11-07-2016, 07:57 PM
The scutum may share the overall shape of shields used by many riot forces but the reality is that they are quite different, namely due to the manner in which they are held. Most riot shields are strapped to the arm, using a method more familiar with an aspis, kite, or heater shield, where as the scutum/thureos was held with a single hand holding a central horizontal grip. This method of holding the shield completely changes the dynamics of how it is used, as strapped shields can not be used offensively in the manner in which scuta can be, which is more dynamic, like a buckler. Strapped on shields are typically held close to the body and used to block strikes and block missiles. Scuta could do that and more, it was more versatile but harder to use defensively because of the tilting aspect of the shield profile.
Next is weaponry. The riot police weapon for shield bearing security personally is typically a baton, wood, metal, lead, bamboo, etc., which deals out damage through blunt force trauma, typically by striking with a slashing blow with enough force to cause said blunt trauma. The Romans employed swords with sharp points and edges, which don't require that much force to cause significant trauma, especially with thrusts, which is what Romans are reputed to prefer over the cut. Based on evidence I've personally gathered on cutting experiments on slaughtered pigs, it takes very little force to pierce the flesh for a stab (even the rib cage), and slashing blows easily cut open major muscles down to the bone with nothing more than a short wrist flick.
After that I'd say the mindset between the Romans and modern riot forces are totally different. Riot police are rarely on the offensive, usually deployed to contain a rioting crowd. Even when they do advance aggressively they don't do it looking to kill their enemy (if they did, they wouldn't use riot shields and batons, they'd use guns). Roman infantry would always have the objective to kill the enemy, usually by conducting offensive maneuvers. Occasionally a Roman century/maniple/cohort might be put into a defensive position to hold ground, deployed in close order using their shields more as a shield wall, but this was not the standard deployment method of the Romans during most of their history because it too limited movement, which swordsman need (per Polybius, Caesar, and the descriptions of fighting by Valerius Maximus, Vegetius, and others).
Next is weaponry. The riot police weapon for shield bearing security personally is typically a baton, wood, metal, lead, bamboo, etc., which deals out damage through blunt force trauma, typically by striking with a slashing blow with enough force to cause said blunt trauma. The Romans employed swords with sharp points and edges, which don't require that much force to cause significant trauma, especially with thrusts, which is what Romans are reputed to prefer over the cut. Based on evidence I've personally gathered on cutting experiments on slaughtered pigs, it takes very little force to pierce the flesh for a stab (even the rib cage), and slashing blows easily cut open major muscles down to the bone with nothing more than a short wrist flick.
After that I'd say the mindset between the Romans and modern riot forces are totally different. Riot police are rarely on the offensive, usually deployed to contain a rioting crowd. Even when they do advance aggressively they don't do it looking to kill their enemy (if they did, they wouldn't use riot shields and batons, they'd use guns). Roman infantry would always have the objective to kill the enemy, usually by conducting offensive maneuvers. Occasionally a Roman century/maniple/cohort might be put into a defensive position to hold ground, deployed in close order using their shields more as a shield wall, but this was not the standard deployment method of the Romans during most of their history because it too limited movement, which swordsman need (per Polybius, Caesar, and the descriptions of fighting by Valerius Maximus, Vegetius, and others).
