09-17-2004, 11:30 AM
handle OR forearm straps!<br>
That is a nice issue.<br>
<br>
The handle in "classic" roman scuta was replaced by a forearm strap in Galerius' arch? Maybe the artist didn't know how shields were wielded and simply copied the sterotypes of tradition that showed greek heroes wielding a shield with straps! Maybe the chap in the sculpture is a cavalry man, although on foot. Did cavalry shields have straps? (non-zero risk of dropping shield if horse made any sudden movements...). Anyone?<br>
<br>
Regards infantry: if forearm straps were the best (flexible and effective) solution then it is strange the romans adopted it so late (the straps are systematically shown in most greek and etruscan hoplites in sculptures and paintings). Why did the romans use handles for centuries? Maybe the hoplite shield was too heavy for a simple handle, that had to be ruled out because of this and for no other fundamental reason (was it really better?). Indeed the romans were practical and if they did not use forearm straps for centuries then there must have been a a darn good reason to continue doing so for so long! Did the "classic" legionary (200 BC-200 AD) really carry two pila into battle? IF yes then there must have been an effective way to do so using the handle.<br>
<br>
Regards fore-arm straps helping in shield movements, I actually think that this way of carrying a shield limits movements even more than a central handle grip and probably accenuated the tendency of a left-arm shield carrying man to drift to the right to take cover from his buddy on his right. Infact in a duel a handle is better, in my opinion, for a relatively fast and tight sword fight, of course as long as the shield is not too heavy.<br>
<br>
A very heavy shield, so heavy to need straps, would probably not be useful in an infantry sword fight (Notice that a greek hoplite was not normally expected to fight with a sword. As I understand it the sword was a last resort personal defence weapon not a prime offensive chop-up-the-enemy-line weapon).<br>
<br>
Just thinking <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 9/17/04 1:35 pm<br></i>
That is a nice issue.<br>
<br>
The handle in "classic" roman scuta was replaced by a forearm strap in Galerius' arch? Maybe the artist didn't know how shields were wielded and simply copied the sterotypes of tradition that showed greek heroes wielding a shield with straps! Maybe the chap in the sculpture is a cavalry man, although on foot. Did cavalry shields have straps? (non-zero risk of dropping shield if horse made any sudden movements...). Anyone?<br>
<br>
Regards infantry: if forearm straps were the best (flexible and effective) solution then it is strange the romans adopted it so late (the straps are systematically shown in most greek and etruscan hoplites in sculptures and paintings). Why did the romans use handles for centuries? Maybe the hoplite shield was too heavy for a simple handle, that had to be ruled out because of this and for no other fundamental reason (was it really better?). Indeed the romans were practical and if they did not use forearm straps for centuries then there must have been a a darn good reason to continue doing so for so long! Did the "classic" legionary (200 BC-200 AD) really carry two pila into battle? IF yes then there must have been an effective way to do so using the handle.<br>
<br>
Regards fore-arm straps helping in shield movements, I actually think that this way of carrying a shield limits movements even more than a central handle grip and probably accenuated the tendency of a left-arm shield carrying man to drift to the right to take cover from his buddy on his right. Infact in a duel a handle is better, in my opinion, for a relatively fast and tight sword fight, of course as long as the shield is not too heavy.<br>
<br>
A very heavy shield, so heavy to need straps, would probably not be useful in an infantry sword fight (Notice that a greek hoplite was not normally expected to fight with a sword. As I understand it the sword was a last resort personal defence weapon not a prime offensive chop-up-the-enemy-line weapon).<br>
<br>
Just thinking <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 9/17/04 1:35 pm<br></i>
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
