12-08-2014, 09:36 PM
Quote:True, but from technical perspective, using larger shield calls for completely different combat tactics than using a smaller one. especially when the smaller shield doesn't provide as effective missile protection as the larger one. Besides, Celtic shield was intentionally less wider, so they could use longer swords with it. Their sword use, that called for lateral blows required such shield, while using wider Italic Scutum would restrict their attacks too much.
but practically i agree with you, my concerns are not from historical perspective but tactical. Romans used different type of tactics, than Thureophoroi did, or Celts.
btw, thanks for the link.
I think the Gallic shields were narrower and shorter than the Roman versions because of the manner in which they were used. The Romans fought defensively behind their shields while the Gallic techniques, emphasizing the slash of the sword, used their shields for parrying, like a large buckler. It was tall and wide enough to get basic protection from missiles during the approach but not overly large to impede the use of their slashing swords and spears used in violent charges. Meanwhile, the Roman shield was more curved, offering better protection to the body, was reinforced, offering better resistance to weaponry, and seems to have been used offensively more so than the Gallic variety, as it weighed more (more material=more weight), so had more of a punch when used offensively. At least that's my theory anyway.
Likewise, Spartans and the early Romans were both armed with an aspis type shield, but I'm sure they didn't fight exactly alike. Different cultures and all. Like I mentioned earlier, even the Romans themselves didn't fight the same way, Caesar's and Pompey's Spanish armies fought so differently from one another Caesar's army actually had difficulty against their enemy's looser fighting style.
