RomanArmyTalk

Quote:I admit: The helmets are strange!!!! They really looks a little bit like provocator helmets too! But all the rest let me believe that this two persons aren't Gladiators!!!!!! If the helmets would be the closed Provocator helmets like they seem a little, the shields wouldn't match to them because of the different timing position!

The trapezoidal shields definitely mark them as gladiators. The only other group that carried a shield like that was the Samnites and I highly doubt that Samnites ever wore mail, and this relief looks very Roman anyway. The greaves, while not indicating they are gladiators, would be expected were they gladiators. Finally, the helmets seem to be similar to a type I've seen on 1st C. BC gladiatorial reliefs. So, my vote is for gladiators.

I've seen that reference to Samnites using trapezoidal shields before - on an Osprey book about the early Roman armies! (Osprey MAA No.283) However, nowhere in this volume do the authors Nick Secunda and Simon Northwood attempt to justify trapezoidal shields and they give no visual evidence for it either!

If you look at some of the other representations of soldiers in carvings, it's quite clear that the various 'artists' weren't very good at perspective (have a look at some of the Admaklissi carvings, for example). These so-called trapezoidal shields are just artefacts of a poor understanding of perspective - I don't think there is any historical basis for them at all.

One further thing - if the shields were this shape, then there must be some tactical reason for it (such as there was for the 'kite' shields of the Normans, where the justification was in terms of the fact that the mounted soldiers would have had problems with a rectangular shield). I can't see any reason why an infantry soldier would want a shield of this form. It wouldn't save much weight and would have been much more difficult to manufacture.

Caratacus
(Dr. Mike Thomas)

Quote:I've seen that reference to Samnites using trapezoidal shields before - on an Osprey book about the early Roman armies! (Osprey MAA No.283) However, nowhere in this volume do the authors Nick Secunda and Simon Northwood attempt to justify trapezoidal shields and they give no visual evidence for it either!

I'm at work right now, but I'll dig out the sources when I get home and post them. Sekunda wrote an article for the single issue of "Ancient Warrior" magazine which was published about the Samnite wars. In it he goes through all the evidence for Samnite warriors using trapezoidal shields.

Quote:If you look at some of the other representations of soldiers in carvings, it's quite clear that the various 'artists' weren't very good at perspective (have a look at some of the Admaklissi carvings, for example). These so-called trapezoidal shields are just artefacts of a poor understanding of perspective - I don't think there is any historical basis for them at all.

Their shape need not be explained away by any fault on the artist's part. They are clearly trapezoidal, and other trapezoidal shields can be seen being carried by gladiators in 1st C. BC gladiatorial reliefs.

Quote:One further thing - if the shields were this shape, then there must be some tactical reason for it (such as there was for the 'kite' shields of the Normans, where the justification was in terms of the fact that the mounted soldiers would have had problems with a rectangular shield). I can't see any reason why an infantry soldier would want a shield of this form. It wouldn't save much weight and would have been much more difficult to manufacture.

Apparently it was to allow them to run easier without knocking their knees on the side of the shield all the time while still having quite a bit of protection around the torso. And I doubt it would have been any more difficult to manufacture than your regular thureos or scutum.

Quote:I've seen that reference to Samnites using trapezoidal shields before - on an Osprey book about the early Roman armies! (Osprey MAA No.283) However, nowhere in this volume do the authors Nick Secunda and Simon Northwood attempt to justify trapezoidal shields and they give no visual evidence for it either!

If you look at some of the other representations of soldiers in carvings, it's quite clear that the various 'artists' weren't very good at perspective (have a look at some of the Admaklissi carvings, for example). These so-called trapezoidal shields are just artefacts of a poor understanding of perspective - I don't think there is any historical basis for them at all.

One further thing - if the shields were this shape, then there must be some tactical reason for it (such as there was for the 'kite' shields of the Normans, where the justification was in terms of the fact that the mounted soldiers would have had problems with a rectangular shield). I can't see any reason why an infantry soldier would want a shield of this form. It wouldn't save much weight and would have been much more difficult to manufacture.

Caratacus
(Dr. Mike Thomas)

Here is the evidence to back up the use of the trapezoidal shield:

Livy (9.40.2-3) says:

Quote:The form of the shield was thus: the upper part, which protected the breast and shoulders, was broad and level; towards the bottom it grew narrower in order to allow mobility.

Near Talamone (ancient Telamon), miniature arms and armour have been found in a deposit. This deposit included thureoi, ribbed round cavalry shields, spears, swords, etc. Included in the deposit was a shield which fit this description exactly. Sekunda very convincingly argues that these were votive items which were collected before the impending Gallic invasion and buried, only to be forgotten.

Here's the Telamon shield:


And here's an votive Athena figure carrying a similar shield:
http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/i ... mnite3.jpg

See page 35 in the Osprey "Early Roman Armies" to see these, and look at page 36 to see a relief showing this shield in use by gladiators c. 50 BC.

Also, page 170 of Warfare in the Classic World shows a carving of the Battle of Arausio. A soldier on the far left of the carving is using a trapezoidal shield, slightly curved at the top and narrow at the bottom, almost rounded. The others are too obscured to really show.

In the same book, page 152 shows the Glanum Monument in France. The figure on the far right has a similar shield, but a bit more rounded overall, almost resembling a Normal kite shield.

I split this topic off from the original thread, since it has really developed into a distinct (but very interesting!) topic...

I stand corrected on this - I haven't read through Sekunda's book for a good while. I checked on it last night and he does, indeed, give his sources for the trapezoidal shape for the shield. One of these is a passage by Livy in his "Roman Histories" (it's in Book 39, Chapter 4 for those interested).

