Mark Hygate post=348572 Wrote:When you say "Shields at Dura Europas" - firstly I thought there was only one shield, found in 13 parts - and secondly, what is the source you are using for it being between 3-3.5ft wide?
There were twenty-four whole or fragmentary shield boards found at Dura, of which three were rectangular and the rest oval. There were also twenty-one shield bosses and six fragments of iron reinforcing bars from the backs of shields.
The width of those surviving boards with accurate measurements is as follows:
Dragging this thing back to the original point, I have to ask: Did the Romans use the cubit, or was it just Greek historians writing about the Romans who used it? The reason I ask is, in one of my Roman novels I used feet (meaning Roman feet) and a proofreader said, "shouldn't it be in cubits?" I said, no, the Romans didn't use cubits, it was an Egyptian thing adopted by some other Mediterranean people, but not by the Romans. Was I wrong?
Evan wrote: Thank you Nathan. You replied faster than I could.
Well seeing as Nathan was faster at the draw, maybe you could compensate me, being a blonde, and translate Nathan’s metres to feet. Would you do that hombre? :twisted:
Quote:Off the top of my head that would be about 35-37 inches for the oval ones, and the Rectangular Scutum would be about 25 inches.
All the oval shields are a bit over 3 feet width. (I prefer feet too, but Simon James, and presumably the French excavators at Dura, use metric! Plus centimeters is slightly more exact):
Semicylindrical shield from Tower 19 (the famous one!) - 0.86m around curve / 0.66m chord = 2ft 9in / 2ft 1in
Leather facing from rectangular shield - 0.62m = 2ft
The oval shields may represent a newer style of infantry tactical formation - using the longer spatha - perhaps typified by alternating a more open 'skirmishing' order with a much denser defensive 'shieldwall'. Quite possibly in the close order formation the shield rims were intended to overlap at the edges.
The oval shields, unless I'm missing something, would seem to be similar to otherwise 'classic' Auxiliary shields from the earliest Imperial period onward - and perhaps not dissimilar to the 'parma' as described by Polybius (3ft, but "diameter", so I would have guessed 'round'), or the shield described by Josephus. Can I confirm that the measurements given are for the narrowest chord of the 'oval'?
If so, then perhaps the 'semicylindrical' one is the only legionary one and, as I've been suggesting, is in fact so cylindrical due to distortion and is perhaps still 2.5ft wide.
So I don't necessarily see why there might be a "newer style of infantry tactical formation - using the longer spatha" when that's how auxiliary troops were 'normally' armed anyway?
Indeed why don't the finds at Dura Europas in fact suggest that there has been minimal change for 3-5 centuries; given there hasn't been any driver for change?
John,
The Romans certainly used feet (pes) , so I am sure you were not wrong, per se (I can imagine a reader thinking cubit merely for supposed flavour). Whilst my concentration has been on military matters (indeed that's the forum) and I've been particularly looking at Polybius for the unit organisation and the detailed camp layout, it is why the opening statements are as they are. Polybius was Greek and certainly extremely comfortable with the cubit and hence double-cubit (3ft) himself.
Now, whilst the 3ft spacing may still be a matter of discussion and perhaps even experiment - in the shield width Polybius states; the camp layout; and the Military mile (calculated by marching in paces indeed) - I simply see no evidence of 3ft being any sort of basis.
I see in my mind the maniples on parade next to and/or just inside their 100ft camping spaces, even in an open order (one pace gaps) with a 2 (century) x 10 man frontage and 8 deep. Hence my belief in the pace and not 3ft.
Unless I miss my guess entirely, the Romans developed Greek formations and deployment into real, no different to modern (re-developed from the 17thC onward) drill - as the way to move their soldiers about effectively. And 'man' moves about in paces.
Quote:If so, then perhaps the 'semicylindrical' one is the only legionary one and, as I've been suggesting, is in fact so cylindrical due to distortion and is perhaps still 2.5ft wide.
This is the shield as found:
[attachment=8609]Durashield.jpg[/attachment]
The tight curve of the shield as it now appears is due, as I understand it, to over-enthusiastic restoration.
Quote:Auxiliary shields are much thinner. I know the "Clipeus" is about 2 foot wide, much thinner.
The Ratio for most late Roman shields is between 38 and 42 inches long by 32-38 inches wide. Circular ones could be 42 inch diameter.
The Parma was tiny, like 1.5-2 foot diameter.
Polybius VI-22 specifically states that the parma is "..a...round, sturdy shield, ....with a diameter of 3 feet...."
