scuta dimensions—what do YOU think they should be?

[DECIMvS MERCATIvS VARIANvS]

This post has been removed by the author. I do not see a point to being on a forum where moderators such as Matt Lanteigne aka Magnus can practice harassment and hypocritical behavior. RAT seems to have slipped into a place where people of this ilk can do or say whatever they want AND since he's a moderator, I guess it's all okay w/ the forum owners. Good luck, but I am done here.

[Paullus Scipio]

Presumably, you are looking at 1st century A.D. dimensions.
Unfortunately, there is no known surviving example of a First century Legionary shield ( but there is a lovely VIII th Legion umbo in the British Museum, and another somewhere I can't recall at present)

Let us start with known dimensions:

(1) Fayum shield: Probably late Republican, present whereabouts unknown. Curved oblong shape, curved top and bottom
128 cm(51 inches) x 63.5 cm ( 25 .5 inches) 1.2 cm ( 0.45 inches) thick at centre; 0.8-1.0 cm(0.3-0.4 inches) at edge
estimated wt : 8 kg (17.5 lbs)

(2)Dura Shield:; Third C A.D., Imperial, final squared-off form ( top and bottom cut off, later sides straightened)
102 cm(40.8 inches) x 83cm(33.2 inches) around curve; 66cm( 26.4 inches across chord)
5-6 mm thick (0.25 inch); estimated wt 5.5 kg
N.B.: when found curvature was 'crushed'

Some further indication might come from Mid-First Century oval goatskin shield covers, which give dimensions for Auxiliary shields (which were flat) of 128 cm( 51 inches) x 66cm (26.4 inches)

These give a starting point, and significantly these dimensions ( for the Dura and Auxiliary shields) are in fairly close accord, and approximate "chin/neck-to-knee" ( on me, at 178 cm/5 ft 10.5" ;chin/neck- to- knee equals 112 cm/44 inches) aprox

Legionaries were supposed to be at least six roman feet tall (177 cm/5'10"), so my "chin/neck to knee" measurements are roughly right, and the Dura ones correct for someone a little shorter. Tall German Auxiliaries would explain the taller Auxiliary dimension !!

Shields may or may not have been all exactly the same measurements, probably dependent on whether they were produced 'en masse' to standard measurements, or by individual craftsmen. Certainly, if surviving Celtic/German shields are any guide ( e.g. the Hjortspring find), shields could vary widely dimensionally, in the 'Barbaricum'.

That should be enough to start a discussion....... D

[MeinPanzer]

Just an addendum, but the Kasr el-Harit shield should still be in the collection of the National Museum for Egyptian Anqituities in Cairo.

[Paullus Scipio]

Just an addendum, but the Kasr el-Harit shield should still be in the collection of the National Museum for Egyptian Anqituities in Cairo.

.....indeed, quite correct AFIK too, but note "should be"....apparently it is missing and cannot be found, hence 'whereabouts unknown' cry:

[MeinPanzer]

Just an addendum, but the Kasr el-Harit shield should still be in the collection of the National Museum for Egyptian Anqituities in Cairo.

.....indeed, quite correct AFIK too, but note "should be"....apparently it is missing and cannot be found, hence 'whereabouts unknown' cry:

According to whom? I've not seen any recent articles that mention its disappearance.

[Paullus Scipio]

For the sake of completeness, here is Polybius' description of the Roman 2nd C B.C. Republican shield, which matches the Kasr el-Harit example found in the Fayum in 1900 quite closely...

Polybius describes it as follows:
" The Roman panoply consists firstly of a shield (scutum), the convex surface of which measures two and a half [Roman] feet (29 inches, 0.73 m) in width and four [Roman]feet in length,(47 inches.1.17 m) the thickness at the rim being a palm's breadth.( also translated: "or four feet and a palm of those of the largest size") It is made of two layers glued together with bull's-hide glue, the outer surface being then covered first with canvas/linen and then with calf-skin. The upper and lower rims are strengthened by an iron edging which protects it from the cutting strokes of swords and from wear when rested on the ground. It also has an iron boss (umbo) fixed to it which turns aside the most formidable blows of stones, pikes, and heavy missiles in general. "

...see also the 'Building a Shield' thread for similar subject, and scaling up and down to suit modern builds.....
Polybius (above), and Frontinus stratagems, describing Scipio sheltering behind extra-large shields of his Guards, imply that shields could be of differing size, at least in the 3rd-2nd centuries B.C.........

