Varying curves in some scutums?

[imGladii]

Hey guys thanks so much for your replies and your discussion is also interesting and appreciated.
This is the scutum I am making I'm kinda bummed because I feel i didn't curve it enough it looked like it had alot of curve when it was on the form. what do you guys think?

[PhilusEstilius]

The republican shield size was indeed a long shield however as time went by and battle tactics changing, this kind of shield lost the curve at top and bottom to create the imperial style scutum we see in later times.
Many of these changes came about in the period of Marius where he got rid of the huge baggage trains reformed the legions and the soldier then had to carry most of his kit hence Marius's Mules.

[Mark Hygate]

The republican shield size was indeed a long shield however as time went by and battle tactics changing, this kind of shield lost the curve at top and bottom to create the imperial style scutum we see in later times.
Many of these changes came about in the period of Marius where he got rid of the huge baggage trains reformed the legions and the soldier then had to carry most of his kit hence Marius's Mules.

Thanks Brian (not actually 'Phil' as before :oops: ),

I know this is stated in many places from modern writers - but where's the actual evidence that the shield 'changed'?

I'm also not actually aware, from ancient writings, that 'battle tactics changed' either - what evidence? The average front line legionary still fought with pilum and gladius - so why a shield change?

[Mark Hygate]

Mike,

Whilst I understand your misgivings - I think the shield looks quite good. What are the actual dimensions?

{I must do the trig' and work out the centre-line dimensions for a 3" or 4" palms' depth curve with a just over 29" chord.....}

[imGladii]

hey my shield is 28x39! pardon me but I don't understand what "palms depth curve" means. I know that when i run a line across the back of teh shield and measure from that line to the deepest part of the curve its 4 1/4 inches.

[Mark Hygate]

hey my shield is 28x39! pardon me but I don't understand what "palms depth curve" means. I know that when i run a line across the back of teh shield and measure from that line to the deepest part of the curve its 4 1/4 inches.

My Polybius is translated as 'depth of a palm' - so I think you have it just about right - it all depends exactly what a 'palm' is. My own is fairly small, but even it is 'wider' than the 3" (actually 74mm) normally accorded to the ancient 1/4qtr pedes, and I've also often seen a palm quoted as 4".

For my part even your 4 1/4 may be a little large - and I would have had the chord-width at about an inch bigger (29.13") and the shield a little bit taller to at least accord with the Dura shield (105.5cm - or possibly then 42" before shrinkage and with trim).

That would at least therefore only be 6" (3" top and bottom) shorter than Polybius' 4ft. From 4ft x 2.5ft oval to 3.5ft x 2.5ft rectangle may be very similar in weight - but I'd still very much like to see any evidence.

[Bryan]

The republican shield size was indeed a long shield however as time went by and battle tactics changing, this kind of shield lost the curve at top and bottom to create the imperial style scutum we see in later times.
Many of these changes came about in the period of Marius where he got rid of the huge baggage trains reformed the legions and the soldier then had to carry most of his kit hence Marius's Mules.

I think enough reenactors have proven that the oval Republican Fayum/Polybius described scutum wasn't a hinderance in marching, given proper carrying straps. So mobility might not be a firm reasoning for shortening the top and bottom of the shield or changing its shape.

[img width=300]http://www.roman-reenactor.com/wpimages/wp69e0dcc0_05_06.jpg[/img]

Interesting enough, the time period of the "cut down" of the scutum seems to have occurred at a time when greaves for the average infantrymen disappeared (meaning men stopped worrying about protecting their lower legs, one way or another), all while the helmets they generally wore became bulkier and more protective than the original bronze Montefortino or Coolus Mannhiem pot helmets, which many didn't have cheek guards at all.

So a possible motive could be that a more protective helmet (imperial gallic and italic), coupled with a more established and standardized training methodology for fighting with sword and shield (growth of a long standing professionalized army following the civil wars of the 1st Cent. BC) made some soldiers realize they simply didn't need the additional top 6" of the shield (or bottom 6" for sake of balance). Additionally, a more crouched fighting stance could make up for the shorter height of a shield, while removing the curves or the edges (oval to rectangular or semi-rectangular) would actually be more protective.

