Oval shields..

[Matthew Amt]

At the moment, I can not think of a definitive source, but my research has led me to conclude that the Late Roman scutum was constructed of planks, which would be difficult to curve.

Nah, they could make water-tight wooden barrels, so shields would be easy by comparison. Actually, I'm not sure if it is certain whether convex shields were made of flat planks which were curved, or from thicker planks then carved out to the desired shape. The thing is, they didn't have to start with flat planks, they started with trees and cut whatever shape they'd need.

My guess is that shields changed mostly due to changes in fashion. From the level of decoration on almost everything, I really doubt they were all that worried about cost.

...especially considering that the ridge on a Romano-Sassanian helmet could be split open by a solid blow from an axe, or similar weapon.

Oh, I doubt it! That ridge is an excellent reinforcement! It's going to be a lot tougher than the plain dome of an Imperial-Gallic style helmet. Again, it's not necessarily better or worse or cheaper, it's just *different*, due to changes in fashion. Making a one-piece helmet bowl to whatever shape you like may be simpler than making 2 halves and a crest and then getting them to all fit together properly! Sure, it's easier with lots of experience, but then so is raising the bowl in one piece.

Adrian, one of the advantages my group had when we first got started was that we knew that other groups had already gone through the aluminum-and-fiberglass stage, so we could skip all their mistakes. It helped a lot! Same thing for you folks, you can already tell how you want your group to be different from what the rest of us are already doing, and avoid those "ruts". Just so you know, it WILL make more work for the Group Commander, heh heh heh...

Valete,

Matthew

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Don and Jon,

you still think that there is no real difference in constrcution between the shield types you mentioned? Did the circular types have the multitude of steps required for a rectangular scutum? i.e wood strips in perpendicular directions, exaggerated curve, covered in linen, metal edge binding etc...... I am just asking since I do not know very much of later Roman scuta. However, I was under the impression that they were simpler in design using planks covered with either hide or linen with a hide binding.

At the moment, I can not think of a definitive source, but my research has led me to conclude that the Late Roman scutum was constructed of planks, which would be difficult to curve.
[..]
The geometric pattern of the shield is not what makes the scutum of the forth century simpler than the rectangular one of the second century, but it is the fact that the plywood construction and intrinsic curvature of the second century scutum makes it more time consuming and difficult to construct (not to mention more costly).

Christian also answered this - Late Roman shields were not constructed of unbendable planks (you may be thinking of later early Medieval shield), but also of plywood. In fact, Late Roman dished shields were bent in two directions, while the rectangular scuta of earlier times were bent in one direction. That makes the construction of LR scuta in fact more dificult. The cover of both types is simila, but LR scuta have a rawhide rim, not a metal one.

Btw, so far I doubt that earlier oval cuta were only flat. The may well have been dished as well. Christian?

Why would late Romans need to crouch more? Gallic style helms allowed comparable movement in the neck area and offered better protection, especially considering that the ridge on a Romano-Sassanian helmet could be split open by a solid blow from an axe, or similar weapon.

This is what we are told by Julianus Africanus in the early 3rd centur, who reported complaints about the helmets.
Apparently, the new Persian enemy differed from the old Parthian enemy and included more cataphracts who closed with Roman infantry, who in turn responded with longer lances and shield walls. This saw the infantryman in a more crouched position, stabbing upwards.

The reason I say that the cavalry was the "premier" fighting force is that increasingly larger contingents of cavalry were either being levied by the Empire or were being hired as mercenaries. Perhaps it was simply a trend, but there were substatially more cavalry during the 4th century than the 1st century. Also, there are reliable sources which state that armor began to disappear (but not completely) in the late Roman legions. Some good examples are:
Grant, M.,The History of Rome, 1978
Mommsen, T., History of Rome, 1868
Simkins, M., Warriors of Rome, 1988

As has already ben pointed out, that's a very poor list of 'sources' (none of the 3 are sources, only studies, and two of them are hardly that). Try Coulston, J.C.N. (1990): Later Roman armour, 3rd-6th centuries A.D., in: Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 1, pp. 139-60 for a good academic study.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Matt,

Nah, they could make water-tight wooden barrels, so shields would be easy by comparison. Actually, I'm not sure if it is certain whether convex shields were made of flat planks which were curved, or from thicker planks then carved out to the desired shape. The thing is, they didn't have to start with flat planks, they started with trees and cut whatever shape they'd need.
My guess is that shields changed mostly due to changes in fashion. From the level of decoration on almost everything, I really doubt they were all that worried about cost.

Late Roman scuta were made from layers of plywood, probably bent into shape while being glued together over a dished form (like the lid of a dustbin!).

[Doc]

Thanks Robert and Christian for the info.

BTW Robert, was my assessment of the armor types correct? I wanted to make sure.

[Arrichion]

Robert,

Please note that I said "almost" in my original post when I refered to the disappearence of body armor. Also, I refered to the source that you mentioned: (J Roman Military Equipment Stud, 1, 1990, 139–160,)

The generally held view that troops were no longer armoured from the third century AD onwards is reconsidered. The armed-to-the-teeth look of the first and second centuries did indeed subside in absolute terms, however close-order infantry were still armoured, with the eastern troops remaining so into the sixth century and beyond.