I do have a problem with this. Livy was writing about 300 years after the events he describes here. I wonder what his sources were? They can hardly have been eye-witness accounts (unless they were accounts that he had that have since been lost to us). Alternatively, he may have used the tomb paintings, e.g. those from Paestum, near Naples. This, of courtse, brings us straight back to how these items were represented in two dimensions!

So far as a trapezoidal shiled being more difficult (or not) to make is concerned - it surely depends on how the shields were manufactured. If they were made of wicker, then there probably wouldn't be any difference but if they were made on the laminated principal (like that found at Fayum, in Egypt) then there would be a great difference in ease of manufacture. A rectangular shield would be made on a jig (I imagine), with two parallel strakes of wood, between which the individual slats would be fitted and glued together, the slats being longer than the space between the strakes, so giving the curve. A trapezoidal shield, however, made in this way, would require every slat to be different in length.

Mike wrote:

Quote:A rectangular shield would be made on a jig (I imagine), with two parallel strakes of wood, between which the individual slats would be fitted and glued together, the slats being longer than the space between the strakes, so giving the curve. A trapezoidal shield, however, made in this way, would require every slat to be different in length.

Not if the shield was manufactured in the traditional fashion and then cut into the trapezoidal shape after gluing.

Quote:Not if the shield was manufactured in the traditional fashion and then cut into the trapezoidal shape after gluing.

Hmmm! I must admit, that did not occur to me! :oops:

So far as I know, there is no evidence for the Samnites making their shields using the 3-ply system that the Fayum shield uses and I was just using this as a 'for instance' method of manufacture. I agree, however, that it would be far quicker to make a 'normal'' shield and then cut off the bits you didn't want. I've got a vague memory of reading somewhere that the Samnite shields were made of wicker, covered in leather (I think it's somewhere in Sallust).

I've still got reservations about this. Livy's description of the two 'armies' of Samnites having shields 'inlaid' with silver and gold sounds a bit far-fetched to me! Maybe decorated with silver and gold leaf but, surely, not inlaid with the precious metals? Sekunda himself says that Livy's information is frequently regarded as being untrustworthy but he then goes on to say that he assumes that it is (quote) 'based on a relatively sound near-contemporary source' (unquote). That's a bit of a dangerous assumption, if you ask me.

For one thing, other illustrations (e.g. that on the cist from Praeneste) show the Samnites as using the dished oval shield - yet Livy says that all the Samnite infantry used the trapezoidal shield (or at least he implies this from the context)! I also have a note in my translation of the Roman Histories, which says that: "these words are not extant MSS of Livy, though some are quoted by later historians". It's not clear from the context just what 'words' the translator is referring to - it may be the whole passage or it may just be a part thereof that refers to the metal of the scabbard and baldric (i.e. gold or silver) and the gold 'embroidery' on the saddle cloths! You begin to see why I am a bit 'iffy' about accepting the trapezoidal shields (which no-one else seems to have used) as being anything other than a poor attempt at trying to represent a curved shield in two dimensions, particularly when there is so much evidence to the contrary as to what they used for a shield pattern.

Connolly dismisses Livy's description entirely (Greece & Rome at War, p.107) and is of the opinion that Livy is describing the gladiators of his own day, who (from known carvings) are carrying an oval scutum with the top cut off. I think that we can also add the wall-paintings from Pæstum, near Naples, which clearly show Samnite warriors (that have been dated to the 4th century BC - to which Livy's description supposedly refers) carrying large, oval scuta.

Quote:So far as I know, there is no evidence for the Samnites making their shields using the 3-ply system that the Fayum shield uses and I was just using this as a 'for instance' method of manufacture.

read:
Eichberg, Michael: Scutum. Die Entwicklung einer italisch-etruskischen Schildform von den Anfängen bis zur Zeit Caesars. Frankfurt/M., Bern, New York, Paris, 1987. Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe 38: Archäologie Band 14

In Italy this construction method dates back at least to the 7th century BC, and has been used all over Italy.

Thanks for the reminder. I've got this reference somewhere, I know. I'll have to dig it out and get the Wife to translate it for me (which is probably why I wasn't aware of it immediately!)

Caratacus (Mike Thomas)

Quote:Here's the Telamon shield:


And here's an votive Athena figure carrying a similar shield:
http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/i ... mnite3.jpg

Does this imagine belong to a samnite gladiator or to a samnite warrior? I have never found a picture of samnite warrior with trapezoidal shield...

Quote:Connolly dismisses Livy's description entirely (Greece & Rome at War, p.107) and is of the opinion that Livy is describing the gladiators of his own day, who (from known carvings) are carrying an oval scutum with the top cut off. I think that we can also add the wall-paintings from Pæstum, near Naples, which clearly show Samnite warriors (that have been dated to the 4th century BC - to which Livy's description supposedly refers) carrying large, oval scuta.

Even Salmon said the same thing, I've seen a lot of paintings and other things but NEVER a trapezoidal shield...only clipeus and oval...

Quote:Even Salmon said the same thing, I've seen a lot of paintings and other things but NEVER a trapezoidal shield...only clipeus and oval...

The miniature votive shield above from Telamon dates to the 3rd c. BC.

Quote:

Quintus Galerius:4xjv7pwi Wrote:Even Salmon said the same thing, I've seen a lot of paintings and other things but NEVER a trapezoidal shield...only clipeus and oval...

The miniature votive shield above from Telamon dates to the 3rd c. BC.

The period is right, the same bellorum contra Samnites, sed why a samnite shiled was buried into the land of Etruria? Do you know where is now that votive shield?