Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 116

Thread: Big Shields

  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antisocialmunky View Post
    Yes this much is true, they used it in a bracing position like that with the shield raised from the ground. That way, the shield transfers the impact to the arm, upper body, and then the legs into the ground. If you rest your shield on the ground, then you risk that the shield falls into you because it gets caught on the ground and then you domino into the guys behind you

    You can also maneuver your sword more effectively.
    If a soldier rested the shield on the ground, he would have to brace the top of the shield with his shoulder to avoid the problem Antisocialmunky describes.

    The scutum was very long. The handle was in the middle and horizontal. Therefore, it had to be braced on the top and bottom at all times. If the user does not brace it properly, the leverage of the shield will turn against him.

    Some prior post here proposed comparing the scutum to the riot police shield.

    You can find a picture of a riot police shield, with handle, here:

    http://www.armynavyshop.com/prods/rc1992.html

    The handle is the determining factor here. The riot police shield is held like a hoplon. You slip your arm through a strap and grab the vertical handle on the other side. You keep your left elbow bent at 90 degrees, your arm in a horizontal position in front of you. The riot police shield is held like a hoplon and it is wielded like a hoplon. The riot police shield is in fact a rectangular hoplon.

    You can see the handle of a scutum recovered from an archeological dig here:

    http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_shield.html

    The handle is horizontal. Furthermore, the handle is in the middle of the shield, unlike the handle for a riot police shield. The scutum could not be wielded like a riot police shield, because the handle forced you to grab the shield in a different way.
    Last edited by Ludens; 08-28-2009 at 20:09. Reason: merging posts.

  2. #62
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: The sideways stand.

    That is nothing unique, tall vertical shields tended to have a single grip. Thureos had horizontal grips as well. They are designed that way because you're fighting sideways to a certain extend and can brace the shield using your shoulder and the opposite leg.

    As far as I know, the celts and later hellens weren't prone to do the fortress defense or adapt their equipment in that way.

    The aspis and riot shields have the argive grip because hoplites and riot police stand shoulder to shoulder in formation and need the shield infront of them as opposed to the side. Seldom do mobs actually charge into the riot police so they don't have to brace. Hoplites didn't brace, the formation was extremely dense and pushy so they didn't need to sideways brace. So I will withdraw my claim about riot police = legionaires. It jsut looks alot like it since use similar formations.

    Would be nice if the Rome member of EB could chime in.
    Last edited by antisocialmunky; 08-28-2009 at 18:45.
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

  3. #63
    Arrogant Ashigaru Moderator Ludens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    9,064
    Blog Entries
    1

    Lightbulb Re: Big Shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Epi View Post
    Geticus comments also helped me realize something I had been trying to figure out for a while. Geticus points out Legionaries used greaves on their left foot. The odd and interesting thing about this fact is that they only used greaves on their left foot, but not on their right foot. Other soldiers in ancient time wore greaves on both feet.
    I doubt we have enough evidence to state this categorically, but I'd be to interested to see your source. EB gave most heavy Hellenistic units double greaves, but for example the Pezhetairoi make due with a single. This also makes perfect sense from their combat stance (which is similar to that of Greek hoplite figurines): the left leg leads so is in more need of protection.

    Incidentally, please use the edit-button rather than double posting.
    Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!

  4. #64

    Default Re: Big Shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludens View Post
    I doubt we have enough evidence to state this categorically, but I'd be to interested to see your source. EB gave most heavy Hellenistic units double greaves, but for example the Pezhetairoi make due with a single. This also makes perfect sense from their combat stance (which is similar to that of Greek hoplite figurines): the left leg leads so is in more need of protection.

    Incidentally, please use the edit-button rather than double posting.
    I have to check this, but I believe I got this from Adrian Goldworthy's The Complete Roman Army... it has many illustrations and excerpts on roman equipment. But, again, I have to check.

    In any event, please note the point I am trying to make is that the scutum had to be braced at the top and bottom. Given the ergonomics of the shield, I then propose that Romans soldiers used a side stand as described above, which in turn has huge implications regarding their fighting style, spacing within a formation, etc.
    Last edited by Lanceari; 08-28-2009 at 22:19. Reason: Add more stuff

  5. #65
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: Big Shields

    Its a fair assessment but you have yet to give much evidence that it was used outside of a defensive bracing formation, not after combat is joined.
    Last edited by antisocialmunky; 08-29-2009 at 00:21.
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

  6. #66
    master of the wierd people Member Ibrahim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Who cares
    Posts
    6,195

    Default Re: Big Shields

    a very interesting discussion-makes me realize the bayonet drills of the 18th century are easier to figure out

    but ASM and others raise a point: how do you use the shield offensively?
    Last edited by Ibrahim; 08-29-2009 at 04:08.
    I was once alive, but then a girl came and took out my ticker.

    my 4 year old modding project--nearing completion: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=219506 (if you wanna help, join me).

    tired of ridiculous trouble with walking animations? then you need my brand newmotion capture for the common man!