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

Legionaries were supposed to be at least six roman feet tall (177 cm/5'10"),

I have read only the members of the first cohort need to bee that tall. Anybody have the classical quote?

[Paullus Scipio]

I have read only the members of the first cohort need to bee that tall. Anybody have the classical quote?

....quite right, Cesar !

It is in Vegetius ( which I carelessly didn't check when posting....)
Veg. Bk I
" We find the ancients very fond of procuring the tallest men they could find for the service, since the standard for the Cavalry of the Ala/wings and for the Infantry of of the First Legionary cohort was fixed at six[Roman] feet, or at least five feet ten inches...."

[Peroni]

Some further indication might come from Mid-First Century oval goatskin shield covers, which give dimensions for Auxiliary shields (which were flat) of 128 cm( 51 inches) x 66cm (26.4 inches)

Not just Oval. Lets not forget the shield cover from Roomberg (NL) which was from COH XV Voluntariorum cR. Carol van Driel-Murray remarks that the board would be in the region of 75cm wide - which would suggest that the shield would have been curved to give a face of around 62cm.

The Doncaster shield is estimated to have been 125 cm long and 64cm wide.

[Matthew Amt]

Isn't there another (fragmentary) scutum from Dura Europas that is only 37 inches tall? That may be from a Peterson article--don't recall what the Dura book says.

I don't think shield covers from *auxiliary oval* shields can be used as evidence for rectangular shields! Apples and oranges.

Not exactly on topic, but possibly pertinant, it should be pointed out that the Caerleon shield cover fragment was originally rectangular, modified to an oval shape. The stitch holes of the reinforcing strips along the edges make this clear. I don't have the actual and implied dimensions of that on hand at the moment, though.

Bottom line in my group is that shields vary! Shoulder to knees is a good rule of thumb. Heck, even my Kiddy Cohort cardboard shields are different sizes...

Valete,

Matthew

[Paullus Scipio]

Peroni wrote:

Not just Oval. Lets not forget the shield cover from Roomberg (NL) which was from COH XV Voluntariorum cR. Carol van Driel-Murray remarks that the board would be in the region of 75cm wide - which would suggest that the shield would have been curved to give a face of around 62cm.

...which might be getting close to a First Century scutum dimension, since it has been postulated that the Auxiliaries carrying 'Legionary' scuta on Trajan's Column are from Cohors Civium Romanum....

Matt wrote:

I don't think shield covers from *auxiliary oval* shields can be used as evidence for rectangular shields! Apples and oranges.

...agreed, to an extent! What they do show is that Roman battle shields generally ( excluding parma etc) were generally chin/neck-to-knee, which I think all are agreed on.....

[DECIMvS MERCATIvS VARIANvS]

This post has been removed by the author. I do not see a point to being on a forum where moderators such as Matt Lanteigne aka Magnus can practice harassment and hypocritical behavior. RAT seems to have slipped into a place where people of this ilk can do or say whatever they want AND since he's a moderator, I guess it's all okay w/ the forum owners. Good luck, but I am done here.

[Paullus Scipio]

Marsh wrote:

And on measuring myself once again, shoulder to knees is 40"... I wish more people would post on this...

...it may seem like a subtle difference, but I think chin/neck-to-knee is a more appropriate measurement rule of thumb than shoulder-to-knee.....

that would imply a scuta length of 42" or so for you....

[DECIMvS MERCATIvS VARIANvS]

This post has been removed by the author. I do not see a point to being on a forum where moderators such as Matt Lanteigne aka Magnus can practice harassment and hypocritical behavior. RAT seems to have slipped into a place where people of this ilk can do or say whatever they want AND since he's a moderator, I guess it's all okay w/ the forum owners. Good luck, but I am done here.

[Magnus]

Maybe like the theory on helmet sizes and armour, that there were a few sizes made to best fit the soldier carrying it?