Secondly - do we have lots of examples of Auxiliary shields that show that they are thinner? Could all those oval shields found not be auxiliary ones? Is indeed there an ordinance that states that auxiliary shields are supposed to be thinner (auxiliaries are just that, not 'inferiors'; their enemies were the same). I alwyas knew that their shields were oval and necessarily 'flat', so that they could more easily slung and used on horseback - as well as there being some hexagonal ones with a original Germanic background.
In short - are we sure they are not simply auxiliary shields? Are we sure that there were such changes to shields in the 3rd century?
Lastly, the clipeus seems to be also a 'large' shield....
Quote:.......
The tight curve of the shield as it now appears is due, as I understand it, to over-enthusiastic restoration.
Thank you, that actual picture is extremely helpful and I would certainly suggest that the extreme curve does seem very odd - why, I wonder, did the restorers do that?
Overall, what is the actual evidence that the scutum went out of service during the 3rd century and the 'oval' became the only shield (dished or flat)?
Now, if the legionaries did indeed lose the gladius for the spatha and used spears more, then I would understand why; but I am curious about the evidence.
Finally - I would indeed appreciate any comments on my understanding of the basics of phalanx warfare.....
Mark wrote: Finally - I would indeed appreciate any comments on my understanding of the basics of phalanx warfare.....
Unless I miss my guess entirely, the Romans developed Greek formations and deployment into real, no different to modern (re-developed from the 17thC onward) drill - as the way to move their soldiers about effectively. And 'man' moves about in paces.
So, according to your hypothesis, the Romans at some point in their history, while fighting fellow Latins, Italians and Gauls, adopted a Greek-style formation and method of drill, which included *formal drill, similar to that re-invented in certain western European armies in the 17th century. I have a few questions before I can except that:
*For the sake of this posting, I define formal drill as a codified method of moving units around, while marching or in close combat, based off an organized method, which implies units being in step with one another (some sort of auditory cadence is necessary), codified commands that are systematic and standardized (everyone knows them), the use of knowledgeable drill masters to train the men at a ratio that allows everyone to learn, the time necessary to teach/train the army, and some sort of manual for everyone to read to reference.
1. At what point was the Greek phalanx standardized in its deployment? What year did this happen, under which commander, during which war? When did the Spartans, Argives, Thebans and Athenians (just to name a few) develop and practice fighting methods that were shared universally? Before the advent of the Macedonian reformed infantry, what influential Greek statesman/generals wrote manuals detailing the drill methods for INFANTRY? Was formalized drill necessary for part time citizen soldiers armed with an aspis and spear to function as an effective unit in combat as the ancient sources describe?
2. What ancient sources mention Roman drill manuals dating to the early to mid republican period? As the Roman soldier was part time, seasonal, on the concept of warrior-farmers levied to patriotically serve the state in yearly wars, how complicated would the drills have been that were taught to new recruits who, until until the late 3rd Century BCE (204'ish), weren't levied until March, when the new Consuls took office, which signaled the beginning of the new campaign season?
3. How standardized was the Roman army during the Republican period? Did all the different legions operate the same? Were fighting methods consistent across locale, commander, terrain, enemy? IE., Did Caesar's legions fight the same as Pompey's? Did some commanders use special methods that made them superior to other commanders, that were NOT standardized?
4. When Philip II of Macedon reformed his infantry into pike carrying units with a formal drill system, what other reforms/conditions occurred that made the well-drilled sarrisa formations possible? Were part time soldiers used? Are part time soldiers capable of learning the intricate drills or were professional (full time) soldiers used/needed?
5. In the 17th Century, what European army/armies re-instituted the use of formal drill for their infantry? How were those units armed? Did these units mimic Republican Roman methods, Macedonian or late Roman/Byzantine, in regards to force structure and armament? Why did the tactics gain popularity, to finally be used exclusively by nearly ever western european army? How and why did the drill methods carry over from pikes into firearms? At what time did these methods stop being used in combat? Why?
Feel free to answer these questions in any method you'd like.
PS. I think that if Romans did have some sort of institutionalized drill, even a most basic one, it would not be based off of actual measurements like cupids or feet, but on concepts like you suggested, such as steps, paces, shield width, arm lifted and held parallel to the ground, etc., which are more readily adapted to infantrymen, especially ignorant ones. I seriously doubt orders such as "Shift to the left thirty cubits/half a stade/forty seven feet" was ever given, as other measurements, such as steps or paces, would be easier to follow.
Magister Militum Flavius Aetius post=348620 Wrote:Auxiliary shields are much thinner. I know the "Clipeus" is about 2 foot wide, much thinner.
The Ratio for most late Roman shields is between 38 and 42 inches long by 32-38 inches wide. Circular ones could be 42 inch diameter.