    "We have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if we put the belonging to, in the I don't know what, all gas lines will explode " -alBernameg

  7. #67

    Default Re: Big Shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibrahim View Post
    a very interesting discussion-makes me realize the bayonet drills of the 18th century are easier to figure out

    but ASM and others raise a point: how do you use the shield offensively?

    The shield becomes an offensive weapon when it is used to strike the enemy.
    Not to kill the enemy, but also make him lose his balance, open the guard, do indeed fall to the ground.
    Certainly the shield can kill an enemy on the ground launched downward cutting.
    In general, heavy shield can unbalance the enemy and being pushed hard against an enemy with significant effects.
    The enemy retreats succumbing to the advance of the ranks behind him.
    More ... heavy shield increases the total mass of the individual, and more mass means more powerful sword and greater stability.

    The offensive drive of shield has always been very neglected in the total war mechanics.
    Proud Roman General




  8. #68
    Arrogant Ashigaru Moderator Ludens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    9,064
    Blog Entries
    1

    Lightbulb Re: Big Shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Epi View Post
    I have to check this, but I believe I got this from Adrian Goldworthy's The Complete Roman Army... it has many illustrations and excerpts on roman equipment. But, again, I have to check.
    I meant your claim that non-Roman soldiers either wore no greaves or greaves on both legs. IIRC there is evidence that Roman legionaries often used a single greave, but we haven't got anywhere near as detailed information on the equipment of other nations.
    Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!

  9. #69
    Strategos Autokrator Member Vasiliyi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    839

    Default Re: Big Shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Aulus Caecina Severus View Post
    The shield becomes an offensive weapon when it is used to strike the enemy.
    Not to kill the enemy, but also make him lose his balance, open the guard, do indeed fall to the ground.
    Certainly the shield can kill an enemy on the ground launched downward cutting.
    In general, heavy shield can unbalance the enemy and being pushed hard against an enemy with significant effects.
    The enemy retreats succumbing to the advance of the ranks behind him.
    More ... heavy shield increases the total mass of the individual, and more mass means more powerful sword and greater stability.

    The offensive drive of shield has always been very neglected in the total war mechanics.
    Yah, i saw that in HBO rome and i wasnt sure. Was it really used like that?

    4x
    1x

  10. #70
    Member Member mountaingoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Atlantis
    Posts
    461

    Default Re: Big Shields

    lol u mean the gladiator fight scene?

    no doubt that shoving the shield into an opponent at the right time will open them up and stun , which gives time to then thrust the blade and return the shield back to starting position.

  11. #71

    Default Re: Big Shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Vasiliyi View Post
    Yah, i saw that in HBO rome and i wasnt sure. Was it really used like that?

    yes because any object thrown from the top down can kill a person falled to the ground.. especially a shield with iron edges which is some kg weighty.
    Big shield is more weighty than many other fatal items.

    In my mind the rtw/m2tw mechanics does not use so well the shield during melee.
    Proud Roman General




  12. #72
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: Big Shields

    It would certainly make legionaires better. I don't think it counts the shield boss into the attack rating. It would be nice if Watchman chimed in on this. But given that other units also hade shields that could be used as a battering ram to my knowledge have no attack bonus for shield bashing, I don't think it does.
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

  13. #73

    Default Re: Big Shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludens View Post
    I doubt we have enough evidence to state this categorically, but I'd be to interested to see your source. EB gave most heavy Hellenistic units double greaves, but for example the Pezhetairoi make due with a single. This also makes perfect sense from their combat stance (which is similar to that of Greek hoplite figurines): the left leg leads so is in more need of protection.

    Incidentally, please use the edit-button rather than double posting.
    Adrian Goldworthy explicitly tells us at least some Roman soldiers wore greaves on the left foot only. Page 30 of The Complete Roman Army. There are also pictures of friezes in different pages of the book that seem to support this statement.
    Last edited by Lanceari; 08-31-2009 at 14:00. Reason: Clarity

  14. #74
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: Big Shields

    Again... That wasn't the question, he was asking about where your sources where for greave wearing of other soldiers was from so the EB team can examine the source for EBII.
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

  15. #75

    Default Greaves

    Quote Originally Posted by antisocialmunky View Post
    Again... That wasn't the question, he was asking about where your sources where for greave wearing of other soldiers was from so the EB team can examine the source for EBII.
    I was not the one making reference to non-roman soldiers.

    I merely explained Roman soldiers did not need a greave on the right foot. My entire post regarded roman soldiers only. Ludens may be confused because at some point I cited part of antisocialmunky's post.

  16. #76

    Default Ergonomics of the Roman Scutum.

