+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Why did the oval shield replace the scutum? (/showthread.php?tid=19790)
Why did the oval shield replace the scutum? - Darth_Roach - 11-07-2011
We know that in the 3rd century AD the square scutum was phased out in favor of an oval shield (clipeus? Or was it bowl shaped). The question is, why? Especially in the case with a bowl shaped shield, which would probably be more difficult to make.
Was this due to the need to use spears more often?
Re: Why was did the oval shield replace the scutum? - Flavivs Aetivs - 11-08-2011
That's a Good Question. Maybe it was cheaper to produce, you didn't have to bend the wood in a flat oval scutum, it was lighter, and it was more maneuverable from what I can tell. I'm gonna go try and find some sources or articles detailing about the change.
Re: Why was did the oval shield replace the scutum? - Darth_Roach - 11-08-2011
Thanks.
As of now I have two theories - one is that the shield was more useful for light operations, e.g. ambushes, raids, scouting, the other that the rounded shape allowed for easier use in phalanx, which was used by the late Roman troops.
Re: Why was did the oval shield replace the scutum? - Nathan Ross - 11-08-2011
It was probably due to a change in tactics. This thread here discusses the potential difficulties in effectively using the longer spatha with the traditional curved rectangular scutum. The traditional fighting style had the legionary holding the shield close to the body, using the short gladius to stab out beyond the rim at close quarters. The change to the oval, and the longer spatha and spear which happened at around the same time, suggests a more open style of fighting, with slashing blows and the enemy kept at a greater distance (more useful against the increasingly mounted enemies of the time, perhaps). The oval shield would allow a freer use of the long sword or spear.
Byron notes in the thread above that he feels exposed when using a flat oval scutum - perhaps the dished oval was developed to try and combine the versatility of the oval shield with the body-protection of the curved rectangle? The soldier could still, in effect, shelter in the hollow of the shield when required.
I wonder also about the comparative weights of these different shields. Armies were increasingly mobile from the late 2nd century on, with vexillations travelling great distances away from home base. Perhaps initially the auxiliary-style oval shield was just lighter to carry on the march? (although this could be falling into the 'lazy late Romans' trope!)
Re: Why was did the oval shield replace the scutum? - Darth_Roach - 11-08-2011
Thanks again.
Seems quite sensible. However, what about the phalanx, which was formed occasionally?
Re: Why was did the oval shield replace the scutum? - caiusbeerquitius - 11-08-2011
Maybe it would make sense to first find out whether the rectangular shield really was as spread, or better, as much used as we think. Apart from iconographical evidence the "real" rectangular shield seems not to be represented as prominent as the oval shields ("republican style" and "oval") among the finds.
Re: Why was did the oval shield replace the scutum? - Robert Vermaat - 11-08-2011
Quote:However, what about the phalanx, which was formed occasionally?'The phalanx' should not be confused with the classical Greek phalanx, but is better described as a single formation with a closed uninterrupted front of several units lined up next to each other, preferably 8 to 16 deep (a phalangial formation) in contrast to a manipular formation. Late Roman formations could be 2 to 4 lines, depending on the number of troops. There are similarities with the classical phalanx, but also big differences - the LR formation looks far more like a shield wall.
Personally I think that the oval (dished) scutum facilitates the use of the hasta, in this case identified as a ling (7-9ft) thrusting spear, which was developed during the 3rd c. against enemy cavalry (after we hear troops complaining about the pilum being too short). The hasta (also named contus) is probably couched under the armpit, allowing very little of the body to be exposed, as seen here performed in 2008 (LRE III):
[attachment=2057]shieldwall.jpg[/attachment]
Re: Why was did the oval shield replace the scutum? - Flavivs Aetivs - 11-08-2011
I don't want to criticize here but the Hasta and Kontos are two different spears - the Kontos emerged in the Late 5th century as a rougly 8-12 foot cavalry spear if I'm correct. You're the expert though.
Also I think he means shieldwall, and I thought the pila was replaced by the spicula and then the Hasta and lancaea/veruta javelins replaced that.
And the Hasta was not developed in the 3rd Century AD it had been around for years because the Auxilia used it during the principate era and the Pre-Marian Army did as well.
The complete Roman Army - Adrian Goldsworthy
Roman Warfare - Adrian Goldsworthy
Rome and Her Enemies - Osprey Publishing
Re: Why was did the oval shield replace the scutum? - Sean Manning - 11-08-2011
Quote: 'The phalanx' should not be confused with the classical Greek phalanx, but is better described as a single formation with a closed uninterrupted front of several units lined up next to each other, preferably 8 to 16 deep (a phalangial formation) in contrast to a manipular formation. Late Roman formations could be 2 to 4 lines, depending on the number of troops. There are similarities with the classical phalanx, but also big differences - the LR formation looks far more like a shield wall.How is that different from the Greek and barbarian phalanxes describes by, for example, Xenophon? There seems to be this widespread assumption that Greek phalanxes were fundamentally different from everyone else's, but I haven't seen a lot of evidence (except the details which are different because of different types of spear and shield and body armour and level of drill).
After experimenting with large (80-100 cm diameter), round, flat, centergrip shields Hammaborg in Germany concluded that they are better adapted for single combat (leading with the edge opposite the hand) than group combat (leading with the flat) and that forming in close formation with shields overlapping was a way to work around this. The old Augustan scutum was very defensive but it had very short reach unless you struck with the bottom edge, leaving your body exposed below the shield.
Re: Why was did the oval shield replace the scutum? - John Conyard - 11-08-2011
I think there is a very limited amount of evidence to base any conclusions on - the Dura examples, bog deposits and the Egyption shield covers in Trier. However the change in shape from rectangular to oval/oval dished and later round dished is also mirrored by a change from laminated to planked, and metal edging to leather edging.
I suspect the shields are getting stronger through time. And it is easier to use the full potential of longer pattern welded swords in big cutting motions using oval and round shields.
The nature of the phalanx is a very big question but I agree with Sean's comments.
Re: Why was did the oval shield replace the scutum? - joeandmich - 11-09-2011
An observation can also be made that a flat oval shield can be used easier on horseback too.
Re: Why was did the oval shield replace the scutum? - Darth_Roach - 11-09-2011
Thanks, Sean (and everyone else).
I just noticed a typo in the thread name... How do I fix it?
Re: Why was did the oval shield replace the scutum? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 11-09-2011
If you created the thread, you should be able to edit the title too.
mile:
Re: Why was did the oval shield replace the scutum? - Paul Elliott - 11-09-2011
I think of all the changes in Roman military equipment over the ages, this one has intrigued me the most, probably because it affects directly my 'period-of-choice', the Third Century.
Re: Why was did the oval shield replace the scutum? - Darth_Roach - 11-09-2011
Either way, I agree with Sean in that the Roman shieldwall was no different from Greek or Germanian or any other shieldwall save for in some rather minor details.