Ergo, they simply lopped them off to make the shields more wieldy, because they weren't worried about being wounded in the head or face as much as they previously had been.

[Mark Hygate]

.................
Interesting enough, the time period of the "cut down" of the scutum seems to have occurred at a time when greaves for the average infantrymen disappeared (meaning men stopped worrying about protecting their lower legs, one way or another), ..............

Thanks Bryan,

Where's the evidence for greaves? We become aware that centurions seem to have them, certainly on parade anyway - but certainly dear old Polybius doesn't mention them. In fact the one thing we do pretty much know is that, if it happened, a shorter (and then perhaps wider and more regular) shield comes in after all legionaries have a full hamata/mail coat and it's not limited by property-ownership or scavaging.

Given the height of the Dura scutum, would you accept a mere 6" shorter (3" top and bottom) for a 3.5ft total height? That's not that much different, especially with greater head protection and even better/trained drills.

[Renatus]

Where's the evidence for greaves? We become aware that centurions seem to have them, certainly on parade anyway - but certainly dear old Polybius doesn't mention them.

Oh yes, he does! Hist. 6.13.9: 'In addition, they [the hastati] have two pila, a brass helmet and greaves' (Loeb translation). He goes on to say that the principes and triarii are similarly equipped, except for the long thrusting spear of the triarii.

[Mark Hygate]

Where's the evidence for greaves? We become aware that centurions seem to have them, certainly on parade anyway - but certainly dear old Polybius doesn't mention them.

Oh yes, he does! Hist. 6.13.9: 'In addition, they [the hastati] have two pila, a brass helmet and greaves' (Loeb translation). He goes on to say that the principes and triarii are similarly equipped, except for the long thrusting spear of the triarii.

My sincere apologies - it's a summary line at the end of the VI.23 paragraph that I had just missed! :oops:

I just didn't recall that detail before - sorry to Bryan too.

[Bryan]

.................
Interesting enough, the time period of the "cut down" of the scutum seems to have occurred at a time when greaves for the average infantrymen disappeared (meaning men stopped worrying about protecting their lower legs, one way or another), ..............

Thanks Bryan,

Where's the evidence for greaves? We become aware that centurions seem to have them, certainly on parade anyway - but certainly dear old Polybius doesn't mention them. In fact the one thing we do pretty much know is that, if it happened, a shorter (and then perhaps wider and more regular) shield comes in after all legionaries have a full hamata/mail coat and it's not limited by property-ownership or scavaging.

Given the height of the Dura scutum, would you accept a mere 6" shorter (3" top and bottom) for a 3.5ft total height? That's not that much different, especially with greater head protection and even better/trained drills.

Polybius mentions greaves being warn by the Hastati, Principes and Triari, at least one on the forward leading left leg, if memory serves. I also think some older archaeological finds are rather rich in greaves for regular soldiers. I don't they just suddenly disappeared one day either, rather that their use for the average "poorer" soldier kind of just peter'ed out as time went on. The centurions kept them because they were traditional dress, they offered more protection for an officer type that was often in harm's way (high casualty rates). I think they wore them in battle, as I'm not a believer in "parade armor" accept for later Empire cavalry or the aristocracy. For a regular soldier, especially one who didn't need to hump his own equipment (centurion had his own personal servant, mule, tent and cart), maybe that played a large part about why the centurions armor remained more cumbersome.

Start with this:
[img width=200]http://www.roman-reenactor.com/wpimages/wp897448a4_05_06.jpg[/img]

Get issued a full size scutum, lop off top and bottom and get this:
[img width=200]http://www.larp.com/legioxx/augscutum.jpg[/img]

Manufacturer of shields gets on board and starts making them "cut down" from scratch, straightens corners for easier assembly (less sawing, easier to get better symmetry), which turns out to give better protection anyway, while only slightly limiting offensive movement. In the end, you get this:
[img width=200]http://www.imperiumancientarmory.com/customscutum.jpg[/img]

If the question is why the shield transitioned we need to ask ourselves what else was happening during this period?
Like I stated in an earlier post, mobility with the tall oval Republican shields doesn't seem to have been an issue. So it probably wasn't a reason for cutting it down. So strike off mobility.