The Parma was tiny, like 1.5-2 foot diameter.
Polybius VI-22 specifically states that the parma is "..a...round, sturdy shield, ....with a diameter of 3 feet...."
Secondly - do we have lots of examples of Auxiliary shields that show that they are thinner? Could all those oval shields found not be auxiliary ones? Is indeed there an ordinance that states that auxiliary shields are supposed to be thinner (auxiliaries are just that, not 'inferiors'; their enemies were the same). I alwyas knew that their shields were oval and necessarily 'flat', so that they could more easily slung and used on horseback - as well as there being some hexagonal ones with a original Germanic background.
In short - are we sure they are not simply auxiliary shields? Are we sure that there were such changes to shields in the 3rd century?
Lastly, the clipeus seems to be also a 'large' shield....
Quote:.......
The tight curve of the shield as it now appears is due, as I understand it, to over-enthusiastic restoration.
Thank you, that actual picture is extremely helpful and I would certainly suggest that the extreme curve does seem very odd - why, I wonder, did the restorers do that?
Overall, what is the actual evidence that the scutum went out of service during the 3rd century and the 'oval' became the only shield (dished or flat)?
Now, if the legionaries did indeed lose the gladius for the spatha and used spears more, then I would understand why; but I am curious about the evidence.
Finally - I would indeed appreciate any comments on my understanding of the basics of phalanx warfare.....
Polybius wrote in the 3rd century BC (or something). The Parma I know of was a small round shield in the 1st Century AD, about 1.5 feet-2feet wide. So it's possible they could have gotten smaller, but I don't know.
Quote:In short - are we sure they are not simply auxiliary shields? Are we sure that there were such changes to shields in the 3rd century?
Trying not to derail the thread too much here, but... Yes, they probably were auxiliary shields - Dura had an auxiliary garrison a decade or two before the siege. There were perhaps legionaries there too - but we don't know exactly who these shields belonged to. Legionary and auxiliary equipment by this date may not have been so different anyway.
However, the Dura shields, as Evan says, appear to be different to those from auxiliary shields of earlier centuries, as depicted on Trajan's Column, for example. They do appear very similar, in shape and dimension, to shields depicted on later monuments - the Arches of Galerius and Constantine etc - being used by (probably) legionary troops.
It might be worth mentioning that the Dura shields were probably (based on the surviving shield bosses) slightly convex - the centre about 100mm away from the plane of the rim (James, p.160), which would have narrowed them slightly, but not much.
As for changes in the 3rd century, this is one of those things we don't know much about, but there does seem to have been a definite alteration in infantry equipment, probably gradual, between the late 2nd and early 4th centuries. Simon James (again!) in Rome and the Sword gives a pretty good overview of the period and the probably course of, and potential reasons for, the changes. The alteration in equipment probably reflected some alteration in tactics or formation.
What this could suggest is that infantry formations were different in the later empire to those of the principiate - which is perhaps as likely as the idea that Roman troops used the same formations in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD as their distant ancestors had done in the 3rd and 4th BC...
Interestingly a 'concavity' of ~100mm would certainly not be dissimilar to 'a palm's width of curvature' as described by dear old Polybius for an early scutum, so overall construction basics may not have changed much.
Indeed overall that's one of the things that I am personally postulating; that, without any particular driver and with a competent and overall successful military machine, the changes to the military machine may be very minor overall for a very long time - but simple 'tweaking'.
When it comes to the sculptors art and monumental evidence I suspect it is not only difficult to get a real perspective, but there is also the possibility that a reduction in apparent shield size, or even just a narrowing has also been done to show what's behind - for shield can be a bit large!
I know we might have this British vs American and/or Officer vs 'Soldier' thing going on, but that's just for fun and not really relevant.
Neither, however, are the questions you posed - and I'm not going to attempt to answer them for they have no relevance to what I asked.
There are no definitives - there are no Greek or Roman manuals - and that's why we have to make best guesses. The Greek 'tactical' manual(s) of Asclepiodotus et al are not about tactics at all (as I am sure you well appreciate) but are about formations and deployment widths and that's all.
What I was wondering - and then made those relatively simplistic statements - was whether, for some reason, I had missed something completely, or others had different views on 'phalanx warfare' and thus the possible reasons the Romans 'changed' and did something different? Now, if you think I'm wrong, or am indeed missing something, please chime in. When, How, Why are not actually the issue when considering the What - they come later.
Curiously I don't think there may even have been any Roman drill manuals - all could have been handed down and trained and was pretty basic. Less basic, however, than Greek training, which seems more to have been based upon standing next to each other and holding spears/pikes properly and advancing together en masse.
