than 1200. Not bad considering the blue/red bar said I was hamburger to start out.

[Kraxis]

Actually whenever the legions faced pikeformations they were in trouble... THe only reason they didn't lose, was because of the lack of support from cavalry, or the pikes having too little flankprotection.

The Romans lost two heavy duty battles against Pyrrhus, and a third that has recently been disputed as a victory, more likely to be a draw (in which the pikes were engaged in woods, hardly the home for them). They then faced pikes at Cynoscephalae, Magnesia and Pydna, where they won. At Cynoscephalae they were lucky, it was a chance encounter that saw half the pikes not deplyed before they were engaged by the more mobile legionaries. The other half was successful and nearly routed their opposing legions, until some of the centurions and tribunes among the victorious right wheeled about and attacked their flank/rear. I think that any force would have blucked under that.
At Pydna the Romans were forced back and back and back across the entire level battlefield. And the Roman commander was scared shitless (he later commented on that). But because the Romans refused to just be rolled over, they were eventually pushed back into broken terrain. Meanwhile the Macedonian cavalry refused to assist their phalangites. So on the borken terrian the pikeformations began to disintegrate, leaving individuals, squads and even entire centuries to take advantage of the gaps. Gaps that should have been closed by Thureophoroi or other infantry like that. Not surprisingly the Macedonian pikes fell apart soon after.

So the victories were never gladius > pike, but sensible army > not sensible army.

Btw, the gladius went through many changes. There is no one gladius. And gladius means sword, and 'gladiator' has taken the name from the armament rather than the other way around. Just like one gladiator was a trirarius, a man with a net and a trident. Trident = trirarius... well about so. And there are other examples.
Also the hoplomachus gladiator proved to be so seriously overpowered initially that his shield was shrunk and his spear made heavier (and longer) so as to give the others a chance. That is the first case of playbalance I have heard of, and it is was in the real world.


Also in this discussion, we should be careful not to bring late infantry into this. Twei-Händers and the like... With platearmour the spear began to lack hittingpower, and was not really dangerous anymore, bludgeoning and power was needed more.
But when both sides were at best protected by mail, then the spear was plenty good. The difference was that good infantry had a sword/mace/axe/whatever to back them up should the spear break (which they do tend to). Imagine your situation then if you have no backup... 'Crap' would be my first thought.
And there are of course situation where spears aren't the best weapons. Imagine them on walls or in cramped hallways. The spearman would be in serious trouble there, unless he had plenty of other spearmen to back him up. It would be like being in formation with a lot of non-combatants, worst of both worlds.

But when I look at various units with swords in the game, they tend to be rich or noble. So I mentally give them a spear as well. Then it fits. DFKs would have spears, but their swordanimation is just a representation of them actually also having proper swords (though it could be argued that Armoured Sergeants would also have swords).

[Kobal2fr]

Also the hoplomachus gladiator proved to be so seriously overpowered initially that his shield was shrunk and his spear made heavier (and longer) so as to give the others a chance. That is the first case of playbalance I have heard of, and it was in the real world.

Haha, I didn't know that. Brilliant trivia . I can imagine the talk on the forums "No you idiot, Sauromatae are not modelled accurately in the colliseum, I don't care what you say !"

Thanks for all your explanations in any case, everyone ! Things are a lot clearer to me now.

[Kraxis]

Well, to be honest you shouldn't take it that literal. I wrote it like that to make a point.
But I doubt the Roman watching the hoplomachus devastate other gladiators felt he was particularly overpowered. He was a man, and as a man he was attributed the victory.

"Ahhh... Yes Decimus pwns every time, he is simply teh roxxors!!!!11111!!!" Rather than any comment on the hoplomachus as a kit.

However over time the Romans refined the gladiator system, made it more streamlined, longer fights (armour not protecting your life, merely protracting the fight) ect ect. Obviously a man with a small shield and longer spear would be more fun to watch than a man who looked much like a hoplite.
It would be more mobile and a lot more gory (lots of small wounds ect, rather than single thrust and that was it).

So it was never a contious effort to balance the gladiators as the strength were believed to lie with the fighters themselves. But in the end the results were the same. The spearmen had been nerfed.

[MadKow]

All free men had the duty of picking up arms and fight when required. They were expected to do so until the age of 60, so I believe, in those days, the average peasant was not a mere weekend warrior.
Even if without the advanced training and equipment of professional soldiers, their mindset was probably not all that of the reluctant, frightened, peasant that wants nothing to do with war.

[rory_20_uk]

Bollocks. While there were some rapier models which did not include a sharpened edge, this was a very rare thing, and the majority of rapiers were quite capable cutting instruments. Of course they were much better for a thrust, but you could quite definitely kill an opponent with a slash to the throat.

The thing to keep in mind about the rapier is that it's a duelist's weapon, and developed for use against an unarmored opponent, a situation in which you don't need great weight to achieve an effective cut.

And the pointwasn't to kill, but to win. Nobles realised that going around with scars and having inflicted them was a lot better than one dying each time. You can get the gals with a heroic scar, but not if you're dead.