Did tactics change? Not really. The swords got a tiny bit shorter. The men still generally fought the same way, in the same spacing, at least according to most of the evidence. The enemies changed a bit. More Gaul and German opponents (thureos carrying infantry), more Romans vs. Romans, which entainled close in shield to shield combat, changing the dynamic of the close in fight a bit from the 2nd Cent. BC. From what evidence remains, I think the time period doesn't coincide with any real change in fighting styles that would warrant the cutting down of the shields. What tactical advantage does a reduction in the height of a shield by 6-12" provide? Slightly better mobility and visibility, yes. But does that transform into some new formation or tactic? I don't see how.

Was body armor the reason? During the massive recruitment drives during the Civil War periods of the 1st Cent. BC., especially during the later wars with Octavianus/Antonius vs. the Liberators (seeing +25 legions in field), I don't think Lorica Hamata armor was as standardized as some think. I believe the whole idea of body armor as being overblown anyway, as the real protection had been and was the shield. It was definitely worn but I don't think the Roman state ever had the means or want to equip everyone uniformly, at least during this period, regardless of Polybius had to say in his histories. At a time that the State took over equipping soldiers, I don't think the most complex armor and expensive armor available, traditionally worn by Celtic chieftains, would have been outright issued to every single soldier who served under the standards. I think a lot of soldiers, including full legions if Caesar's commentaries can be relied upon, campaigned and fought battles, at least for a short time period, without any proper metal armor for their bodies, other than their heads. Either way, I don't think the cutting down of the shield from long oval shape to slightly shorter cut-down oval shaped to the rectangular shape had anything to really due with the cuirass one was wearing. Cutting down the top and bottom of a shield wouldn't do much in terms of protecting the torso or not. Its all about the face and neck. Which brings us to the helmet...

[img width=200]http://www.armae.com/Photos/Casques/Antiquite/Coolus_Manheim_cesarien.jpg[/img]

The Coolus Mannhiem is probably the least protective helmet worn by a Roman soldier during any period but was probably the most commonly issued during the late Republican period, from Marius to Augustus, early to late 1st Cent. BC, which just so happened to coincide with the period the State began issuing equipment at a large scale when the property qualifications for citizen soldiers were dropped by Marius in 107 BC. So at a time when the Romans might be issuing every soldier an expensive and time consuming to make armor to wear on their bodies (mail), which in battle will be protected by the tall oval Republican scutum (Polybius/Fayum/Altar of Ahenobarbus type), they were are also issued easy to make but rather unprotecting helmets, as compared to earlier versions, and later.

The above helmet is NOT very protective. Sure, it does the trick in terms of protecting the skull in general terms and is better than wearing a woolen or straw hat, but it did little to nothing to protect the face or neck. The tall oval shape of the Republic Scutum would certainly have done much to protect these spots. With a good stance and the oval tall Republican shield properly held, little of the face and neck would have been exposed. So lopping off 3-6" of the shield top, or however much, doesn't really make sense, not in a time when the common soldier wore a Coolus Mannhiem. Even if the owner of such as helmet wore some freakishly large and impenetrable cuirass, it wouldn't stop a spear tip, sword point, or arrow from lodging itself in the soldier's much exposed face, front, side or back of neck. So while this helmet stays, so does the tall oval shield.

But not everyone wore this helmet. Some had the older Monterfortino types, which offered far better protection, as well as cheek guards most of the time. But it was more expensive and harder to make than a Coolus. Still, a decent helmet when it came to protection. However, with their military service taking them far in Gaul, Germania, even Britania, many Romans started encountering a whole new world of armor being crafted by some of the finest smiths in the world that they'd yet to have been exposed to. The finds include differently designed iron helmets, which in a short time (end of 1st cent. BC, 1st Cent AD) would nearly completely replace the older bronze styles. As an example, among these types encountered by a Roman soldier campaigning in the Gallic regions is one classified as a Agen Port.

[img width=200]http://i711.photobucket.com/albums/ww114/Viridovix_Aeduus/Gallic%20Equipment%20and%20Armor/DSCN6428.jpg[/img]

If you were a Roman wearing a helmet like this, as protective as it is, with its 360 degree brim protecting not only the neck but face, as well as the large cheek guards, would you feel the need as much to have to rely on the top of your shield as much for protection? If not, then you now have a motive to lop off the top of the shield, (and bottom to balance it out), to make it smaller, lighter, more maneuverable. Cutting any inches or even ounces (or centimeters and grams for you metric folks) helps.

