+- 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: Varying curves in some scutums? (/showthread.php?tid=23966)
Varying curves in some scutums? - imGladii - 06-14-2014
I know it's pretty obvious that most scutum recreations have a very strong curve but I have seen some with less of a curve. My question is, Is it acceptable to have less of a curve? I am making scutum and I'm partial to having slightly less curved shield.
Varying curves in some scutums? - AMELIANVS - 06-14-2014
Nobody answered you yet?Strange.
But from my perspective of someone who is not a real reenactor:it deepends on what you mean with "slightly" less curved shield.It must be curved for sure because it was curved for some reason and not just for fun.But I guess various reenactors/groups naturally have it in fact in slightly different proportions from one another quite normally.
Varying curves in some scutums? - Crispvs - 06-14-2014
I think that the truth is that no-one knows. The only complete curved shield to have survived (from Dura) had been badly crushed and then contracted into quite a tight curvature after excavation, meaning that it is next to impossible to really know what the depth of its original curvature was.
Sorry if that doesn't help you much.
Crispvs
Varying curves in some scutums? - Mark Hygate - 06-15-2014
Quote:Nobody answered you yet?Strange..............
Hmmm, I responded yesterday and I'm sure I saw my post - where has it gone.......
Varying curves in some scutums? - AMELIANVS - 06-15-2014
Censorship gone mad :lol:
Varying curves in some scutums? - PhilusEstilius - 06-15-2014
As Crispvs has mentioned the Dura shield cannot be used to give a correct idea of a curve but then there is the other aspect of a shield that I think should also be considered and that is its height.
The Dura shows a height that might have been used as a bench mark for re-enactors but when we look at many monuments the scutum at times looks to be much shorter so instead of this idea of around 40 inches could they have been only around 36 inch.
Varying curves in some scutums? - Renatus - 06-15-2014
Quote:As Crispvs has mentioned the Dura shield cannot be used to give a correct idea of a curveI don't think he went as far as that but he certainly pointed out the difficulty created by the condition of the shield when found, as shown in this photograph:
[attachment=10159]Durashield.jpg[/attachment]
Others may disagree but I am inclined to think that the section just below the central rectangle may give a reasonable indication of the original curvature.
Varying curves in some scutums? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 06-15-2014
There is also the Egyptian republican type Scutum, again warped out of shape, but still, showing there was a deep enought curve to them.
Varying curves in some scutums? - Mark Hygate - 06-15-2014
Quote:As Crispvs has mentioned the Dura shield cannot be used to give a correct idea of a curve but then there is the other aspect of a shield that I think should also be considered and that is its height.
The Dura shows a height that might have been used as a bench mark for re-enactors but when we look at many monuments the scutum at times looks to be much shorter so instead of this idea of around 40 inches could they have been only around 36 inch.
I believe I'm right in understanding that there has been a long held school of thought that monumental shield evidence is likely under-sized so that the rest of the man-figure shows adequately.
For my part, given that we have so little evidence and also do not know how much wood shrinkage has occurred (and indeed the actual provenance of the Dura shield), I am minded to note that we only otherwise have Polybius' detail that the height should be 4ft and the width 2.5ft.
It was with that latter information that I wrote yesterday - and will now recap - that I would suggest a really good approximation of the wood shrinkage across the width (and use a 4ft height) that would result in a, perhaps, 31"-33" flat width and then a curvature so that the resulting chord is now 30". This would result in a reasonable, but not excessive curve of the given width.
Similarly I would have thought the 'auxiliary' flat shields would then be of the flat oval type (in the main) of 4ft x 3ft (and hexagonal variations still fitting those dimensions. It seems the sensible size.
Varying curves in some scutums? - LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS - 06-15-2014
Dont help too much, but some shields are visible in Trajan Column showing their curvature:
![[Image: 028_scutum_015.jpg]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Mji0NoVoPG0/UMSfdt2uZMI/AAAAAAAAAFI/xAoot74U1io/s1600/028_scutum_015.jpg)
Or Adamklisi:
![[Image: manicanew.jpg]](http://www.romanarmy.net/images/Pages/articles/manicanew.jpg)
Varying curves in some scutums? - Nathan Ross - 06-15-2014
I think one of the best depictions of the shield curvature (and the classic 'fighting stance') is this one from the Mainz column bases:
![[Image: kaestrich_pedestals_a5_fight_lm.JPG]](http://www.livius.org/a/germany/mainz/kaestrich_pedestals_a5_fight_lm.JPG)
Quite a deep curve on the shield held up by the legionary in the rear.
