Militia vs Trained

[Kraxis]

Shields are not easy to penetrate, of course not, that is why they were used (and still are by the police). I hope I didn't give the impression that they were. Shields worked! Period.

But that doesn't mean that they were able to withstand everything or even a whole lot. Shields were broken, penetrated and generally lost in battles often enough, and they were then replace afterwards. If they protected a man for a single battle, then it did it's job as it should. Afterwards the man could get a new one.

The shields used against the Parthians seems to have been the lighter imperial version, or a step in that direction. They were a bit smaller (cut-off ends) and two layers of wood rather than three.
If subjected to continual archery it seems to me that at some point an arrow would hit a junction of the strips (the shields were made of little strips glued together) on both layers. That would make a penetrative hit possible if not likely. And of course there were always weakspots and little flaws and weaknesses in the wood ect ect... I'm not surprised that the Romans would experience arrows going through their shields in cases where arrows rained on them for hours. But interestingly it isn't a feature the Romans seem to fear much later on, and I haev to personally assume it wasn't anything that happened regularly, or when it did, it wasn't dangerous to the man behind the shield.

[Carl]

Shields are not easy to penetrate, of course not, that is why they were used (and still are by the police). I hope I didn't give the impression that they were. Shields worked! Period.

No you didn't I just had an overly high opinion of Roman Shields. I was under the impression they where a lot stronger than that. In effect I thought only things like Muskets and Lances, (i.e. the medieval stuff that would have gone through plate like it was cheesecake), would be able to penetrate it on a regular basis.

But that doesn't mean that they were able to withstand everything or even a whole lot. Shields were broken, penetrated and generally lost in battles often enough, and they were then replace afterwards. If they protected a man for a single battle, then it did it's job as it should. Afterwards the man could get a new one.

True enough.

The shields used against the Parthians seems to have been the lighter imperial version, or a step in that direction. They were a bit smaller (cut-off ends) and two layers of wood rather than three.
If subjected to continual archery it seems to me that at some point an arrow would hit a junction of the strips (the shields were made of little strips glued together) on both layers. That would make a penetrative hit possible if not likely. And of course there were always weakspots and little flaws and weaknesses in the wood ect ect... I'm not surprised that the Romans would experience arrows going through their shields in cases where arrows rained on them for hours. But interestingly it isn't a feature the Romans seem to fear much later on, and I haev to personally assume it wasn't anything that happened regularly, or when it did, it wasn't dangerous to the man behind the shield.

That explains my overestimation of roman shields, I thought they where wood backing with a metal front, rather than pure wood. I would expect such a shield to be proof against most things since it would likely be Plate Armour or better in terms of protection. Hence my overestimation .

[Kraxis]

Ah good...

That explains my overestimation of roman shields, I thought they where wood backing with a metal front, rather than pure wood. I would expect such a shield to be proof against most things since it would likely be Plate Armour or better in terms of protection. Hence my overestimation .

There were metal and strengthenings (not always metal).
For instance the edge could have iron or bronze (though not regularly), and the shield could have fairly big 'L's on the corners (about 3/4th out towards the corner) made of metal. They would be really good at protecting the user against cleaving cuts that might destroy the shield entirely. But a facing of metal would be too heavy. The scutum was already fairly heavy due to it's size. And the only other shield that had a similar size with a metal facing was the aspis/hoplon in Greece. But to keep weight down it was decidedly thin, and not worth much as protection, it is generally assumed it was put on to give the shield a sheen and to protect it against the elements.

A shield wasn't really that tough, but what it could do that armour couldn't do as well, was absorb and deflect attacks. The shield could bend with the enemy weapon, or the user could deflect the attack so it would glance off the shield, rather than let the shield soak up the power of the weapon. In the case of te pikes that wasn't really an option. If you tried to absorb the pike just kept going and eventually impaled you, and deflecting would be hard (but possible), but then there was an entire new rank of points to contend with. And the guys behind them would have been 'bored' until then and would converge their points on you very fast. Hence you would have trouble staying in one piece.
So you can say that te pikes just defeated the shields rather than bullied their way through them. But if you happened to put power against power, the shield would buckle before the pike would... Ouch for the legionary.

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.

And the militia of towns were particularly less included in similar rolls? No, what peasants did, the townsfolk did, and often more.
But actually peasants were free of military service, you think of the free Greeks and other citizen soldiers. Peasants were far from citizens, they were nearly serfs.

The feudal system in it's most basic form is that Peasants provide the work and money, and the nobility provide the protection. I think it is something like 'The nobility has a right to work (as a good), while peasants have a right to protection.'
Were you a free peasant (landowner rather than one who 'rented' the land from a lord) you would have to serve, but they declined rapidly in numbers, and were all but non-existant in several countries, such as France.

So the unit Peasants, are in fact men that are the poorest and most unwilling men to serve. They have in fact been denied their part of the treaty they signed with their lord. They would likely never have served in any army before and their lords did their best to keep weapons away from them (unlawful for them to have certain weapons if any). If and when peasants served with no equipment to speak of, they were there to provide mass and somebody the enemy could tire themselves on. They were not there to kill trained and professional Sergeants.
Cities being the king's own domain (he litterally owned the cities), provided the king directly with troops, militia. So whenever the king went to war, so did militia. Cities were required to have arms and armour for a certain amount of troops, and each citizen was supposed to train for some time each year. So whileve not really great most of the time, militia forces were not to be scoffed at.