Why didn't Romans and Greeks place spikes upon their shields?

**Caeser The III** · 12-30-2007, 03:17

i was thinking this for a while.................real life question.any1 ever wonder why the romans,greeks, etc. why didnt they have spikes on the shields. it would cause more injuries ya'know?

**Moosemanmoo** · 12-30-2007, 03:40

Extra weight and expense?

**Caeser The III** · 12-30-2007, 03:45

eh, but still, the wealth of the rome and greece was so high you would think they could afford it

**Omanes Alexandrapolites** · 12-30-2007, 08:20

Thread title changed to be more specific and moved to the Monastery - the more historical orientated peoples may be able to assist you more

**Csargo** · 12-30-2007, 08:26

I assume that it is because of the extra weight added to the shield not to mention the fact that it most likely wouldn't be extremely effective

**Peasant Phill** · 12-30-2007, 10:17

Another question but relevant to the original one:
Were there instances in hystory where men fought in formation with spiked shields? I can't really picture this (although my experience counts for little on this matter)

**Innocentius** · 12-30-2007, 10:33

Originally Posted by ilikethisgame5

i was thinking this for a while.................real life question.any1 ever wonder why the romans,greeks, etc. why didnt they have spikes on the shields. it would cause more injuries ya'know?

There's a reason why no army has ever used spiked shields: it's stupid. It's clumsy, expensive (no, Rome was never that rich), ineffective, dangerous (to the wielder) and generally just extremely ugly.

No, spiked shields remain an invention of Blizzard, and was never used in reality (thankfully).

**Ludens** · 12-30-2007, 16:03

I'd hate to fight in a formation of men armed with spiked shields. If I got caught off-balance and my opponent pushed me back, I'd be impaled on the shield of the fellow behind me.

Also, if my opponent could hook his shield or weapon on the spike he could push my shield away, leaving me exposed.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 12-30-2007, 18:19

The Romans, in particular, were trained to use their shields offensively. As a group, the massed shield push was a fair counter to a spear wall -- and any gaps that opened up were exactly what the gladii boys wanted.

Individually, the shield can be used to shove an opponent, the edge can be used to catch a weapon and push the opponent off balance, and the bottom edge could strike a devastating blow to anyone on the ground -- without the legio needing to bend over during a fight.

**Oaty** · 12-31-2007, 17:36

Another reason is to keep the integrigy of the shield the spike would need to be breaken away easily. If it was renforced heavily not to break away the shield could be cracked in 2 much easier.

If the integruty of the shield was not lost the shield would be too heavy for combat

**Celt Centurion** · 01-01-2008, 18:22

I do believe that Ludens said it best.

In a Greek Phalanx, the ranks literally pressed forward against the front rank's backs. In Steven Pressfield's "Gates of Fire", pages 82 and 83, he writes of a "possible" Spartan Drill called "tree f__king." Is there anyone here who would want a spike driven into his back or up his arse by a comrade?

But don't just read those two pages, enjoy the whole book.

While the Romans had bosses on their shields which would be great to clobber an enemy, they probably shunned spikes for the same reasons as I've described.

So should we.

Strength and Honor

Celt Centurion

**Geoffrey S** · 01-01-2008, 20:36

Most important is having as little as possible which enemy weapons can get caught on; it's meant to deflect enemy attacks, something getting caught would either drag the shield away from the wielder or wrench one's arm in a potentially painful way. Spikes would be a risk to the user more than the enemy.

Similar to the case of horned helmets, really.