08-02-2014, 10:38 PM
[quote][quote="Mark Hygate" post=357837]Good pictures and well explained. The issue for me is that is a nice description of some one-on-one techniques, equally suitable for a 'duel of heroes' or, naturally, gladiatorial combat with those weapon combinations.
What they don't take cognizance of, however, is the presence and effect of the men to the left and right (even potentially behind). We have the examples of the hoplite close-order phalanx and the later shield-walls - and that's why I have remained convinced the Romans mostly fought closely too (as previously argued).
The close-order shield-to-shield style of fighting imposes much more caution (and hence results in the long periods of pushing and shoving) on the parties involved as each soldier is concerned with defending himself and neighbours, whilst seeking the opportunity to strike. It's why I find the large shield and 'shorter' stabbing and slicing sword of the Romans to be such a good and successful combination. [/quote]
Some factors that may or may not influence your opinions on the matter:
- Nearly all of the moves shown would take less than a second or more to execute. So they can be done without facing too much danger from an enemy diagonal to you. Care must be taken, timing must be a factor. But its war, there will always be the threat of being killed or wounded, so anyone too timid to ever try to launch an offensive attack probably shouldn't be standing in the front ranks. Offensive spirit, Virtus tamed by discipline.
- There is no historical consensus that Romes fought in a shield wall like shoving match like the Greek hoplites (which is also highly debated), especially during the Roman Republic/Principate Era. There are many sources that state otherwise. It is a common historical theme that after the initial clash of line infantry, both sides would break apart from one another a short distance and "duel" from about a pace apart, giving them room to attack and withdraw without being stuck in one position. The only other method would to go shield to shield like diagram I. which would soon turn into a bloodbath for both sides. If two sides were shield to shield the entire time, the casualties reported in ancient battles would have been way higher for the winner. Low casualty count means in battle, infantry either weren't actually attacking each other all that much, or they were not doing so effectively. So it means they weren't in contact for hours on end, stabbing and shoving. Shoving probably occurred by I think it wasn't a unit tactic. The Roman scutum wasn't designed for it. If they wanted a shoving shield that still protected well, they could have kept their clipeus.
- Speaking of, Thureos shields are not conducive to pushing and shoving tactics. While they can certainly be used for that if necessary, they are not optimal for it, especially when compared to a flat front aspis-style shield. The umbo in the front of a thureos shield would make shoving against another shield difficult, as it would slide around it, never getting a firm purchase. Also, there is no real good way of pushing with a thureos and remaining well protected. From a "braced position" the right side of the shield (shield bearer's right) is not supported, unless the scutum bearer decided to use his right hand to support the right side of the shield instead of using it to fight. Ultimately this means the shield isn't properly supported at the best of times, thus making pushing with it more difficult. Even a braced shield position is vulnerable on the top and top right from a shield strike or press, that will tilt the shield. Its kind of hard to explain just in writing so I will use this graphic:
[img width=250]https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t1.0-9/10392053_1163559366590_1742257_n.jpg[/img]
Notice the soldier in the middle rank in the closer file. From the position of the camera, you can see that his left knee is in solid contact with the center of the shield bottom, which means the bottom of the shield is braced. The man's left hand firmly grips the shield handle, meaning the center of the shield is braced. The left elbow is shoved outward as much as possible at a 45 degree or so angle, further bracing the shield on its left side. The left shoulder is often then rested against the shield, usually on the upper left side or upper center. However, nothing is supporting the upper right. Or the immediate top. Additionally, unless the shield bearer is moving only by doing a drag step, advancing his left foot forward, and then sliding his right foot up, the bottom of the shield will not always be braced against the knee/shin. So as "braced" as that scutum is, its not completely braced. A short shove would work for sure but two sides pushing against each other? Nope. A hard shield check from a shield bottom or umbo against the shield top with result in the shield smashing into the nose or mouth of the soldier carrying it. Similarly, a hard check or hit against the upper right portion will cause the shield to tilt, exposing the soldier's left lower side, which being the leading side is also closest to the enemy.
Another shot of what I am referring to. Notice the face, which is dangerously close to the upper rim, and the lack of any support to the right side of shield. Anything hard hits the top of that shield and that guy is going to be spitting teeth. (Which might explain the enlarged scalloped cheek guards of the Imperial Gallic helmets, to protect the nose and mouth from being hurt by your own shield edge)
[img width=200]https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/10392053_1162912630422_5958702_n.jpg[/img]
- Lastly, fighting in close interval, from a braced shield position, going against an enemy similarly armed with a thureos shield and sword, also fighting from a braced shield position, means the only possible method for fighting is Diagram H. and I., which limits the combatants on both sides to only overhead stabbing attacks. Why spend hours a day on a pella post, practicing the quick attack and retreat as Vegetius and Polybius mention, using thrusts with the occasional cut, if all your tactics allow for is: Crouch a bit, brace your shield and push, while stabbing overhead, repeat until victory or death. Why did Rutulius Rufus bring in gladiator trainers in 105 BC if not to teach his men to better inflict and evade blows?
The ability to break up an initial charge with disrupting heavy javelin fire only helps even more.
Both sides used javelins and missile volleys, not just the Romans. The only enemy of Rome whose infantry weren't similarly armed with a combination of missile weapons and close quarter weapons were the Macedonian phalanx and any remaining old style hoplites which had been surpassed by the 3rd Cent. BC. Everyone else had missiles, spears, swords, and a round or thureos like shields. So the Romans themselves would have had their initial charge checked or disrupted by missiles.
