Changes in the Scutum

[Caius Maxentius]

I'm curious as to why the oval-style scutum changed to a more rectangular model in the early empire. But even moreso, why was the scutum design abandoned for the circular shield design seen in the fourth century? The circular shield looks less protective and harder to use in testudo formation, but maybe there's a good reason why the late army moved over to this design?

[caldrail]

The rectangular shield was adopted as the most protective design (and bear in mind it was curved, not flat) for troops arrayed in close order. Standing next to each other the rectangle left little gap exposed to enemy action. By the late empire it was becoming rare to fight large scale battles. Troops were mostly employed on a smaller scale and raiding was more common than the formal confrontations of old. Further, the influx of foreign troops influenced the choice of shield, especially since there was an increasing tendency to use foreign commanders who weren't trained in the Roman fashion.

 

You are correct - a testudo is less protective with circular shields, but although the battle manuals of the time clearly show this formation was in use, there were undoubtedly fewer situations that called for its use. They also used the foulkon, where the second rank hold their shields as an upper row of protection over the men over the front rank.

 

To some extent the move to round shields was for practical reasons. A round flat shiled is easier and quicker to make than a rectangular curved one.

[barca]

I'm curious as to why the oval-style scutum changed to a more rectangular model in the early empire. But even moreso, why was the scutum design abandoned for the circular shield design seen in the fourth century? The circular shield looks less protective and harder to use in testudo formation, but maybe there's a good reason why the late army moved over to this design?

 

 

It seems to me that the late Roman infantry also used an oval shield.

 

The Byzantine infantry used an oval shield and later they used a kite-shaped shield.

[Melvadius]

I'm curious as to why the oval-style scutum changed to a more rectangular model in the early empire. But even moreso, why was the scutum design abandoned for the circular shield design seen in the fourth century? The circular shield looks less protective and harder to use in testudo formation, but maybe there's a good reason why the late army moved over to this design?

 

 

It seems to me that the late Roman infantry also used an oval shield.

 

The Byzantine infantry used an oval shield and later they used a kite-shaped shield.

 

The oval shield was used by various units from the Republican period onward but this doesn't necessarily detract from Caldrail's points about the later Imperial period.

[caldrail]

Auxillaries retained an oval shield if I remember right.

[DecimusCaesar]

Auxillaries retained an oval shield if I remember right.

 

You're right. I wonder about the weight differences between the oval shield and the rectangular versions. Perhaps it was easier to manouver with the oval shields in comparison with other types?

[caldrail]

All shields are weighty. Round flat shields are easy to make, but extending them vertically into ovals improves body protection. The trade off between weight and protection happens regularly in military matters. For instance when the Saxons rebelled in Britain in the 5th century their shields were quite small. By the time we reach the settlement period two hundred years later, the average circular shield was much larger. As the Saxons developed from raiding bands into fyrds and huscarls, the improved discipline and formation keeping resulted in a need for mutual protection, thus the continued use of a shield wall encourages larger shields despite the load it brings with it.

 

These principles are true for the Romans - as illustrated by the adoption of convenient shield shapes/sizes by smaller and more mobile raiding forces in the late empire as opposed to massed ranks of earlier times.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Auxillaries retained an oval shield if I remember right.

 

You're right. I wonder about the weight differences between the oval shield and the rectangular versions. Perhaps it was easier to manouver with the oval shields in comparison with other types?

 

I remember reading that the scutum weighed around 20 to 25 pounds but I can't remember where. It may have been Goldsworthy. But I'm not sure which design was being referred to. I imagine there wasn't much difference in weight.

Does anyone remember when the earliest dated rectangular scutum was found?

[caldrail]

The square and curved scutum is first depicted on a tomb dedicated to Munatius Plancus at Gaeta, dated to 10BC. It was a development of republican shields of a similar but taller pattern mentioned by Polybius as being in use with hastatii in the second century BC. The classic imperial scutum actually had a short life, going out of use sometime around the start of the 2nd century and never completely supplanted the more usual oval or 'rounded rectangular' type.which remained as the standard shield patterns afterward. Flirtations with polygonal shields happened intermittently, most notably during the reign of Tiberius, but archaeological evidence point to hexagonal shields in use as early as the second century BC too.

Edited June 22, 2010 by caldrail

[Centurion-Macro]

Personally I believe it was for maneuverability. I may be completely wrong here, but I always believed the Auxiliary's has oval shields because they had to be more maneuverable in battle, as they often fought in terrain which disrupted the legionary formations. Now, when the legions were split up into smaller 1,040 man mobile legions, it is only natural they would become more maneuverable, and they would not fight in tight formation as they once did. As they focused more on cavalry and lighter infantry, why not use the lighter infantry shields? it makes perfect sense to me.

 

I may be wrong, but that is how I always thought it.

[caldrail]

Auxillaries fought where-ever they were ordered to, not necessarily in terrain unsuited to legionary close order tactics and bear in mind these legions didn't always fight in terrain best suited to them. but essentially you're corrct. Mobile, open order fighting tends to result in smaller lighter shields, whilst close order formations tend to rsult in larger shields more suited to creating 'walls' for protection. Also bear in mind that the later legionaries did fight in close formation sometimes. The famous testudo formation was still part of late imperial drill.

