Scutum/Rectangular shields 410ad to 510ad?

[Matthew Amt]

I'm always a little puzzled by the idea that swords with 30-inch blades need so much more space to wield than those with 20-inch blades. Here's a photo of our local Battle of Hastings reenactment:

http://www.larp.com/midgard/02h10.jpg

I'm at the center in the green tunic. Obviously these are just reenactments, not competitive combat. But such fights are always quite a crunch, space-wise, with all of us very crowded together, shields often overlapping (smaller shields than most reconstructed Late Roman ones that I've seen), and we rarely have much problem swinging our long swords, axes, and clubs. Overhand, yes! Not a lot of finesse. But we almost never whack our allies accidentally. Again, these are reenactments, not competitive, and we don't generally use spears for safety reasons, but since the discussion was about the space needed to wield a sword I figured it was relevant.

There are also any number of SCA groups that use very large scuta in combat, very effectively. Plus, the scutum in the Republican era was quite a bit taller than 40 inches, and seems to have served just fine. I do agree that the degree of curvature can be a factor for some things, but most of that is kind of hypothetical in any case.

I'm just not convinced that shield shape dictated or permitted *significant* differences in tactics. At least not the change from rectangular scutum to large oval or round shield! I'm still thinking fashion had a lot to do with it.

Valete,

Matthew