Does it mean the soldier would be allowed to cut it down? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know enough about the army during the time period, its uniformity, standardization, discipline, rules, etc. to make that determination. However, I think they would have had some leeway. Shield sizes seem never to have been consistent. The Republican Scutum as described by Polybius is similar in size and dimensions to the Alter of Ahenobarbus version, as well as the Fayum, but they weren't even close to identical, just similar enough to make a connection. Also, Scipio Aemilianius, during the siege of Numantia in the mid 2nd Cent BC, was said to have rebuked a solder out for having an overly large shield. If there were overly large (bad form=man hides too much), there were probably overly small. My guess is that for centuries, the scutum remained unchanged in overall shape and basically followed a common sizing requirement that may have varied by some inches, depending on the manufacturer and the desire purchaser.

During the early Principate period, more and more soldiers started wearing the more protective Imperial Gallic styled helmets, which meant more and more Romans would have had better protection for their faces and neck, which further meant that more and more soldiers would have had the motive for cutting down the height of their shields. By the 1st Cent. AD, few were probably still wearing the old Coolus or Monterfortino style helmets anymore, so as it became more standardized to cut down the shield's height, the process was made more efficient by having it just manufactured that way, which is were the more rectangular scutum come into play.

Also, some time in there some Hexagonal Scutum appeared, but I don't really have a theory on that yet. Maybe some praefectus fabrum got a sweet deal on a couple thousand of them from some German tribes or something.

Anyway, behold the ramblings of a guy on pain meds, convalescing from surgery, with too much time to think.

[Mark Hygate]

..................
Anyway, behold the ramblings of a guy on pain meds, convalescing from surgery, with too much time to think.

Bryan, brilliant - thank you - and, whatever it is, I hope you recover soon.

Whilst convalescing though - perhaps ponder this (that I alluded to before, whilst missing the 'greaves' statement..... :oops: )

One of the reasons I wonder about the Fayum-shaped shield (and then seen everywhere) is - where are the iron rims that protect the top and bottom and allow it to be rested on the ground? They might imply that the shield is already more of a rectangle....

As to the hexagonal shield - it seems reasonably sensible to see this introduced, particularly by the ala singulares, with the incorporation of germanic soldiers where we believe the shape originated. Certainly it would differentiate the german ala from the other praetorian cavalry, which would be quite deliberate. Others may then have adopted it to show a linked ethnic origin where that was deemed suitable.

[PhilusEstilius]

I think to better understand the more rectangular scutum we might have to ask just when did the Pilum come into use and the interlocking of shields after a Pilum throw and also a shorter gladius than the Caesarian type.

[Bryan]

..................
Anyway, behold the ramblings of a guy on pain meds, convalescing from surgery, with too much time to think.

Bryan, brilliant - thank you - and, whatever it is, I hope you recover soon.

Whilst convalescing though - perhaps ponder this (that I alluded to before, whilst missing the 'greaves' statement..... :oops: )

One of the reasons I wonder about the Fayum-shaped shield (and then seen everywhere) is - where are the iron rims that protect the top and bottom and allow it to be rested on the ground? They might imply that the shield is already more of a rectangle....

As for the Fayum shield, considering where it was when it was found and where it was stored for a while, and its condition, there is a possibility I think that scarce and valuable metal like bronze might have been salvaged from it. I say bronze because it does better against the elements than iron in protecting while resting on the ground and is a harder metal than non-work hardened wrought iron. Maybe the original had metal rims. I don't know anything about the shape being rectangular, everything I've seen shows it was nearly identical in description and size to the Polybius scuta, though slightly taller, as well as various monuments.
Some pretty good info on the Fayum Shield

Scutum-like shields used in the Aemilius Paulus Monument to the victory in Pydna, in Delphi, Circa 160s BC:
[img width=250]http://www.coinsweekly.com/images/4192_4fbb675e.jpg[/img]

Alter of Domitius Ahenobarbus, victory over Transalpine Gauls, Circa 120s BC:
[img width=250]http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/77/09/24/770924658edb240d411d2dbf3bceb878.jpg[/img]

Various funerary steles also show oval shaped shields for Romans, well into the Imperial age.