What they don't take cognizance of, however, is the presence and effect of the men to the left and right (even potentially behind). We have the examples of the hoplite close-order phalanx and the later shield-walls - and that's why I have remained convinced the Romans mostly fought closely too (as previously argued).
The close-order shield-to-shield style of fighting imposes much more caution (and hence results in the long periods of pushing and shoving) on the parties involved as each soldier is concerned with defending himself and neighbours, whilst seeking the opportunity to strike. It's why I find the large shield and 'shorter' stabbing and slicing sword of the Romans to be such a good and successful combination. [/quote]
Some factors that may or may not influence your opinions on the matter:
- Nearly all of the moves shown would take less than a second or more to execute. So they can be done without facing too much danger from an enemy diagonal to you. Care must be taken, timing must be a factor. But its war, there will always be the threat of being killed or wounded, so anyone too timid to ever try to launch an offensive attack probably shouldn't be standing in the front ranks. Offensive spirit, Virtus tamed by discipline.
- There is no historical consensus that Romes fought in a shield wall like shoving match like the Greek hoplites (which is also highly debated), especially during the Roman Republic/Principate Era. There are many sources that state otherwise. It is a common historical theme that after the initial clash of line infantry, both sides would break apart from one another a short distance and "duel" from about a pace apart, giving them room to attack and withdraw without being stuck in one position. The only other method would to go shield to shield like diagram I. which would soon turn into a bloodbath for both sides. If two sides were shield to shield the entire time, the casualties reported in ancient battles would have been way higher for the winner. Low casualty count means in battle, infantry either weren't actually attacking each other all that much, or they were not doing so effectively. So it means they weren't in contact for hours on end, stabbing and shoving. Shoving probably occurred by I think it wasn't a unit tactic. The Roman scutum wasn't designed for it. If they wanted a shoving shield that still protected well, they could have kept their clipeus.
- Speaking of, Thureos shields are not conducive to pushing and shoving tactics. While they can certainly be used for that if necessary, they are not optimal for it, especially when compared to a flat front aspis-style shield. The umbo in the front of a thureos shield would make shoving against another shield difficult, as it would slide around it, never getting a firm purchase. Also, there is no real good way of pushing with a thureos and remaining well protected. From a "braced position" the right side of the shield (shield bearer's right) is not supported, unless the scutum bearer decided to use his right hand to support the right side of the shield instead of using it to fight. Ultimately this means the shield isn't properly supported at the best of times, thus making pushing with it more difficult. Even a braced shield position is vulnerable on the top and top right from a shield strike or press, that will tilt the shield. Its kind of hard to explain just in writing so I will use this graphic:
[img width=250]https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t1.0-9/10392053_1163559366590_1742257_n.jpg[/img]
Notice the soldier in the middle rank in the closer file. From the position of the camera, you can see that his left knee is in solid contact with the center of the shield bottom, which means the bottom of the shield is braced. The man's left hand firmly grips the shield handle, meaning the center of the shield is braced. The left elbow is shoved outward as much as possible at a 45 degree or so angle, further bracing the shield on its left side. The left shoulder is often then rested against the shield, usually on the upper left side or upper center. However, nothing is supporting the upper right. Or the immediate top. Additionally, unless the shield bearer is moving only by doing a drag step, advancing his left foot forward, and then sliding his right foot up, the bottom of the shield will not always be braced against the knee/shin. So as "braced" as that scutum is, its not completely braced. A short shove would work for sure but two sides pushing against each other? Nope. A hard shield check from a shield bottom or umbo against the shield top with result in the shield smashing into the nose or mouth of the soldier carrying it. Similarly, a hard check or hit against the upper right portion will cause the shield to tilt, exposing the soldier's left lower side, which being the leading side is also closest to the enemy.
Another shot of what I am referring to. Notice the face, which is dangerously close to the upper rim, and the lack of any support to the right side of shield. Anything hard hits the top of that shield and that guy is going to be spitting teeth. (Which might explain the enlarged scalloped cheek guards of the Imperial Gallic helmets, to protect the nose and mouth from being hurt by your own shield edge)
[img width=200]https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/10392053_1162912630422_5958702_n.jpg[/img]
- Lastly, fighting in close interval, from a braced shield position, going against an enemy similarly armed with a thureos shield and sword, also fighting from a braced shield position, means the only possible method for fighting is Diagram H. and I., which limits the combatants on both sides to only overhead stabbing attacks. Why spend hours a day on a pella post, practicing the quick attack and retreat as Vegetius and Polybius mention, using thrusts with the occasional cut, if all your tactics allow for is: Crouch a bit, brace your shield and push, while stabbing overhead, repeat until victory or death. Why did Rutulius Rufus bring in gladiator trainers in 105 BC if not to teach his men to better inflict and evade blows?
The ability to break up an initial charge with disrupting heavy javelin fire only helps even more.
Both sides used javelins and missile volleys, not just the Romans. The only enemy of Rome whose infantry weren't similarly armed with a combination of missile weapons and close quarter weapons were the Macedonian phalanx and any remaining old style hoplites which had been surpassed by the 3rd Cent. BC. Everyone else had missiles, spears, swords, and a round or thureos like shields. So the Romans themselves would have had their initial charge checked or disrupted by missiles.
