Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why did the oval shield replace the scutum?
#31
Hi Adrian,
Quote: Robert, surely Vegetius tells us the length of various Roman spears?
Indeed he does, and I know that of course. But I began wondering where those ideas of the others in this discussion came from. I was a bit wicked, your honor. :mrgreen:
Quote:Your statement about Roman spears is not entirely correct. The contos in Late Roman literature is nearly always a long spear, usually the arm of the heavily armoured Catafractarii/Clibanarii, some depictions of it show it was at least 8 feet long. Whilst there are mention of many types of spears in Ammianus, such as the Hasta, Lancia and 'pilis' (pilum), there are also references to contemporary weapons such as the Spiculum and Veruta that Vegestius spoke about. Some Late Roman monumental works show infantry with a spear that appears to be about six feet to six and a half feet long, yet others, such as the pen and ink drawings of the mostly destroyed Column of Theodosius show the infantry in many cases just holding a short spear, probably the Veruta. I believe references to the Spiculum are also to be found in the SHA.
I know, I know, I did not fully elaborate there - there's so much to be said about LR spears (ask Paul McDonell-Staff), and we were originally discussing the LR shield wall and the LR scutum! Trouble with those spears is, as I already mentioned, that the sources either do not describe these spears in full or happily use synonyms when naming them. So yes, a contus is 'probably' always a long spear of 7-9ft WHEN we can check that, and some depictions verufy that, as you say. But indeed, some monumnets only show much shorter spears, and one has to decide whether that's because the spears were indeed 'just' 6ft. (which is not very long, given the complaints about length mentioned below), or whether the artist had a limited amount of space. It's a dilemma: artistic license or a verutum?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#32
Illerup Spear shafts are between 274 and 223 cm. Just the shafts, no spearhead.
Christian K.

No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Reply
#33
Quote:Crap.

Failure. Farewell, forum!


Yes, don't be put off....if leaving the forum was the price demanded of failure(only in your own mind, remember) I would have been booted out long ago... :lol:

You are asking pertinent questions, and the answers you get may not always jive with your own understanding of an issue, but as John and others are saying, you will eventually adjust to the newer,
and hopefully accurate, info you are getting, and your perceptions will duely alter! (with out the need for mind altering drugs, I might add) Cool

Have patience with the forum, and most of all, do not put your self down.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#34
Yes, sir!
Reply
#35
Robert, I agree that there are large differences between a Roman phalanx in 400 CE and a Greek one in 400 BCE, but I still think its best to see them as examples of one phenomenon. Although my Greek is still so-so, I think that when ancient Greeks speak of τινα φάλαγξ they usually just mean a continuous battle line of men in close formation several ranks deep. Three phalanxes one behind the other are still three phalanxes, and classical Greek hoplites had psiloi to keep shooting and throwing over their heads once they came into contact.

Quote:
Sean Manning post=299593 Wrote:I agree that there are a lot of things we don't know about classical Greek phalanxes ... but Xenophon seemed to believe that a Greek phalanx of doruphoroi, an Egyptian phalanx with body shields and very long spears, and an imaginary Persian phalanx with sagareis and mikra gerra differed more in details than in essence. I take his judgement in res militares quite seriously.
Although I believe this is stretching the limits of the topic quite a bit (maybe I should open a thread about it?), did Xenophon say the Persians used axes&taka? I mean, unless the taka were large, they would no fit a phalanx. Also, the spear was the weapon of honor in Persia, not the axe.
Xenophon repeatedly tells in the Cyropaedia (eg. 4.2.22) that his fictional Persians were armed with gerron, thorax, and either sagaris (an Iranian or Scythian axe) or machaira (a chopping sword). They fought in ranks and files with about a square yard of space per man. I believe that the military scenes in the Cyropaedia are supposed to instruct Greek readers, so clearly he believed that men armed "like the Persians in pictures" could behave similarly to Greek hoplites. Whether his fictional armament was ever seen in real life is another question!

Quote:
Mithras post=299564 Wrote:I think of all the changes in Roman military equipment over the ages, this one has intrigued me the most, probably because it affects directly my 'period-of-choice', the Third Century.
What do we know of the development of vertical grip shields anyways? Connolly shows surviving La Tene period scuta as flat with a horizontal grip. I have a vague idea that flat vertical grip shields are 'Germanic' but I would like to learn more about when and where they appeared.
The late shields were vertical grip?[/quote]
Well, I know that early medieval shields, such as the Norse used, had vertical grips, and this tradition continued until target and buckler fell out of use in the 18th century. I don't know a lot about late antique warfare but there had to be a transition at some point!
Nullis in verba

I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Reply
#36
Quote:
Roach post=299602 Wrote:The late shields were vertical grip?
Well, I know that early medieval shields, such as the Norse used, had vertical grips, and this tradition continued until target and buckler fell out of use in the 18th century. I don't know a lot about late antique warfare but there had to be a transition at some point!

