Login

Theodosius the Great · 08-24-2004, 08:14 AM

Avete, 
 
I'm having a late-Roman shield custom made (like I have a choice ) and I was wondering if it is perfectly legitimate to have one made dished as opposed to flat. 
 
I'm going to portray a late 3rd century / early 4th century infantryman. 
 
I'm told that the equipment worn by late infantry and cavalry are interchangable. Can anyone confirm that ? 
 
Also, the scuta found at Dura Europas were oval and not round ? The Osprey Books say they were oval as opposed to round (90 cm wide by 1.1 meters high). Although the Notitia Dignitatum show shields as round as perfect circles. 
 
Can anyone straighten this out ? 
 
Please do correct any of my statements. I'd really appreciate any help you can offer. 
 
Thanks. Valete, 
 
-Theo

08-24-2004, 08:35 AM

No problem with dished shield in this case - the ones found at Dura were originally slightly dished and not flat anyway. 
 
I suspect that the Notitia illustrations are round rather than oval as a circle is easier to draw than an oval - and the oval scuta are a very round oval anyway.

aitor iriarte · 08-24-2004, 10:42 AM

Theo, the question of the shape of late shields is becoming more or less as thorny as that of the colour of Imperial period tunics! 
In any case, there are two clear facts: 
-Always dished. An infantry shield of that period must be raised at its center at least 10 cm more than at its border. 
-Sizes: around 1 m for infantry and around 0,7 m for cavalry. 
 
About the shape, there are several depictions other than the Notitia (I insist, more than one blazon design is much better fitted for a round shape than for an oval one, moreover if as elongated as some groups reconstruct! ) showing clearly round shields, from the early fourth century Luxor wall paintings or the approx. contemporary Piazza Armerina wall paintings (I would add the 'Great Hunt' mosaic, but that would only start another long discussion....) to the Lepontius gravestone. 
The Dura shields are just slightly oval and I'd like to express here a mischievous thought. Late shields are made of vertical wooden planks glued edge to edge. Well, wood doesn't shrink longitudinally (only a negligible amount) but it shrinks a lot transversally. Could it well be that the today slightly oval Dura shields were originally even less oval... 
 
Aitor

**Robert Vermaat** · 08-24-2004, 01:10 PM

Hi Theo, 
Who is making your shield? 
I am not against round shields, but oval shields are more practical - with the same height, the oval shield is of course lighter. But cases can be made for both. But we both agree that oval shields were more round than the oval shape seen during the earlier years of the Empire. 
 
Below is an image (sorry if it is a bit large) of FECTIO, with me holding a dished shield and Chariovalda a flat one: 
<img src="http://www.fectio.org.uk/shows/2004archeon63.jpg" style="border:0;"/> 
 
I agree with Aitor about the dished shields, but I can imagine that soldiers could have worn flat ones as well. The technique for a dished shield is not difficult, but because shields are a disposable item, I can imagine that under abnormal circumstances, flat shields were produced when soldiers were in great need of shields. But normally, dished is to be preferred. 
 
Aitor, about your shrinking idea, such a shrink would be very impractical if it were indeed the case - the rim would come off with even a centimeter of shrink.. 
 
Valete, 
Valerius/Robert 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vortigernstudies>Vortigern Studies</A> at: 8/24/04 3:16 pm

aitor iriarte · 08-24-2004, 02:41 PM

Hi Robert, 
(This works like a clock!) 
Could you explain what do you mean about the rim? 
If I have understood it well, I must remember you that the rim binding wasn't preserved on the Dura shields. Probably they were stripped of their rawhide edge binding jointly with their reinforcing bars and bosses. 
 
Aitor

Lucius Aurelius Metellus · 08-24-2004, 05:48 PM

Hi Robert! 
Can you tell us how you made your dished shield? If I knew how to do it, I'd rather have a dished one than a flat one, but I'm not sure how it is done. I do know how to curve one (side to side) but not dished. Can you help? Lucius Aurelius Metellus, miles gregarius, Secunda Brittanica

Theodosius the Great · 08-24-2004, 05:56 PM

Hi Valerius, 
 
I'm having Jean Olivier Bourbon make the scuta. I believe you were the one who recommended him to me . I couldn't really find anyone else who would make one. 
 
I'll have him paint the chi-ro symbol on the shield face, since I don't much care for the designs in the Notitia Dignitatum (they just remind me too much of Viking shields). Anyway, I believe the chi-ro must have been the most wide-spread and long lasting shield design of the 4th century since Constantine's dynasty lasted for quite a while. 
 