 

For the Romans, the earliest shields weren't round, as might be expected, but leaf shaped, and the longer axis of a shield is a persistent feature of these defensive items. The idea is a compromise between full body body protection and weight. This accounts for the enduring popularity of the oval shape. The 'rounded rectangle' offers better protection all round with a lessened possibility of injuring the user by inadvertant contact with the corners during combat. In fact, it might be the case that the square or rectabgular shields eventually fell into disuse for that very reason. Of course the oval shape is also less of an obstacle for fighting.

[Melvadius]

This has been touched on already in some of the earlier postings but from a purely practical viewpoint an oval shield has a couple of advantages over a large rectangular shield in 'open' and opposed to 'close order' combat.

 

I would define - 'close' order formations as the typical early Principate legion working in a tight formation, with almost overlapping shields and using their gladii to make short stabs diagonally to their opponents on their right from behind the protection of their shields.

 

In comparison 'open' order formations tend to be much looser with each man basically defending himself, moving forward or back as he wishes but also needing a larger area to swing his weapons.

 

The oval shape provides good, or at least reasonable, body protection in either formation.

 

However in 'open order' combat, which the later legions adopted and auxilliaries usually employed, anyone using a hand held weapon can swing it either over the top or under the bottom of the shield in a slashing motion with reduced risk of catching either it or their arm on the shield's edge. An oval shield can also be easily rotated, by using the elbow as a pivot point, across the body to block slashing attacks from several directions without needing to move the whole arm out from the body improving defensive actions. The shape of the rectangular scutum makes this harder to achieve with an economy of motion.

 

The rectangualr scutum also makes slashing strokes by longer edged weapons, such as the spartha adopted by the later Imperial armies, harder to achieve easily.

 

The question may be the extent to which the change in tactics was led by a change in equipment or vice-versa. Possibly with the Imperial armies becoming more static in the later Empire. the Romans found that when needed to respond to emergencies their main armed forces couldn't get into contact with raiding parties before they got away so to improve the manouverability of the later field armies gradually moved over to tactics and equipment previously only used by lighter (auxilliary) troops.

[caldrail]

We know that legionary and gladiatorial equipment went through similar changes in form during the course of the early and mid-empire, so it appears that some changes were driven by cultural leanings. Overall the changes were due to fashion and experience in the field then, plus the inclination of whoever ordered the shields manufacture and the makers responsible for producing them as regards quality anf form. It was, in other words, a combination of circumstance, experiment, and procurement decision.

[Centurion-Macro]

Auxillaries fought where-ever they were ordered to, not necessarily in terrain unsuited to legionary close order tactics and bear in mind these legions didn't always fight in terrain best suited to them. but essentially you're corrct. Mobile, open order fighting tends to result in smaller lighter shields, whilst close order formations tend to rsult in larger shields more suited to creating 'walls' for protection. Also bear in mind that the later legionaries did fight in close formation sometimes. The famous testudo formation was still part of late imperial drill.

 

For the Romans, the earliest shields weren't round, as might be expected, but leaf shaped, and the longer axis of a shield is a persistent feature of these defensive items. The idea is a compromise between full body body protection and weight. This accounts for the enduring popularity of the oval shape. The 'rounded rectangle' offers better protection all round with a lessened possibility of injuring the user by inadvertant contact with the corners during combat. In fact, it might be the case that the square or rectabgular shields eventually fell into disuse for that very reason. Of course the oval shape is also less of an obstacle for fighting.

Was it very effective in the later years? Because I was thinking, with the larger amount of barbarians attacking the Romans and all that, and the shrinking and changing of the Roman legion, was the larger formations any less effective?

 

For example, how would a 1000 man legion be able to stop a horde of barbarians, even in tight formation?

[caldrail]

That would depend on the size of the barbarian horde and the tactics employed. The Romans found that the smaller legion sized worked well for them. Remember that a single commander can only really control a certain size of unit before his corders go unheard and chaos takes hold - the Romans found a century was the largest convenient unit for that and I suspect barbarians had similar problems regardless of discipline and drill issues. So even if a barbarian unit was larger, the lack of coherent manoever would compensate.

 

Typically barbrian units were rather similar to modern rioters in behaviour once the initial stand-off was over. The gauls of Caesars time and the goths of later years both seem to have behaved in this fashion. Lots of yelling, shouting, and the braver souls making individual assaults on the Roman formation, with the bulk closing in when they sense a possible victory.

 

Adrianople shows this - Marcellinus describes the constant forays made by gothic warriors as well as the steady use of arrows, spears, and darts to whittle down the Romans, whose army had been contained in a tight disordered mass when their own discipline had faltered.

 

Incidentially, there's an account of an incident in Germania during the late empire in which a unit goes rogue (and the writer is very matter-of-fact about it - not astounded or outraged by their behaviour) and attacks local german villages for the purposes of looting. They use their shields as floatation devices, and swam across rivers to launch what appears to us to be a parallel of the modern special forces raid.