As to the hexagonal shield - it seems reasonably sensible to see this introduced, particularly by the [i]ala singulares, with the incorporation of germanic soldiers where we believe the shape originated. Certainly it would differentiate the german ala from the other praetorian cavalry, which would be quite deliberate. Others may then have adopted it to show a linked ethnic origin where that was deemed suitable.[/i]

That might work as a theory. I don't know enough about the time period to really comment though on the history aspect. But as for shape, its a great shield for blocking missiles while also maximizing maneuverability. In hand to hand combat, I'd see it more used as a large parrying shield/buckler than a defensive-esque body shield like the taller curved oval and rectangular scuta.

Thanks for the well wishes too.

PhilusEstilius wrote:
I think to better understand the more rectangular scutum we might have to ask just when did the Pilum come into use and the interlocking of shields after a Pilum throw and also a shorter gladius than the Caesarian type.

How so? Pila came into use amongst Italians in the 7th century or even before according to archaeological finds. As for when the Romans started using them, I don't think anyone can definitively state with certainty when the Hastati first replaced their spears (as they were named) with pila. The longer gladius hispaniensis swords was used up to the Caesarian times were beginning to be slowly augmented by the Mainz type in the late 1st Cent BC, from my understanding, though more knowledgeable posters might be able to correct me. The Mainz was on average only a few inches shorter than a hispaniensis.

I don't understand what pila and a shortened sword have to do with rectangular shields vs. oval shields. What fighting tactic would be possible with rectangular but not with slightly taller oval shields, both of which are curved to the same degree? A slightly more efficient testudo? But that formation was defense, to be used against intense missile fire. In a normal fight, why would Romans interlock their shields? From an engineering standpoint, isn't the whole point of curving a shield to give the carrier more protection on their flanks. If the flanks are better secured, why feel the need to interlock shields? Also, curved shields are harder to interlock than flat ones (depth of curve takes up lots of room). Is it your hypothesis that it was standard practice for Romans to throw pila in unison and then interlock shields as an offensive fighting tactic? If so, I think the topic is highly debatable. If we're going to get into individual or small unit fighting techniques, maybe a new thread topic is in order. I have been theorizing about this extensively recently as well. Either way, I'm enjoying the debate.

[Mark Hygate]

I think to better understand the more rectangular scutum we might have to ask just when did the Pilum come into use and the interlocking of shields after a Pilum throw and also a shorter gladius than the Caesarian type.

In addition to what Bryan has written - I too would ask 'why'?

For the pilum would certainly seem to have been around from whenever the Polybian construct starts (3rd, maybe 4th Century BC?). More at issue, whether (as the monuments might show) a Fayum-shaped shield or a more rectangular shield is in use, it's actually the short(er) sword and curved scutum pairing vs the spear and round/oval shield combinations that define the drills and not, I suspect, the pilum.

Like Bryan (and Bryan and I have discussed around before ) I also query the 'interlocking'. I believe this is more relevant to the spear and shield combination which we see earlier with hoplites (3ft round), during indeed, and later with Late Roman and even later Dark Age troops. For my mind this is one reason I have become convinced that the Romans fought on a one pace (2.5ft) frontage when forming a 'shield-wall'/phalanx. A curved shield such as the scutum is not suitable for interlocking, but for holding side by side - leaving sufficient play over the arc to move and strike with the sword (and also great for testudo); and, in addition, if there was a desire/need/ability to fight in more open order then the curve is more protective. Whereas the 'auxiliary shield' type (flatter and broader) would seem, if 3ft wide, to be better suited to inter-locking.

Whilst I think about it, and we have Polybius scutum measurements and the Dura shield to think of - what are the dimensions of the standard oval auxiliary shield thought to be? If the Roman 'parma' is 3ft round (cf the Polybian velites) - what is the height? Images might seem to suggest 4ft (which would track indeed with the Polybian measurement, but be 6" out with Dura).

Interestingly I would even think to wonder whether the Triarii would be armed with a scutum - it doesn't then seem appropriate given their spear-armament; but perhaps it's the gladius that is indeed the primary driver.