    I THE HANDLE

    The information available today indicates the Roman Scutum had a horizontal handle. The Greek Hoplon and some Roman flat shields had a vertical handle. The choice of a vertical or horizontal handle gives us important clues about the manner in which the shield was wielded.

    A vertical handle allows much greater freedom of movement. Imagine you are holding an umbrella. You can move your hand up or down, left or right with great ease. It is most comfortable to hold the umbrella right in front of you, around the height of your chest or diaphragm.

    A best example of a horizontal handle is the handle on a briefcase or suitcase. It is best kept to the side at hip height. But it is very awkward to hold an object around the height of your diaphragm with a horizontal handle because your elbow forces your wrist and hand into a vertical position. Of course you can extend your arm forward, but this is a weak position, which results in poor balance, and very poor leverage.

    Here is a link to a picture of a Roman Scutum recovered in an archeological dig:

    http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_shield.html

    The shield is missing the Metal Boss, which is convenient because we can clearly see the handle. It is a horizontal handle.

    Friezes from Polybian era, show soldiers holding the Scutum low, with the handle around hip height, and off to the side. This of course would be the proper way to carry a big heavy shield with a horizontal handle.

    The horizontal handle made it difficult to raise the shield beyond a certain point. When an attacker executes an overhead strike the attacker extends his arm up above his head and stikes down at a 30 - 45 degree angle depending on how far the attacker extended his arm. Accordingly, an upward block should reach 4 inches over the defender’s head, or 12 inches above the shoulders.

    I am attaching a set of diagrams illustrating how a user would raise a Hoplon or a Scutum in order to execute an upward blow. If you study the illustrations I copy below, and try using a mock roman Scutum, you will find it does not lend itself to make an effective upward block.

    II THE LENGTH OF THE SHIELD, PROBLEMS WITH CARRYING THE SHIELD IN FRONT OF YOU.

    The horizontal handle requires the soldier to keep the shield’s handle around hip height. This is consistent with friezes dating back to Roman era. Furthermore, because the Scutum was so long, carrying it in front of you, at hip level, would block your legs. All illustrations from contemporary art show romans carrying the shield off to the side.

    These limitations were true during the march, and they were equally true during actual combat. Our thesis is that Roman soldiers fought fully sideways to the enemy as described in the charts attached.

    Modern Boxers keep one foot back from the other. However, we must clarify this is not what we mean by fighting sideways. If we look carefully at a boxer’s stand we will notice his hips are facing forward. If a modern boxer were to grab a Roman Scutum in the manner, the scutum would be on his side and would not protect him from the enemy.

    In order to take advantage of a roman Scutum, you have to rotate even further off to the side. The user needs to rotate until his hips are fully sideways to his opponent. Modern fencing and oriental fighting styles incorporate side fighting stances which we believe are similar to those used by Roman soldiers. We believe roman soldiers used fighting stances similar to the stances shown in these pictures:

    http://www.uktc-shotokan.org/stance_kokutsu-dachi.gif

    http://www.uktc-shotokan.org/block_gedan-barai.gif

    The last two charts attached illustrate how a Roman soldier would hold the Scutum while using these stances.



    III THE LENGTH OF THE SHIELD, HOW TO STABILIZE THE SHIELD

    The length of the shield requires its user to anchor the shield at top and bottom. A four feet long shield can build a lot of leverage. If the user only holds the shield through the middle handle, an attacker pressing the top or bottom edge of the shield will overturn the shield. The user of such a long shield had to anchor the top and bottom of the shield.

    We believe Roman soldiers braced the top of the shield with shoulders, and the bottom of the shield with the knee or the floor. We believe Roman soldiers could have braced their shields with shoulder and knee while standing fully sideways to their opponent as shown in the charts attached.



    IV THE ATTACK

    Roman sword strikes were penetrating stabs, not slashes. The soldier could strike from either the forward or backward stance, depending on the proximity of the opponent.

    When executing the attack, the Roman soldier would rotate hips and shoulders, pressing the right hip and shoulder forward, but without moving his feet. This rotation would have a triple effect: First, it displaces the shield to the side making room for the coming strike. Second, it allows the attacker to put the full strength of his rear leg plus the weight of hips and shoulders behind the strike. Third, it moves the right shoulder forward, allowing greater reach. The rotation of hips and shoulders allows simultaneous execution of all these elements (rotating shield, shifting body weight, and increasing striking range). It is a remarkably quick movement that accomplishes all these elements at once. It also allows for a very quick recovery by merely rotating hips and shoulders to their original position.

    This hip and shoulder rotation is standard technique for some oriental fighting styles that practice side fighting stances.



    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.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by Lanceari; 09-01-2009 at 14:52.

  17. #77
    Arrogant Ashigaru Moderator Ludens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    9,064
    Blog Entries
    1

    Lightbulb Re: Big Shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Epi View Post
    I was not the one making reference to non-roman soldiers.