Interestingly, the marching soldiers on the Arch of Constantine carry round or oval dished shields with an offset vertical grip - this could represent the handle being deep in the hollow of the shield, or some sort of 'hoplon' arrangement:

Link to Seindal - click to enlarge

I know a lot of people still tend to raise their eyebrows at sculptural representations, but in the case of this Arch I believe there's quite enough detail and particularity to suggest that the sculptors aren't just pulling it all out of their hat :wink:

And for those who don't like sculpture, try the grip on the Piazza Armerina shield - that guy's knuckles are definitely vertical!:

Link to Seindal - click to enlarge

Confusedhock:
Nathan Ross
Reply
#37
This is actually one of those topics that got my interest peaked in the Roman army nearly a decade ago. Now I may be completely wrong about this but this is what I read several years ago and it always stuck with me as the reason why the shields changed.

The theory that I was told (along with the change to cavalry tactics, increased used of spears) was that the the greater influence and recruitment of non romans lead them to use their native arms. once all people in the empire were considered "romans citizens" and the legionary citizen/auxilery barbarian distinction began to dissolve into a generalized "infantry' unit.

This meant that as more and more non italian Romans entered military service and the state asked them to pay for their own gear again they used what was native and familiar to them, the rounded. As the legions began to be depleted of italian-native romans the increase of these non native Romans meant that the standard shield was no longer the Square Scutum we all recognize, but the Round dish shield. This meant that the units using this shield became familiar with it and after successive generations joined the legion they would have been trained in the use of the round shield, causing it over afew generations to become the new standard.

Now im ready to be torn apart for any innacuracies regarding above but its made alot of sense to me and I could understand the progression through these ideas.
Damian Laurence Zamprogno
Reply
#38
Quote:
Roach post=299617 Wrote:Crap.
Failure. Farewell, forum!
Yes, don't be put off....if leaving the forum was the price demanded of failure(only in your own mind, remember) I would have been booted out long ago... :lol:
And me as well! Big Grin
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#39
Hi Sempronius,

I’m afraid I can ‘shoot that down’ right away, which I will try to do in a gentle manner.

Quote: The theory that I was told (along with the change to cavalry tactics, increased used of spears) was that the the greater influence and recruitment of non romans lead them to use their native arms. once all people in the empire were considered "romans citizens" and the legionary citizen/auxilery barbarian distinction began to dissolve into a generalized "infantry' unit.
That theory is an old one, indeed launched by contemporary writers, who complained that the late Roman army was made up of barbarians mostly! However, despite very clear non-Roman influences, this theory was proved to be invalid. Roman forces always included some number of non-Romans, but these were mostly equipped by the Roman state, as we can see from funerary object taken back into barbaricum. Hugh Elton also showed that there is no hard proof for a 4th c. Roman army made up from largely non-Roman soldiers. Although we begin to see this process taking place in the last decade of the 4th c., and continuing in the West only, during the 5th c., this was a long time after the equipment changes that we are discussing.

Quote: This meant that as more and more non italian Romans entered military service and the state asked them to pay for their own gear again they used what was native and familiar to them, the rounded. As the legions began to be depleted of italian-native romans the increase of these non native Romans meant that the standard shield was no longer the Square Scutum we all recognize, but the Round dish shield. This meant that the units using this shield became familiar with it and after successive generations joined the legion they would have been trained in the use of the round shield, causing it over afew generations to become the new standard.
Well, that would mean that these changes would have started very early! When the square scutum was introduced, it not only succeeded the oval scutum, but the latter continued to be in use next to the square one. And all the time, non-Italian soldiers from the Roman provinces entered the army, long before the square scutum went in decline. All this time, no native weapons were used, as these were no longer present for inhabitants of the Empire. Germanic troops had been fighting for Rome since Caesar, but as described above, when their numbers began really increasing, the changes were already in place. In fact, the Roman army had looked to its neighbours for new developments all the time: the gladius came from Spain, the spatha was also non-Roman, etc. And again, all this time the development was started from within the Roman army, and not due to large numbers of barbarians bringing their own weapons. Indeed, as above, the Roman army usually furnished the non-Romans with weapons, a practice which did only change when homogenous groups of Romans were entering the army (as federates, as short-timers or as cheap replacements for depleted frontier armies). But that was much later.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#40
Quote:Xenophon repeatedly tells in the Cyropaedia (eg. 4.2.22) that his fictional Persians were armed with gerron, thorax, and either sagaris (an Iranian or Scythian axe) or machaira (a chopping sword). They fought in ranks and files with about a square yard of space per man. I believe that the military scenes in the Cyropaedia are supposed to instruct Greek readers, so clearly he believed that men armed "like the Persians in pictures" could behave similarly to Greek hoplites. Whether his fictional armament was ever seen in real life is another question!
But the "gerron" doesn't necessarily mean a taka, it could also be a spara. Also, in Xenophon's Cyropaedia Persians are merely Spartans with eastern names and clothes.


Also, Sempronius, I think Robert is right in that your view is a bit outdated. No offense, of course.
Reply
#41
Quote:
Sean Manning post=299686 Wrote:Xenophon repeatedly tells in the Cyropaedia (eg. 4.2.22) that his fictional Persians were armed with gerron, thorax, and either sagaris (an Iranian or Scythian axe) or machaira (a chopping sword). They fought in ranks and files with about a square yard of space per man. I believe that the military scenes in the Cyropaedia are supposed to instruct Greek readers, so clearly he believed that men armed "like the Persians in pictures" could behave similarly to Greek hoplites. Whether his fictional armament was ever seen in real life is another question!
But the "gerron" doesn't necessarily mean a taka, it could also be a spara. Also, in Xenophon's Cyropaedia Persians are merely Spartans with eastern names and clothes.
In context, its clear that he means smikra gerra (the round or crescent kind about 60 cm across which was common in Anatolia). This matches the vase paintings which he helpfully tells us his warriors resemble (Cyr. 1.2.13), and he makes the point that these shields were less protective and less useful in pushing than the Egyptian body shields. His comments about the strengths and weaknesses of different armaments agree between his fiction and non-fiction works.

The Persian gentlemen in the Cyropaedia are a fictional community of Xenophon's ideal gentlemen; there is certainly Spartan influence but the military lessons are ones which any kalos kagathos could learn from (Xenophon had some doubts about how the Spartan system worked in practice!)
Nullis in verba

I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Reply
#42
Quote:Hi Adrian,
ValentinianVictrix post=299620 Wrote:Robert, surely Vegetius tells us the length of various Roman spears?
Indeed he does, and I know that of course. But I began wondering where those ideas of the others in this discussion came from. I was a bit wicked, your honor. :mrgreen:
Quote:Your statement about Roman spears is not entirely correct. The contos in Late Roman literature is nearly always a long spear, usually the arm of the heavily armoured Catafractarii/Clibanarii, some depictions of it show it was at least 8 feet long. Whilst there are mention of many types of spears in Ammianus, such as the Hasta, Lancia and 'pilis' (pilum), there are also references to contemporary weapons such as the Spiculum and Veruta that Vegestius spoke about. Some Late Roman monumental works show infantry with a spear that appears to be about six feet to six and a half feet long, yet others, such as the pen and ink drawings of the mostly destroyed Column of Theodosius show the infantry in many cases just holding a short spear, probably the Veruta. I believe references to the Spiculum are also to be found in the SHA.
I know, I know, I did not fully elaborate there - there's so much to be said about LR spears (ask Paul McDonell-Staff), and we were originally discussing the LR shield wall and the LR scutum! Trouble with those spears is, as I already mentioned, that the sources either do not describe these spears in full or happily use synonyms when naming them. So yes, a contus is 'probably' always a long spear of 7-9ft WHEN we can check that, and some depictions verufy that, as you say. But indeed, some monumnets only show much shorter spears, and one has to decide whether that's because the spears were indeed 'just' 6ft. (which is not very long, given the complaints about length mentioned below), or whether the artist had a limited amount of space. It's a dilemma: artistic license or a verutum?

That Hasta is generally accepted to be about 6-7 feet, and the Veruta is a Javelin.

@VV thanks for the rest of the info, I didn't have access to Vegetius or Ammianus atm (I left my flashdrive at school) but otherwise I would have looked at that too.
Reply
#43
Quote:That Hasta is generally accepted to be about 6-7 feet, and the Veruta is a Javelin.
Like I already said, that's not borne out by some of the evidence, which is why a length of 6-9 ft. is a better description.
Btw, it's 'verutum' for one, 'veruta' for more.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#44
The only descripition of 'barbarian' spears and their length I know of is within Vegetius-

'As to the missile weapons of the infantry, they were javelins headed with a triangular sharp iron, eleven inches or a foot long, and were called piles. When once fixed in the shield it was impossible to draw them out, and when thrown with force and skill, they penetrated the cuirass without difficulty. At present they are seldom used by us, but are the principal weapon of the barbarian heavy-armed foot. They are called bebrae, and every man carries two or three of them to battle.'

I think Vegetius is equating the 'bebrae' with the Spiculum here. The reason I used 'veruta' rather than 'verutum' was because I believe Late Roman infantry were armed with two of them.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#45
I believe it's between 2-3 Veruta, Plumbatae, or Lancea for javelins, plus a Hasta, and a Spatha for most infantry units.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Oval Scutum in use 1st Century A.D.? LonginusXXI 28 12,909 08-27-2016, 12:17 PM
Last Post: Anaticvla
  Did the Draco replace the Signum in the 4th century AD? markhebb 0 1,016 01-09-2011, 09:29 AM
Last Post: markhebb
  Scutum shield, and other issues Woadwarrior 14 2,967 05-24-2006, 08:46 PM
Last Post: Tarbicus

Forum Jump: