parma

[caiusbeerquitius]

Illerup dates between 200 and 450 AD.
1. The shield bosses there show quite well that flat flanges are extremely rare.
2. In combination with the shield boards from Dura Europos and Thorsbjerg the Illerup findings show that shield bosses with an angled flange were mounted on curved shield boards.
3. It is rather improbable that flat flanged shield bosses were mounted on dished shields
4. It is rather improbable that shield bosses with an angled flange were mounted on flat shields
5. From Roman 1st century-context, I do not know a lot flat-flanged shield bosses. Bosses which were not very well documented in the way they were found are useles for this discussion, since often just restored flat-flanged. So only more recent findings are usable, and here the tendency seems quite clear to follow the same pattern as in Illerup.

Artistic evidence is quite useless for this discussion, if the shields discussed are displayed in a frontal view, since they will almost always appear "flat". The picture brought up above may very well also show a dished parma, it is only a flat one if you expect it to be so.
it might be also curved, like the shields of the guys on the right. It also might have an umbo, which is behind the guy on the right. But we don´t know.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

3. It is rather improbable that flat flanged shield bosses were mounted on dished shields
4. It is rather improbable that shield bosses with an angled flange were mounted on dished shields

I agree with what you are saying, but find these 2 statements rather contradictory...perhaps a typo? :wink:

[caiusbeerquitius]

typo indeed. corrected.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

:lol: I figured. Can't say I disagree at all, it would seem sensible to have a shield that helps deflect rather than stop things!
It would seem to facilitate a punching action if it came to that perhaps...

[Marcus Mummius]

Christian, I do not disagree with any of the points you make. But I fail to see how you can use them to advocate a dished or curved Parma in the 1st century AD.

Of course the umbones found in the Illerup Bog aren't flat. They were meant to be fitted on dished shields. This kind of shield was the norm IMO, starting from the 3rd century AD. You say umbones with a flat flange are rare among these finds. If a parma was flat in the 3rd century AD, what do you think the ratio between the number of parmae and regular scuta would have been? There were an awful lot more legionarries around than signiferi or cornicines.

I think we have no evidence for the shape of the parma worn by the signifer and cornicen in the 1st century AD, apart from the (often very flawed) sculptural evidence. Like you say umbones are often badly restaured or not well published so we often can use those as evidence. But this works in both ways. Not as evidence for flat shields, and not as evidence for dished shields.

I also think a flat parma is easier to tug under your arm or wear on your back. It's not like the signifer or cornicen had a close combat fighting role...

Vale,

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Jef, I see what you are saying, but a slightly dished parma would not be too difficult to do the same with!
And would the chaps who used these not be chosen for reasons of distinction on the combat field? A shield which allowed you to focus a punch would be highly desireable, even if you were not in the thick of things...
Just an opinion! I am trying to look at it from the point of view of someone who is used to scrapping!

[Marcus Mummius]

Jef, I see what you are saying, but a slightly dished parma would not be too difficult to do the same with!
And would the chaps who used these not be chosen for reasons of distinction on the combat field? A shield which allowed you to focus a punch would be highly desireable, even if you were not in the thick of things...
Just an opinion! I am trying to look at it from the point of view of someone who is used to scrapping!

It would no doubt be more deflecting, and have some practical advantages, but the lack of hard evidence is not changed by this

I've found out that punching with the bottom rim of the parma is highly effective. Long range too, and the shield is stabler (it doesn't rotate on the wrist like it does when you throw a straight punch with the umbo and someone hits your shield).

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, much like the scutum, but I was thinking with so little protection as it is, a punch with the umbo would leave yo fairly protected, at least comparatively, considering it is a small shield.
Also the deflection aspect is what I am referring to, as with a flat shield, the chances of it coming into contact with more than the umbo is higher, and diminishes the impact.... anyway, it s just an idea!

[Marcus Mummius]

Yes, much like the scutum, but I was thinking with so little protection as it is, a punch with the umbo would leave yo fairly protected, at least comparatively, considering it is a small shield.
Also the deflection aspect is what I am referring to, as with a flat shield, the chances of it coming into contact with more than the umbo is higher, and diminishes the impact.... anyway, it s just an idea!

