late Roman Dished Shields

[Conal]

What advantages does having a dished shape give you over a flat one ?

cheers guys

ps I did look but couldn't find any threds on this; :roll:

[Peroni]

Weapon deflection. A dished shield is more likely to deflect weapons better than a flat-faced shield.

[FAVENTIANVS]

But it is easier to make large shield walls or fulca with flat ones, they also overlap better, IMHO.

[John M McDermott]

A dish shaped shield has incredible strength. I could drive my car over mine.

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

Sure, hard to crash. Anyway, using a dish shaped shield like an offensive weapon it's more difficult.
While doing it by a flat one can hurt seriously the face and the neck of the enemy before you.

Valete,
Titus

[Tarbicus]

Sure, hard to crash. Anyway, using a dish shaped shield like an offensive weapon it's more difficult.
While doing it by a flat one can hurt seriously the face and the neck of the enemy before you.

Surely a legionary could wield a "heavy" scutum like it was a piece of board, given their constant training and usage, in a way which any practising modern counterpart would find difficult to do. We must be wary of associating modern physical capabilities of re-enactors, or even military professionals, with the ancients who had completely different daily lives and lifestyles compared to any of us right through their upbringing. I suspect an auxiliary of 2000 years ago would scoff at the abilities of even a modern Special Forces or SAS guy, especially a Batavian :wink:

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

It's just a shape problem: 2000 years ago training and strengtht are different, of course , but in combat if you try to hit with the edge of your shield faces to hurt or uncover the body of the adversary, a flat shield is much better. I've tried both the shields in a lot of full contact "mock" combats (with plastic swords) and it'so for me. Better also for the overlapping in a shields wall as Faventianus says.

Vale,
Titus

[Robert Vermaat]

Dished shields were not extremely dished. the advantage of strength remains, but actually the difference with flat shields where overlapping and hitting with rims are concerned, are not that big.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Even if a flat shield actually were better than a dished one: Archaeological evidence strongly supports the theory that most shields were dished.
(e.g. in Illerup more than 98% of the findings, the three shields from Egypt discussed by Goethert etc. p.p.)

[FAVENTIANVS]

http://www.illerup.dk/custom/illerup_la ... ension=jpg
http://www.illerup.dk/custom/illerup_la ... ension=jpg
http://membres.lycos.fr/bronzeage/iron_age/image3.htm
http://membres.lycos.fr/bronzeage/iron_age/image27.htm

Wouldn't the rim have been extremely irregular if originally dished?

This is not an anti-dished shields post :wink:
Quoting Robert Vermaat: "when in time and with enough skills available, dished shields would have been made and used, but when in times of crisis, hurry, and desperation flat shields would have been the simplest, fastest and easiest option to make."

[caiusbeerquitius]

Wouldn't the rim have been extremely irregular if originally dished?

No not if the shield would have been raised at the centre for between 5 and 8 cm. In this context it is more sensible to not look at shield boards preserved in a humid environment. Rather look at the shield bosses.

Quoting Robert Vermaat: "when in time and with enough skills available, dished shields would have been made and used, but when in times of crisis, hurry, and desperation flat shields would have been the simplest, fastest and easiest option to make."

I disagree: The shields were constructed of planks. These had to be individually sawn and plained. For the craftsman it makes basically no difference to make a slightly different form, it needs not more time, but gives a greater advantage to the user. Try it out.

[FAVENTIANVS]

I disagree: The shields were constructed of planks. These had to be individually sawn and plained. For the craftsman it makes basically no difference to make a slightly different form, it needs not more time, but gives a greater advantage to the user. Try it out.

So, why were flat shields made then? And the early imperial auxiliary ones?

[caiusbeerquitius]

In my opinion it is very difficult to say whether early imperial auxiliary shields were flat in fact, or not slightly dished. One might want to look at the shield bosses to find that out.

- La-Tène shields were commonly flat, I read and heard, so the auxiliary
shields might stand in that tradition, if "celtic" units are concerned.

- It might be because the "technology" was not known everywhere, just
keep in mind how long it took in the middle ages for an advanced
version of a plow to travel across Europe.

- As far as Late Antiquity is concerned: IMHO the evidence for flat shields
is very scarce. This evidence usually comes along with the rather
precious type of shield boss, and precious shield decoration. So these
items were perhaps not intended to be functional shields (in a military
sense), but rather items of prestige.

- Junkelmann states somewhere that flat shields are much better to
handle on horseback. Something to think about.

[Robert Vermaat]

Quoting Robert Vermaat: "when in time and with enough skills available, dished shields would have been made and used, but when in times of crisis, hurry, and desperation flat shields would have been the simplest, fastest and easiest option to make."

I disagree: The shields were constructed of planks. These had to be individually sawn and plained. For the craftsman it makes basically no difference to make a slightly different form, it needs not more time, but gives a greater advantage to the user. Try it out.

I meant times of crisis when you´d have almost no time at all. I don´t know how much time it takes to make planks dished, or a plank shield dished, but I guess more than a day. Am I wrong?

[FAVENTIANVS]

- Junkelmann states somewhere that flat shields are much better to
handle on horseback. Something to think about.

interesting...