[Carl]

Thanks for the info Kraxis. Just done some sums because of what you said. A shield 5 feet high and 3 feet across (what where typical roman shield dimensions anyway as that’s my best guess on them), that was 2mm of steel thick would weight 50 pounds (OUCH). Fairly good reason to not use metal right their ~:p.

Random question, (possibly belongs in the history section), considering that leather was, as I understand it, fairly hard to cut or pierce, (compared to Metal), would a wooden shield with a thick leather covering have done any better?

Indeed would it have been possible (in terms of construction, rather than size), to have produced a better shield than the heavy duty roman one?

[Kraxis]

Most shields actually had a leather covering, but it was soft.

Properly tanned leather was expensive, and is actually pretty heavy too (skin is heavy, thick condensed skin, which tanned leather is, is very heavy). I don't know if tanned leather shields would have been good or bad, but I believe there is a reason such shields were not used. Perhaps they stood up badly for wear and tear, perhaps they were not flexible enough... It could be many things, but if tanned leather had the weight and protection right (and not considering money as there are always people willing to pay), then I'm sure such shields would have been mentioned somewhere. I haven't heard of such shields, but perhaps there are such mentions? In any case I'm not a walking library so I don't know really. I just don't think it was practical.

[Comrade Alexeo]

::the Roman reenactor walks in::

Actually, the Roman scutum is remarkably tough and isn't as obnoxiously heavy as you might guess.

The scutum was basically made from two layers of plywood, one with vertical segments and the other layer with horizontal segments. This is deceptively simple; that sort of "cross-hatching" does not let the shield buckle easily without weighing too much. The shield was rimmed with bronze or occassionally brass, and had an iron boss in the center to protect the hand.

Roman legionnaire tactics actually called for the shield to be used in a sort of punching motion after receiving a blow; this would force the barbarian backwards, exposing his stomach for a quick thrust with the gladius (and often the metal edging would smack the barbarian quite nastily in their nose). This requires a reasonably tough shield; Romans were not stupid, and would have either changed the tactic or the shield rather quickly. They did neither.

That Roman shields could be penetrated by Parthian archer fire does not demonstrate that the Roman scutum was weak but rather testament to the fact that Parthian bows were extremely powerful. Roman shields generally did a superb job of deflecting arrows; there was a reason for adopting the testudo, after all.

And as for fighting phalangites; these were probably the toughest infantry foes that Rome had to cope with, but cope with it Rome nevertheless did. They did this because, of course, they were vastly more flexible than the phalangites were. Terrain and the use of the pilum and their effects on a phalanx's coherency should not be underestimated; the Roman legionnaries could easily hack their way through the jumbled mess of pikes. But what is important to note is that even when phalanxes were orderly, the Romans were still able to exploit this, effectively "pulling a Legolas"; that is to say, they would simply push their way through the forest of spears. There is a critical gap between the tip of the spears of a phalanx and the phalangites themselves, a point where not even the pikes of the further-back ranks reached. Once a legionnaire got past this point, using his relatively greater tactical mobility (later phalanxes were often overweighted with too much armor) and his shield, it was only a matter of time before he began carving up a phalangite, which would leave a gap which could be further exploited, and so on.

The initial coming to grips with the phalanx was the most dangerous part, but once combat had commenced the legionnaires almost inevitably were able to get through the pike wall.

[Kraxis]

Actually the sources are pretty clear in that the legionaries did not get in among the phalangites when the phalanx was ordered. Nor was the pilum of any apparent effective use. It is mentioned specifially to have been remarkably ineffective.
A lot of speculation is around as to why that was so, but generally it is believed thatte forest of pikes broke up the pilums so that only a percentage actually fell head first and thus posed a danger.

If a legionary had gotten in among the phalangites while the formation was ordered the formation would come to halt as they nearby men would have to drop their pikes to deal with him. That in turn would leave more openings, and rather fast, even if they managed to kill said legionary before he could kill anyone (best case scenario). It would be a quickly falling house of cards, yet whenever the Romans faced the pikes head on (ordered), it took hours to finish the battle.

The smallest attested units to have 'infiltrated' the phalanx was actually maniples, led by entrepeneuring centurions who reformed their troops to something more sensible and then edged into the gaps between tactical units. But only after the phalanx had begun to get disordered.
Had individual legionaries been able to infiltrate, the push of the phalanx would have staggered to a halt within half an hour as units tried to form up again, while others didn't want to advance alone. It would be a horrible mess terribly fast.

In any case the legionaries that faced proper pikeformations were not imperial legionaries with the 'lighter' twolayer shield that was actively used in melee. They were the legionaries of the 'Polybian' legion, with a larger curved oval shield, far too heavy to use in punching (I don't know about you but 22 pounds gets heavy pretty fast if you punch with it). The shield was a protable wall for them, and little more, of course it was better than the smaller shield the phalangites carried, but directly using the shield as you said would be near impossible as a doctrine (I suppose individuals now and then used such a move when in dire straits or something).