12-05-2008, 02:37 AM
Salvete omnes,
During the production of my latest scutum, I decided to save some of the scrap birch strips and make a small test section of scutum board to see just how it behaves under certain attack cirucumstances and the results were rather interesting:
Scutum:
The section was a rectangular, measuring about 170x120mm, and comprised of three layers of 50mm wide birch strips about 1.5-2mm in thickness (after those from Dura Europos and Masada), the outer being horizontal, the inner vertical. The strips were glued together with 312g hide glue, and the whole section, once dry, was bound in glue-soaked linen fabric of a weave matching that of the only visibly examinable artifact from Masada (thread cound roughtly 29x35). The total thickness was about 7.3mm, comparable to that shown to be accurate using extant scutum edge binding artifacts with intact securing nails. A section of 0.5mm thick rawhide parchment, comparable to that found on the Dura scutum (confirmed to be very, very thin hide- really parchment- by Dr. Simon James), was glued to the face, still keeping it within the normal range.
A second test piece that had no covering was also tested for comparison (not pictured). A section of reconstruction brass edge binding was secured to one edge of the linen-bound test piece, being a known correct thickness of 0.5mm and of the shape of an original from Vindonissa.
Weapon:
I chose to use a commercial Gladius pompeiiensis as that was the only piece I had on hand that I was willing to potentially damage if something went wrong :lol: But being of low-carbon steel, with edges as sharp as that would allow and being of nearly identical weight to a proper sword of the type, despite being incorrect dimensionally, its effect may not be so different than a proper reconstruction sword of the type (I plan to test that before too long now that I've made a proper one).
Results:
A stabbing attack on the unbound test piece (set on a grass lawn and stabbed down at) resulted in a deep penetration and fragmenting of the wood as well as splitting. Clearly the shield failed rather badly.
A stabbing attack (same method) on the linen-bound piece was markedly different- not only did the piece remain completely intact, but the point of the sword became very strongly stuck in the board while only penetrating no more than 15mm. The sword was so stuck in the board in fact, that it requred standing on the board to extract it. This effect was again encountered on a repeat stab on the area with the rawhide parchment facing, with no different penetration. A third try resulted in less penetration and correspondingly less was the blade stuck, but it still was enough to make removal a delay in action.
The times the sword was stopped by the shield board were also very significant in that it was so abrupt as to be felt by this experimenter in a negative way (it was somewhat painful), probably resulting in the third strike not being nearly as strong as the previous two and thus the shallower penetration.
The test board was then turned so the edge binding was facing up and it was braced for the slashing blows to come next. The sword was brought down with a good percentage of the force that could probably have been used and as expected it cut rather deeply in the unprotected edge- on the order of 35mm. Unexpectedly, however the blade, although brought down in a typical right-handed overhand arc, was violently twisted to the right by the impact such that hold was nearly lost. It also stuck in the shield. The second, blow, with a tighter grip on the sword resulted in a deeper cut, 55mm, but the same twist resulted, despite it being expected, and it was very difficult to remove. The momentary distraction and subsequent recovery time to remove the weapon and be ready for a reply or renewed attack was experienced.
Two further slashing attacks were made against an edge with brass binding, the first of which cut about 8mm into the 10mm wide metal, again with some twisting of the sword, the second fully transected the binding (~1cm width) and continuing a further 5mm, where it was again hard to remove. Noteworty was that the binding seems to have not only restricted the depth of the cuts but it also prevented the distortion of the wood and maintained the 'capture' of the blade.
Discussion:
I'd read that birch's fibers tend to close on a split, and now I see just how that's a major advantage in a shield. It traps anything that penetrates it and tactically, were the shield's wielder to move it to the side, the sword could easily be taken away . Certianly this little test suggests the Roman scutum was a very effective shield, that a linen facing does far more than it might initially be thought to act as a casing keeping the whole unit strongly together, and that the parchment does not act as any kind of penetration defense. Given the effacacy of the linen, it seems doubtful the parchment would significantly add to that save perhaps in terms of increasing longevity by being bettter abrasion protection over time.
There was never any doubt that copper alloy edge binding was meant to be significant weapon defense, but it certianly did reduce the severity of damage to the edges by not only restricting the cut but by keeping the edge straight as well.
I hope to before long have the opportunity to test with different weapons and maybe on a full-sized scutum to see what deflection characteristics it might have with a proper curvature.
Matt
Addendum- I found that Oriental Plane wood (from which the Dura scutum was made) actually has nearly the same density as Birch, and is described as having the same fiber-closing feature in reaction to splits, so it is quite understandable that Roman scuta would be made from both these woods.
M
During the production of my latest scutum, I decided to save some of the scrap birch strips and make a small test section of scutum board to see just how it behaves under certain attack cirucumstances and the results were rather interesting:
Scutum:
The section was a rectangular, measuring about 170x120mm, and comprised of three layers of 50mm wide birch strips about 1.5-2mm in thickness (after those from Dura Europos and Masada), the outer being horizontal, the inner vertical. The strips were glued together with 312g hide glue, and the whole section, once dry, was bound in glue-soaked linen fabric of a weave matching that of the only visibly examinable artifact from Masada (thread cound roughtly 29x35). The total thickness was about 7.3mm, comparable to that shown to be accurate using extant scutum edge binding artifacts with intact securing nails. A section of 0.5mm thick rawhide parchment, comparable to that found on the Dura scutum (confirmed to be very, very thin hide- really parchment- by Dr. Simon James), was glued to the face, still keeping it within the normal range.
A second test piece that had no covering was also tested for comparison (not pictured). A section of reconstruction brass edge binding was secured to one edge of the linen-bound test piece, being a known correct thickness of 0.5mm and of the shape of an original from Vindonissa.
Weapon:
I chose to use a commercial Gladius pompeiiensis as that was the only piece I had on hand that I was willing to potentially damage if something went wrong :lol: But being of low-carbon steel, with edges as sharp as that would allow and being of nearly identical weight to a proper sword of the type, despite being incorrect dimensionally, its effect may not be so different than a proper reconstruction sword of the type (I plan to test that before too long now that I've made a proper one).
Results:
A stabbing attack on the unbound test piece (set on a grass lawn and stabbed down at) resulted in a deep penetration and fragmenting of the wood as well as splitting. Clearly the shield failed rather badly.
A stabbing attack (same method) on the linen-bound piece was markedly different- not only did the piece remain completely intact, but the point of the sword became very strongly stuck in the board while only penetrating no more than 15mm. The sword was so stuck in the board in fact, that it requred standing on the board to extract it. This effect was again encountered on a repeat stab on the area with the rawhide parchment facing, with no different penetration. A third try resulted in less penetration and correspondingly less was the blade stuck, but it still was enough to make removal a delay in action.
The times the sword was stopped by the shield board were also very significant in that it was so abrupt as to be felt by this experimenter in a negative way (it was somewhat painful), probably resulting in the third strike not being nearly as strong as the previous two and thus the shallower penetration.
The test board was then turned so the edge binding was facing up and it was braced for the slashing blows to come next. The sword was brought down with a good percentage of the force that could probably have been used and as expected it cut rather deeply in the unprotected edge- on the order of 35mm. Unexpectedly, however the blade, although brought down in a typical right-handed overhand arc, was violently twisted to the right by the impact such that hold was nearly lost. It also stuck in the shield. The second, blow, with a tighter grip on the sword resulted in a deeper cut, 55mm, but the same twist resulted, despite it being expected, and it was very difficult to remove. The momentary distraction and subsequent recovery time to remove the weapon and be ready for a reply or renewed attack was experienced.
Two further slashing attacks were made against an edge with brass binding, the first of which cut about 8mm into the 10mm wide metal, again with some twisting of the sword, the second fully transected the binding (~1cm width) and continuing a further 5mm, where it was again hard to remove. Noteworty was that the binding seems to have not only restricted the depth of the cuts but it also prevented the distortion of the wood and maintained the 'capture' of the blade.
Discussion:
I'd read that birch's fibers tend to close on a split, and now I see just how that's a major advantage in a shield. It traps anything that penetrates it and tactically, were the shield's wielder to move it to the side, the sword could easily be taken away . Certianly this little test suggests the Roman scutum was a very effective shield, that a linen facing does far more than it might initially be thought to act as a casing keeping the whole unit strongly together, and that the parchment does not act as any kind of penetration defense. Given the effacacy of the linen, it seems doubtful the parchment would significantly add to that save perhaps in terms of increasing longevity by being bettter abrasion protection over time.
There was never any doubt that copper alloy edge binding was meant to be significant weapon defense, but it certianly did reduce the severity of damage to the edges by not only restricting the cut but by keeping the edge straight as well.
I hope to before long have the opportunity to test with different weapons and maybe on a full-sized scutum to see what deflection characteristics it might have with a proper curvature.
Matt
Addendum- I found that Oriental Plane wood (from which the Dura scutum was made) actually has nearly the same density as Birch, and is described as having the same fiber-closing feature in reaction to splits, so it is quite understandable that Roman scuta would be made from both these woods.
M
See FABRICA ROMANORVM Recreations in the Marketplace for custom helmets, armour, swords and more!
It didn't make a difference with respect to piercing attacks so those are out, and with the increased force of an edge slash, I'm very doubtful it could possibly do better there. Maybe it helps with slashing or glancing blows?
![[Image: DSC05831.jpg]](http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb2/jvrjenivs/other/DSC05831.jpg)