The stance of the main figure here, as with the Adamklissi figures, seems to show that with the shield held tight against the left side the curvature should cover the body to more or less mid chest, and the same at the back.
The curve also allows the soldier to strike with the sword around the right edge of the shield without having to move the shield too much or stretch his arm out too far.
A flatter shield would make it much more difficult to fight in this stance, suggesting that auxiliaries - and later troops using flat or dished ovals - fought in a different way to legionaries of the principiate.
Varying curves in some scutums? - PhilusEstilius - 06-16-2014
I would ask if the statement of Polybius on the 4 ft X 2.5 is in relation to a Repulican style for if we then take off 6 inches top and bottom to create our scutum we then finish up with 3 ft in height.
For if we take the Roman foot as being 11.5 inches thereabouts then that is one very long shield indeed at 4 ft ie a republican style covering chin to shin as a republican would have done.
Varying curves in some scutums? - Mark Hygate - 06-17-2014
Quote:I would ask if the statement of Polybius on the 4 ft X 2.5 is in relation to a Repulican style for if we then take off 6 inches top and bottom to create our scutum we then finish up with 3 ft in height.
For if we take the Roman foot as being 11.5 inches thereabouts then that is one very long shield indeed at 4 ft ie a republican style covering chin to shin as a republican would have done.
Oh indeed the Polybian reference has to relate to the Republican period...
But why, necessarily, would there have been a change in height? Arms and Armour otherwise don't change, and neither does, it seems, the method of fighting - so why change the shield dimensions? Now, if the shield becomes 'more robust' in construction and therefore practicably too heavy, then I could understand a compromise being made and the height being adjusted to match, but relatively minimally as the coverage is very beneficial.
I feel that there is a significant disadvantage to having the shield too curved - in that it would invite a weakness in the 'wall' by channeling strikes. That said, if the Romans did (whilst I have argued against it when a 'wall/phalanx' is desirable) actually fight hand-to-hand with swords in a more open style, then a significant curve (because it's only protecting the individual) could be useful. Either way I would still expect the chord across the curve to be 2.5ft (or 11.65").
Given that the oval shields were flat, I know I'm relatively comfortable with the idea that the scutum is not 'that' curved. And yes, to cover the point, the troops armed with the flatter shields would be using spears/hasta or longer swords/spatha.
Varying curves in some scutums? - PhilusEstilius - 06-17-2014
Mark.
Here is a picture of a republican shield that after time was cut down to create the rectangular type scutum we know of in Imperial times, this then allowed the shield to be stood on the ground with it having two flat ends and made it much more easy to handle.
Therefore if we remove around 6 inches off both ends we may be looking at a shield of say around 36-38 inches in height from a republican of around four Roman feet.
[attachment=10174]wp07fa44f7_05_061_2014-06-17.jpg[/attachment]
Varying curves in some scutums? - Mark Hygate - 06-17-2014
Thanks Phil. Yes, quite aware of that shield picture - I have it myself.
Where, however, is the attested statement that 'it was cut down in a later period'?
I note also that Polybius' statement has the shield made of 2 layers of wood, that one is made from 3. In addition to detailing that the shield is 4ft x 2.5ft, Polybius details the iron rims top and bottom, specifically to be able to rest it on the ground. This latter would only really be possible if the bottom (and therefore perhaps the top also) are straight edges.
More, I have seen the Fayum shield then happily shown in figures and on models - but does it really accord with Polybius description?
Additionally I had forgotten the 'particular' when suggesting the depth of the curve - that it should be "a palm's width in depth". That's not that curved really.
The Polybius' scutum may not be similar, or synonymous, with the Fayum shield - all those pictures and models could be wrong! It may already be 'rectangular', it may possibly have curved sides as some I have seen.
I will note, as I am aware others have postulated in the past, that all the monumental evidence is art - and an enormous shield would cover most other details, so was it depicted full size?
I would certainly like to challenge the idea that the 4ft x 2.5ft shield got a lot smaller for no particular reason...... :wink: As per the OP - curved to the 'depth of a palm' would be my recommendation. [The Dura shield actually only requires 3" lopped of top and bottom anyway of a 4ft shield]
Noting that earlier Greek hoplite shields could be 3ft diameter (as also Polybius' parma for the light infantry velites) and even made of metal - a 7 sq ft metal shield is perhaps not dissimilar in weight to a more covering 10 sq ft (less if curved edges) wooden shield.
Would a soldier actually choose to have a shield that is less covering? If it did, why did it become smaller?