01-02-2014, 02:57 PM
As it came up in the other thread when discussing shields, I just thought I'd try to get a better understanding of the actual evidence.
As far as I am now aware, the 'Fayum scutum' has become identified as Roman (against a few other possibilities) and has subsequently become the model for almost every illustration of Republican soldiers I've now seen.
Whilst it has been described as meeting Polybius' description, however, I have to ask whether it actually does? (Particularly if Macedon or others may care to review the translation once again)
My translation (Robin Westerfield) reads: "...a shield with a curved surface, two and a half feet wide and four feet long, and also with a curvature the depth of a palm. The shield is made of two layers of wood glued together, with the outer surface covered in canvas and then calfskin. There is iron edging along its upper and lower rims, to protect the shield against a sword's downward cut and against damage when it is rested on the ground."
Leaping direct to the extreme possible interpretation (for that could cover anything in the middle), I actually see no reason why that couldn't describe an actual rectangular shield, although if it was then I would also wonder why Polybius doesn't explicitly say so (unless the fact that it is curved would distract).
Now, I'm aware also of the Aemilius Paullus monument and the alter of Domitius Aenobarbus friezes and they are very supportive - but I have to wonder. With relatively minor tweaks the average Roman legionary doesn't change his arms and armour over a long period; and I therefore have to wonder how early the rectangular shield that the we all seem to accept later actually appeared?
Side note: The Fauym shield appears to have 3 layers of wood (reconstructed I assume) as opposed to two, but that could certainly be a later 'improvement'
As far as I am now aware, the 'Fayum scutum' has become identified as Roman (against a few other possibilities) and has subsequently become the model for almost every illustration of Republican soldiers I've now seen.
Whilst it has been described as meeting Polybius' description, however, I have to ask whether it actually does? (Particularly if Macedon or others may care to review the translation once again)
My translation (Robin Westerfield) reads: "...a shield with a curved surface, two and a half feet wide and four feet long, and also with a curvature the depth of a palm. The shield is made of two layers of wood glued together, with the outer surface covered in canvas and then calfskin. There is iron edging along its upper and lower rims, to protect the shield against a sword's downward cut and against damage when it is rested on the ground."
Leaping direct to the extreme possible interpretation (for that could cover anything in the middle), I actually see no reason why that couldn't describe an actual rectangular shield, although if it was then I would also wonder why Polybius doesn't explicitly say so (unless the fact that it is curved would distract).
Now, I'm aware also of the Aemilius Paullus monument and the alter of Domitius Aenobarbus friezes and they are very supportive - but I have to wonder. With relatively minor tweaks the average Roman legionary doesn't change his arms and armour over a long period; and I therefore have to wonder how early the rectangular shield that the we all seem to accept later actually appeared?
Side note: The Fauym shield appears to have 3 layers of wood (reconstructed I assume) as opposed to two, but that could certainly be a later 'improvement'
