Shield grip question?

[Anonymous]

A quick question...<br>
A friend of ours - an actor who does lots for the History Channel etc.- gave me three ful size Roman shields on Friday (oh frabjous day! caloo calay!)- all battered from sword cuts, with that just out of the Teutoberger Forest look.<br>
My sons asked the question- why is the sword grip horizontal (i.e. parallel with the top and bottom side) rather than vertical which feels more natural?<br>
I confess I don't know the answer....<br>
<br>
Paulus<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Matthew Amt]

Ave!<br>
<br>
You think a vertical shield grip feels more natural? I think most of us would disagree. Vertical grips did exist (Doncaster shield, for instance), but infantry shields seem to have had mostly horizontal grips.<br>
<br>
This is a very comfortable and secure grip, and it makes the shield lie nicely along your arm and shoulder. This is the stance seen in a lot of original depictions (gladiators as well as legionaries). You can put your weight behind it, even brace it at the bottom with your knee. If the grip is vertical, it changes your entire stance, turning you more to the front rather than edge-on, and you can't body-shove nearly as well. While a lot of round shields from other cultures were probably held with the grip vertical, this doesn't work as well with a longer, heavier shield like the scutum.<br>
<br>
Try it, you'll like it! Vale,<br>
<br>
Matthew/Quintus, Legio XX <p></p><i></i>

[mcbishop]

<em>You think a vertical shield grip feels more natural? I think most of us would disagree. Vertical grips did exist (Doncaster shield, for instance)</em><br>
<br>
That report needs to be treated with a measure of caution. Perhaps better to say 'One vertical grip has been claimed by its excavator...'<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

How do you tell if the grip is vertical on a round shield? Hmm., sounds like something that could be made into a Zen koan...<br>
<br>
But seriously was the Doncaster shield basically a normal scutum aside from the grip? I'm not familiar with it.<br>
<br>
Aaron <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=aglarsen>AGLarsen</A> at: 5/31/04 10:20 pm<br></i>

[mcbishop]

<em>But seriously was the Doncaster shield basically a normal scutum aside from the grip? I'm not familiar with it.</em><br>
<br>
Flat and rectangular. Here are the bits:<br>
<br>
www.vicus.org.uk/images/b...shield.gif<br>
<br>
and here's the speculative reconstruction:<br>
<br>
www.vicus.org.uk/images/d...uction.gif<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

those metal metal fittings for the handgrip<br>
<br>
I'm sure Ive seen similar at Kalkriese and museum of scotland<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
i think<br>
<br>
<br>
have pics somewhere<br>
<br>
<p><img src="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.martin/forum/mark.gif
" width="100" height="100" align="right">
</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

The reconstruction has more metal than the bits ?<br>
<br>
Did any wood survive ?<br>
<br>
How unusual is the flat but square construction ?<br>
<br>
Is it deffo a Legionary shield ?<br>
<br>
Questions. questions questions !!<br>
<br>
<br>
Conal<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[mcbishop]

<em> those metal metal fittings for the handgrip<br>
<br>
I'm sure Ive seen similar at Kalkriese and museum of scotland</em><br>
<br>
They are certainly ubiquitous (I found a couple of pieces at Inveresk when I was digging there).<br>
<br>
<em>The reconstruction has more metal than the bits ?</em><br>
<br>
Artistic license?! .... ;-)<br>
<br>
<em>Did any wood survive ?</em><br>
<br>
In carbonised form, yes, with the grain of three layers laid crosswise: horizontal alder, vertical oak, horizontal alder (according to the excavator; it might of course be vertical alder, horizontal oak, vertical alder if that vertical shield grip is wrong).<br>
<br>
<em>How unusual is the flat but square construction ?</em><br>
<br>
Ask Annaius Daverzus, he would know:<br>
<br>
www.romanarmy.com/Content...tum=&ID=15<br>
<br>
<em>Is it deffo a Legionary shield ?</em><br>
<br>
Certainly not. '<em>Scutum</em>' of course can refer to any shield, not just a legionary one. Nothing about this shield or its context says it need be a legionary one... but at the same time, nothing says it isn't! It might be worth considering what happens if you stick a curved shield under a turf rampart for a few years; whatever the case, we have no way of knowing now.<br>
<br>
<em>Questions. questions questions !!</em><br>
<br>
Words, words, words (to quote Hamlet).<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>

[Hibernicus]

Paulus writes: "My sons asked the question- why is the sword grip horizontal (i.e. parallel with the top and bottom side) rather than vertical which feels more natural?"<br>
<br>
It depends upon the primary function of the shield.<br>
A vertical grip is far more aggressive in that the shield can be held upright and a forward punch has some power, especially when you place your forearm against the back and brace with your right hand. Very good for Gridiron style smashing; also sideways sweeps and punching with the outward edge. The shield can be held at arms length for longer periods than a horizontal grip.<br>
<br>
A horizontal grip is very defensive when held horizonally. The shield can be held with the arm down far longer than with a vertical grip. When braced at an angle against your shoulder, arm and leg (or perhaps the ground) it provides a surface charging men find hard to penetrate. Secondly the shield can be rotated 90° so that the grip is now vertical. This is very effective when you can no longer stand shoulder to shoulder with your fellow soldiers. You see this depicted in some gladiator images. Punching with the bottom edge is very powerful.<br>
<br>
A side strapped shield ( hand grip and forearm strap) is a compromise to both but the shield arm is more susceptible to damage from penetration<br>
<br>
Hibernicus<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Crispvs]

Some of the metal fittings identified as hand-grips have bifurcated ends which curve back into an 'm' shape. This same shape is impressed onto some shield covers and looks very much like the 'decoration' shown on the faces of many shields on Trajan's column. Such a bar could have been fixed to the face of a shield, its central area passing over the aperture designed to allow the hand to hold the grip, thus forming both the handle and reinforcement for the shield face. The boss could then be fixed over the hole in the normal way. I have a photo of a boss in Tullie House Museum in Carlisle (?) which has had two channels worked into opposite sides of the underside of the flange. Could these channels have been made to achieve a better fit over a vertical reinforcing bar/handle?<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i></i>