Thank you, everyone, for your advice and support. 
 
Valete. 
-Theo Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=theodosiusthegreat>Theodosius the Great</A> at: 8/24/04 7:58 pm

aitor iriarte · 08-25-2004, 04:53 AM

I forgot to tell that everybody in my group is using flat shields. mostly due to financial constraints! 
Flat shields of about one meter in diameter are rather unwieldy and the don't 'envelope' your body or deflect glancing blows like a dished one can do. 
We're considering Jean-Olivier's shields as a strong possibility, too. They are not correctly made but, who will notice that when the shield is finished? 
Theo, 
The chi-ro was not so a widespread shield blazon as you may think. It only appears (if you don't trust the Notitia Dignitatum) very seldomly and at a later date. Most units were raised before Constantine and they retained their blazons and, if the design on the shield was the only mean of distinguishing between different units, it would be a really hard task if all of them would be chi-ros... 
 
Aitor

Lucius Aurelius Metellus · 08-25-2004, 05:41 AM

Hi Aitor, 
I too, thought that the Chi-Rho would not have replaced a unit's insignia on the shields. I read somewhere, though, that Constantine had his soldiers mark their shields with a symbol, which many assume was the Chi-Rho, but I don't remember where I read that. I was always of the mind that it would have been a very good symbol for, say, a local militia, who had no insignia of their own? Lucius Aurelius Metellus, miles gregarius, Secunda Brittanica

aitor iriarte · 08-25-2004, 06:41 AM

Eeerrhh, I should read again Eusebius' 'Life of Constantine' (quite boring..) but I haven't got it with me now! 
I'm not saying that one or some units could not wear the chi-ro as shield blazon. Probably some elite guards very near to the emperor... just guesswork! 
 
Aitor

Theodosius the Great · 08-25-2004, 07:51 AM

You're right to suspect, Aitor, that I don't put much faith in the Notitia Dignitatum since it was written much later. Some believe it to have been written as late as the fifth century. By that time, the empire suffered so many losses in battles that the army looked quite different by the time it recovered (at least partially). 
 
Zosimus says that Constantine had at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge 90,000 infantry and 8,000 cavalry. We know from other sources that he ordered his men to paint the Chi-Ro on their shields. Well, right there I believe you have the most wide-spread shield blazon. I don't know how long all the men maintained this symbol on their shields, but I think it's indisputable that it was the most widely used. The empire, afterall, had only 400,000 men and Constantine had 1/4 of them paint the symbol. 
 
Anyway, how many reenactors use the winged thunderbolts on their scuta nowadays ? Clearly that symbol is over-used .

aitor iriarte · 08-25-2004, 09:28 AM

Theo, what those 'other sources' exactly tell is what we'd need to know now... 
Of course, you can paint on your shield whatever makes you happier! 
I'm surprised when I read that an early fifth century date is 'much later', perhaps is that I re-enact late fourth-early fifth century... 
In any case, you're totally right about those unimaginative re-enactors of the Principate! 
 
Aitor

Theodosius the Great · 08-25-2004, 10:18 AM

Well, Aitor, when I say 'much later' I'm not necessarily refering to time as much as to how much had happened in so short a span. Disaster followed disaster. Julian's fiasco against Persia combined with the civil wars that followed and wars with the Goths after his death. I think the army emerged looking quite different after those trials which is when the Notitia Dignitatum was written. I don't trust it for the period prior to the extinction of the Constantinian dynasty which ruled over the empire for about two-thirds of the 4th century. 
 
Maybe I'll be a member of the Palatina like you suggested.

08-25-2004, 10:21 AM

Theo, 
 
Just keep in mind that it wasn't uncommon for numbers to be wildly inflated to make an army seem more massive for future generations. So even though a source quotes 90,000 infantry, it's possible that not nearly that many were present and painted the Chi Ro symbol on the shield. Granted, if it was 9,000, thats still a lot of Chi Ro's running around though 
 
Cavetus

Theodosius the Great · 08-25-2004, 10:52 AM

Ave, Cavetus. 
 
Quote:<hr>it wasn't uncommon for numbers to be wildly inflated to make an army seem more massive for future generations<hr> 
 
Good point. Although, Zosimus is a hostile source when it comes to Constantine . He says that Constantine was indeed heavily outnumbered. I have to assume he's telling the truth or what he thought was true. 
 
And, yes, that is a lot of Chi-Ro's .

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me