The Romans, however, do seem to have gone to the next stage and could indeed tactically use centuries, maniples and (eventually) cohorts and not just legions. To do so, practicably, requires more formal drills - and that's where we are left with no choice, but to sensibly and hopefully collectively best guess.
As an aside, you, like me, have been taught to march and do a fair degree of marching and close formation 'drill'; but it has nothing at all to do with modern warfare and tactics. The reason 'why' we still do that and why I believe the, arguably, world's first professional did when it was indeed of more use, is worth some thought. :wink:
Maybe we are just not understanding each other; our two cultures might share words but some of them have different meanings, especially since we've both have military/drilling experience. So here goes.
When someone says drill, to me it means marching in an "organized" formations with a number of predetermined movements and commands, such as turns, counter marching, etc., with a group leader in a position to control it all. So a Roman unit going into battle probably met these qualification and were technically drilled. But moving large bodies of people in this "organized" manner isn't too hard and doesn't take too long to teach, as long as the units aren't required to be in strict rank and file or in step with one another. It also helps having a system for maintaining discipline (ensuring miscreants are punished for messing up or for not obeying) and the installing leaders with some experience. But I'm referring to a unit that basically walks together as a large mob, not rank and file or in step.
When it comes to drilling with rigid spacing requirements, with a need to march in step, its means great difficulty. Not just to control the group but to teach;.it takes many of hour devoted solely to get the men understanding the methods to walk in lock step, which means achieving muscle memory in the established step/pace. Watch people marching on Youtube, in good formations everyone is using the same leg movements. Additionally, the more rigid the formation, the more additional and complicated the marching commands and movements become. So, if this rigid concept of drill, which we know was used by the Macedonians, falls inline with what you think the Romans of the Republican period used, then it means longer training times to learn the military step, longer times to become a cohesive unit that is capable of marching in sync together, and a long time to learn the complex number of commands. Realistically, we're talking about months of training, of many hours a day.
Like I mentioned earlier, the Macedonian phalanx was known to have done this type of dill. What they did took months to train, required an higher amount of small unit leaders (file leaders, file closers), required full time soldiers, drill masters at nearly every level, and a highly disciplined, well paid and well motivated force. And to make it worse, the marching techniques were notoriously difficult to use on anything resembling rough terrain, as the military step is hard to do going up/down hill, in mud, crossing small gulleys, walking around trees, bushes, etc. Even today, most organizations that still perform drill practice on manicured grass or blacktop parade fields for a reason. They do so because marching people together in strict alignment is a pain in the butt on anything but flat terrain. Sound familiar? Maybe just like what Polybius says? Considering how much trouble it takes to have a well drilled unit, you might ask why the Macedonians bothered. Because part of their infantry had long two-handed pikes in their hands, it meant one misstep while marching or in combat could result in a massive pike smashing against a rank mate's head! Or a trip while marching, resulting in the man directly behind tripping as well. You get the point. The use of the pike required strict drill, but strict drill has many disadvantages as well.
So now we have the Romans. For the sake of the argument, we'll stick to the republican period, as you continuously bring up the Greek/Macedonian phalanx, and the last of the Greek/Hellenistic powers was destroyed in the Pontic Wars in the Late Republic. So, it comes down to necessity. Why would Roman Consuls, Praetors, Tribunes, Centurions, spend months training their legions in complex maneuvers if their style of fighting didn't necessitate close order? Did a misstep with a sword or shield threaten the cohesion of the entire line? No. What source, describing the Republic period, recounts a strict style of drill I've described earlier? None that i know of. It seems that when instances of training are mentioned it mostly encompasses some sort of legion wide mandatory training, such as Scipio Africanus' five day training period, involved sword and pila drills, speed marches, along with camp construction (to build endurance and toughness), and larger war games. I don't recall anything specific about marching aside from Vegetius and to be honest, I don't like him as a source because he generalizes too much.
Its at this point where it seems you and I differ. You hypothesize the Romans were designed to fight with interlocked or nearly touching shields in a Greek-like Phalanx, but with a scutum instead of an aspis, and swords instead of spears. Then you say that the Greeks' methods of warfare "seems more to have been based upon standing next to each other and holding spears/pikes properly and advancing together en masse.", which hardly means well drilled. But from my view point, its the opposite. I believe that the Roman's method of infantry fighting generally meant fighting in a looser manner, with more individuality emphasized, without a need for strict drill. This is based off the existing sources that describe combat during the mid to late republican period (Polybius, Caesar, etc), from the shape of the shield (curved to protect sides, allowing independent protection) and the use of a sword (an emphasis on close combat with the enemy, cutting and thrusting).
Like I mentioned earlier, this might just be a case of miscommunication.