Vegetius likewise concurs (1.20.3):

But negligence and sloth having by degrees introduced a total relaxation of discipline, the soldiers began to think their armor too heavy, as they seldom put it on.

Also, by what sources, or studies, did you come to the conclusion that the late roman shield was of convex design both horizontally and vertically?

[caiusbeerquitius]

Simon James clearly states in his excavations report for the military finds from Dura Europos (ca. 260) that the plank shields found there were convex. I built several of these, and it is no problem. Same is the case for the three late Roman shields from the Trier collection.

The latter are published by Gooethert in Junkelmann´s "Reiter wie Statuen aus Erz". A (careful) look at late Roman iconography also helps.

[Matthew Amt]

Late Roman scuta were made from layers of plywood, probably bent into shape while being glued together over a dished form (like the lid of a dustbin!).

What?! I thought the Dura Europas shields were all plank! I don't have the report, though I did read it a few years ago. The *rectangular* shields were layered strips, while the round ones were single-layer planks, at least that's what (aging) brain remembers. Help!

Matthew

[caiusbeerquitius]

In fact most evidence is for plank-shields, but we also have evidence for the "old method"

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Jon

Please note that I said "almost" in my original post when I refered to the disappearence of body armor. Also, I refered to the source that you mentioned: (J Roman Military Equipment Stud, 1, 1990, 139–160,)
[..}
Vegetius likewise concurs (1.20.3):

There is a big difference between your statement that

body armor has almost completely disappeared in the infantry

and

The armed-to-the-teeth look of the first and second centuries did indeed subside in absolute terms

, which is more in line with the conclusion found in modern studies.
Yes, Vegetius seems to concur, but his claims have been sufficiently denied by other evidence from the periodd, and most scholars these days recognise that Vegetius was writing with other goals in mind, and his claims served to make a point, not to describe reality.
The evidence presented in odern studies including that JRMES articles clearly comes to a totally different conclusion - when available, Roman infantry wore heavy armour.

I seem to have missed your references to the JRMES article, i just noticed your references to Mommsen and two 20th-c. books.

Christian answered the shield question for me.

[Arrichion]

Hello Matthew,

Whether it will be any help or not, I recently obtained a review of Simon James's report on the arms and armor that were found at Dura Europos, which was published by the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. I would have bought James's report, but the hardback costs $175 and the paperback, which will be available in two days, costs $80. The review states that there were four examples of shields found at Dura, the first being described as "semi cylindrical" and being made of plywood. The second was oval and of simple plank construction, the third was ambiguously described because the two examples supposedly disappeared! The fourth was of Mesopotamian origin and was made of crude sticks woven through rawhide. Hope this helps!

B.T.W. : None of the Dura shields were dished.

[caiusbeerquitius]

B.T.W. : None of the Dura shields were dished.

Oh no! Then Simon James made a serious mistake in the publication of the finds! And so did I, then, in measuring the planks by mm and reconstructing the shield boards!
Could you please hint me to your source for those flat Dura-shield boards?

The review states that there were four examples of shields found at Dura, the first being described as "semi cylindrical" and being made of plywood. The second was oval and of simple plank construction, the third was ambiguously described because the two examples supposedly disappeared! The fourth was of Mesopotamian origin and was made of crude sticks woven through rawhide. Hope this helps!

Doesn´t come as news, I own the publication since about two weeks after it came out..

[caiusbeerquitius]

Robert, sorry, this somehow slipped my attention...

Btw, so far I doubt that earlier oval cuta were only flat. The may well have been dished as well. Christian?

The quantitative analysis of shield-boss-flanges I made for my thesis showed that there are only very, very, very small numbers of shield bosses which would actually fit a plain board.

[Arrichion]

caiustarquitius,

I was referring to the original finds of 1928 to 1937 and also the original inscriptions which are in the Yale Art Museum. I was also refering to the reconstructed drawings made by James himself. It is quite possible that my interpretations of the evidence are flawed, but the pictographic evidence points to, at the very least, one shield being completely flat. Also if you have the publication yourself, then why even ask me? If you would not mind, I would very much like to see your reconstruction of the Dura shield.

[caiusbeerquitius]

can´t provide more than this:
link from old RAT
However, it´not a plank board in this case. No pic of one of those here, currently.

I asked you, because you made such a definite statement which for me implied that I must have said something wrong in my statement above about those very shields - which could only be the case if you had more information than I was able to gather and evaluate, this then being information I would find interesting and would like to have a look at. In fact the boss-less shield displaying victory may have been flat, but we simply don´t know, since it was lost before it could be examined in regard of this question.

[Arrichion]

caiustarquitius,

The shape of that shield is identical to the one James described in his field notes! Nevertheless, the shield that I am having trouble accepting is a specifically "dished" varient of it. I completely agree that late Roman shields had curvature
on the hrizontal axis or were simply flat. I have to say, admittedly, that I have not been able to get my hands on the 450 page report that James published, otherwise this would all be cleared up. Another difficulty that I have been having is trying to find the "Trier Collection" of late Roman shields. All of the inquiries that I have made into numerous databases, both public and private, have turned up nothing but vague references to a Late Roman city. Your help, or anyone's really, in these matters would be very much appreciated.