I get what you are saying but do you think a signifer would do much shield punching at all? Unless they had three arms this would be a difficult feat to accomplish. You have a large standard to keep hold off, a parma and a gladius.

[Gaius]

I follow the reasoning of Christian: if the 1st C AD umbones are mainly dished as they are in Illerup is reasonable to think that the first are designed in a similar way to the latter, so it is possible that there were slightly dished parmae in the 1st C AD. But for this to be true is necessary to demonstrate that the umbones with dished flange from Illerup pertained to parma-like shields and not to the typical dished legionary shield of that epoch, so also the reasoning of Jef has a point here. I also do not trust much in the sculptural evidence alone as a source of data.

So at the end, the answer is "we do not know"...; interesting, this parma discussion...

[Marcus Mummius]

if the 1st C AD umbones are mainly dished

Yes, but is this the case?

A lot of 1st-2nd century round umbones can be seen on this website (almost all look to have a flat flange IMO):

http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEqui ... hield.html

[Gaius]

mmmm...I see

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

[quote="Marcus Mummius
I get what you are saying but do you think a signifer would do much shield punching at all? Unless they had three arms this would be a difficult feat to accomplish. You have a large standard to keep hold off, a parma and a gladius. :) [/quote]

Well, if it came to it, I think you would plant it in the ground and fight like a demon, as it would be a last stand effort anyway!

[caiusbeerquitius]

A lot of 1st-2nd century round umbones can be seen on this website (almost all look to have a flat flange IMO):

Not really.
The first from the former Guttmann collection isn´t, the second rather might be a horse pectorale and is not necessarily a shield boss. If so, we´re talking about a cavalry shield, which makes it all more complicated. I suggest we leave those out.
Third boss is angled, fourth as well, fifth was AFAIK restored => no value for us, next pic all three angled IMO. In many occasions the angle IS quite small, since many of the boards were dished by less than 8 cm height in the centre, apparently. However, these pics really are not any help, as I said, it only makes sense to look at archaeological drawings, like e.g. this from a lombard shield:

A case where you can put a drawer next to the rim and see that it was for a flat shield is quite rare.
Again, I don´t have a problem with sculptural evidence, but concluding whether shields were dished or not from a relief in frontal view is IMO not possible.
The question would be: What do for a hypothetical reproduction, since a reconstruction is not possible?
I would use what is statistically safest, which would be a slightly dished parma with a round umbo. In fact, I would wonder if a parma is really necessary in Augustan times, maybe a shorter version of the republican scutum would do as well (which the scaled shield on the Cancelleria relief very well might be as well) up into the second century. And I would make one only, if really necessary for whatever reason.

In fact I just started wondering, where these small round flat parmae come from... What would the earliest mentioning be for those? Looking at Trajan´s column, the shields carried by any standard bearers seem not to be a bit smaller or larger than any other shields. The only difference seems to me that they are ALWAYS oval / round.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Addition:

The tombstone of the signifer Quintus Luccius Faustus from Mainz, 1st c. AD, shows a dished shield from 3/4 backside view. horizontal grip, no info about the umbo. The shieldlooks like a smaller version of the 3rd c. AD shields from Dura. If it in fact was smaller may be discussed, since it quite often happens, that shields are displayed way smaller than the findings suggest they actually were.
this is not visible here in the database, but if you see it in nature, or if you look at the photo in Junkelmann´s "Die Legionen des Augustus", Taf. 33, you will probably agree.

Same for Caius Valerius Secundus:


Gnaeus Musius seems to have had a (smaller?) version of the republican scutum:



Unknown 3rd c. AD standard bearer from chesters carries a Whatthehellisthat? - type shield. (Also known as shield-type QXZ-348-a):





The 200 AD tombstone of the cornicen Aurelius Bitus and his son Vitalis depicts Bitus with a round or oval shield hanging on his left side. Size for the small version of a shield would be from the shoulder to the middle of the thigh (?). The shield may be flat or not (since we don´t see the umbo).

What we can say for sure so far, is that mostly (leave out the chesters standarbearer) cornicen´s or signifer´s shields were round and were hanging on their left side. I think it is hard to make a point about these shields being flat, but looking at Quintus Luccius Faustus and Caius Valerius Secundus from the first c. AD, at least two seem to have been dished.

That´s the information I can deduct from artistic evidence so far.