    I merely explained Roman soldiers did not need a greave on the right foot. My entire post regarded roman soldiers only. Ludens may be confused because at some point I cited part of antisocialmunky's post.


    Quote Originally Posted by Epi View Post
    Other soldiers in ancient time wore greaves on both feet. Romans did not. Why? But, of course! If the rear foot was held sideways (as described for the Kokutsu), the greave for the right foot would be useless, as noted by Geticus!
    If soldiers of other nations also used single greaves, it does not indicate a unique fighting style for the Romans.

    But even if they did not, it's probable that they would have used their left (shield-side) leg as leading and the other as trailing: meaning that the right leg was comparatively far away from any enemy weapons. Furthermore, the greave would have made for less bruises when an attacked slammed the shield against the legionaries knee. A single greave makes sense even when not supposing your unique fighting style.

    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.
    Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!

  18. #78
    That's "Chopper" to you, bub. Member DaciaJC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Lower Peninsula, Michigan
    Posts
    652

    Default Re: Big Shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludens View Post

    So I am going to join the others in saying that you are getting a bit carried away by your enthusiasm.
    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.
    + =

    3x for this, this, and this

  19. #79

    Default Big Shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludens View Post


    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.
    Last edited by Lanceari; 09-01-2009 at 23:40.

  20. #80
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: Big Shields

    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.
    Last edited by antisocialmunky; 09-02-2009 at 00:39.
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

  21. #81

    Default Re: Big Shields

    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.
    Last edited by Geticus; 09-02-2009 at 03:06.

  22. #82

    Default Re: Big Shields

    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.

  23. #83
    Arrogant Ashigaru Moderator Ludens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    9,064
    Blog Entries
    1

    Lightbulb Re: Big Shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontline1944 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Epi View Post
    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.
    Looking for a good read? Visit the Library!

  24. #84

    Default The Traditional Representation

    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.

  25. #85

    Default Re: Big Shields

    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.

  26. #86
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: Big Shields

    You can still punch people in the face. It takes abit to stop 22 pounds even if its not bieng too fast.
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

  27. #87
    master of the wierd people Member Ibrahim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Who cares
    Posts
    6,195

    Default Re: Big Shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontline1944 View Post
    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.
    true. I love a well mannered, if even at times overeager disscusison. at least Epi =/= P of thebes
    I was once alive, but then a girl came and took out my ticker.

    my 4 year old modding project--nearing completion: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=219506 (if you wanna help, join me).

    tired of ridiculous trouble with walking animations? then you need my brand newmotion capture for the common man!

    "We have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if we put the belonging to, in the I don't know what, all gas lines will explode " -alBernameg

  28. #88
    Member Member Tuuvi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The wild west
    Posts
    1,418

    Default Re: Big Shields

    Could it be possible that the scutum was held from the bottom up, with the arm forming a right angle at the elbow(like doing bicep curls)? I was imagining what it would be like to use one with a horizontal handle and that seemed to me like the easiest way to hold it. Having your arm in that position would give you a pretty good range of motion, which means you could move your shield around quite a bit. Also your entire forearm would brace the shield, which removes the problem of leverage that Epi described. When in battle or withstanding a charge you could hold the shield next to your body, making the shield easier to hold and therefore reducing fatigue. In that position the shield would be extremely stable, because it would be braced by your entire torso.

    Personally I don't think that holding the shield from the top like Epi described is a very feasible idea. That would put your arm in a very awkward position, making the shied very difficult to use. Like I mentioned earlier all of this is just speculation, I don't have any sources to back up any of these claims.
    Last edited by Tuuvi; 09-03-2009 at 06:42.

  29. #89
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: Big Shields

    Maybe they sometimes use the shield sideways and punched people with the bottom edge.
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

  30. #90
    Member Member Phalanx300's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Amersfoort
    Posts
    743

    Default Re: Big Shields

    Quote Originally Posted by Lignator View Post
    Could it be possible that the scutum was held from the bottom up, with the arm forming a right angle at the elbow(like doing bicep curls)? I was imagining what it would be like to use one with a horizontal handle and that seemed to me like the easiest way to hold it. Having your arm in that position would give you a pretty good range of motion, which means you could move your shield around quite a bit. Also your entire forearm would brace the shield, which removes the problem of leverage that Epi described. When in battle or withstanding a charge you could hold the shield next to your body, making the shield easier to hold and therefore reducing fatigue. In that position the shield would be extremely stable, because it would be braced by your entire torso.

    Personally I don't think that holding the shield from the top like Epi described is a very feasible idea. That would put your arm in a very awkward position, making the shied very difficult to use. Like I mentioned earlier all of this is just speculation, I don't have any sources to back up any of these claims.
    I've also seen a guy with a Celtic shield do the same thing your saying here, and it would make for more efficient shield moving I gues.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO