12-08-2014, 05:01 AM
Thureos is the Greek word for a type of large oval shaped shield, it means something like "door" or "door stone," depending on who you ask. Modern historians and aficionados commonly use the term to describe the shields used by Hellenic, Gallic, and other non-Roman infantry, preferring to use the Latin Scutum for the Romans, to avoid confusion (actually making it more confusing). However, the ancients didn't appear to really have a distinction between the shields, as some knowledgeable ancient historians like Polybius refer to the Roman infantry shield as a thureos. Furthermore, an infantryman that carries a thureos can be referred to as a thureophoroi, θυρεοφόρος, which literally means "bearer of a thureos" or "shield bearer."
The distinctions you are making is another one of those "modernisms" that are used frequently on the internet to differentiate the different nationalities and fighting types but in reality those differences don't seem to have been noticed in the ancient period. For instance, a Roman speaking Greek would refer to the Roman scutum as a thureos. Though I am not 100% of any Romans being actually described as thureophoroi (possibly used by Plutarch to describe Roman infantry in Life of Aemilius Paulus, 19), the comparison between a Roman carrying a scutum (literal scutari/bearer of scutum), compared to a thureophoroi, is still valid.
Also, Roman infantry did not always engage in the same way on the battlefield. Caesar makes this pretty clear in his commentaries, when describing the differences between Pompey's Spanish Legions and his own:
"The method of fighting adopted by the enemy's troops was to charge at first at full speed, boldly seize a position, take no particular trouble to preserve their ranks, but fight singly and in loose order; if they were hard pressed they did not consider it a disgrace to retire and quit their position, for, waging a continuous warfare against the Lusitanians and other barbarous tribes, they had become used to a barbarous kind of fighting, as it usually happens that when troops have spent a long time in any district they are greatly influenced by the methods of the country."
JC DBC, 1.44
Clearly, it was known that Roman troops adopted their fighting tactics to reflect the enemy they faced.
The distinctions you are making is another one of those "modernisms" that are used frequently on the internet to differentiate the different nationalities and fighting types but in reality those differences don't seem to have been noticed in the ancient period. For instance, a Roman speaking Greek would refer to the Roman scutum as a thureos. Though I am not 100% of any Romans being actually described as thureophoroi (possibly used by Plutarch to describe Roman infantry in Life of Aemilius Paulus, 19), the comparison between a Roman carrying a scutum (literal scutari/bearer of scutum), compared to a thureophoroi, is still valid.
Also, Roman infantry did not always engage in the same way on the battlefield. Caesar makes this pretty clear in his commentaries, when describing the differences between Pompey's Spanish Legions and his own:
"The method of fighting adopted by the enemy's troops was to charge at first at full speed, boldly seize a position, take no particular trouble to preserve their ranks, but fight singly and in loose order; if they were hard pressed they did not consider it a disgrace to retire and quit their position, for, waging a continuous warfare against the Lusitanians and other barbarous tribes, they had become used to a barbarous kind of fighting, as it usually happens that when troops have spent a long time in any district they are greatly influenced by the methods of the country."
JC DBC, 1.44
Clearly, it was known that Roman troops adopted their fighting tactics to reflect the enemy they faced.
