How did Roman cavalry carry their shields?

[Americus]

I'm particularly interested in the late Republic and early Empire time period.
I know that cavalry consisted of many different types, depending on nationality, etc. I'd like some information on how they carried their shields.

Did they use a hand grip in the boss. If so, was it vertical along the long axis of an oval shield, or horizontal. How would a rider control his horse while holding the shield?
Were straps used to attach the shield to the forearm? If so, did the forearm run parallel to the long axis or horizontal?

For reenactors and others with hands on experience, what do you see as advantages and disadvantages of some of the methods?

Thanks.

[PhilusEstilius]

I have no experience as a cavalryman however there is an interesting situation where I try to consider just how a Roman Cavalryman infact carried his Shield when NOT in battle, for I have a scabbard chape from a 1st century spatha which has a double Acanthus leaf design on it. However one side of the leaf design has completely worn away which tends to make me think that these soldiers may have carried their shield on a strap that was looped over one of the saddle horns, and just maybe the shield over time was rubbing against the sword and managed to wear away part of the chape design.

This is just a thought of mine for the design is on the outer surface of the chape and somthing has worn this pattern away, ineed even to the point where it's locateing rivet snapped and it fell off the scabbard for me to find some 2,000 years later.

As far as the hand grip of the shield I would think it would have been horizontal and no straps other than one loop at the hand grip to put over one of the saddle horns when not in use infact a rear one hence the wear on my scabbard chape.

[D B Campbell]

Did they use a hand grip in the boss. If so, was it vertical along the long axis of an oval shield, or horizontal.

The well-known Doncaster shield had a vertical hand grip (behind the boss), which was thought (by the excavator) to be an advantage for a cavalryman. (The garrison of the Doncaster fort is not known.)

[PhilusEstilius]

Duncan. That sounds interesting about a logitudinal hand grip indeed after some thoughts on that it does appear to have logic to it, anyway here is a link to the scabbard chape that I mentioned with a reproduction of it.

http://www.northumberland-computers.com ... ape082.jpg

The original is 4 CM wide by 4.5 CM long which would indicate a narrow blade of a possible spatha.

[John Conyard]

Riding carrying a large heavy shield is difficult. Carvings, such as the Arch of Galerius, suggest that the shield could be carried on the left arm using a series of straps. Many modern interpreters have followed this method, going further by padding out the interior face of the shield, so it rests more comfortably on the left leg.

However there are no archaeological finds to back up this method. Practice shows a large oval shield can be carried using the horizontal handle with the boss protecting the left hand. The horse can be turned to the left using the reins in the left hand, while the shield can be pressed on to the horse’s neck to help it turn to the right. The shield can be rested on the cavalryman’s left foot when not actively in use.

[attachment=0:1ejvc72n]<!-- ia0 Arbeia 2008.jpg<!-- ia0 [/attachment:1ejvc72n]

Maurice describes the ideal cavalryman as carrying the kontos, the 4m long lance, and bow. These weapons require the use of both hands. Maurice believed you could not draw a bow effectively while carrying a shield. However I have experimented with a small shield, 450mm in diameter, strapped to the left fore arm. The small shield allows the kontos to be held in both hands, and allows for the use of bow even when using a western release. The shield boss is retained to allow the shield to be carried in a more conventional manner. Procopius mentions the use of small shields strapped to the upper left arm. Agathias mentions cavalry serving under Narses at Casilinum using shields, spear, bows and arrows.

[VespilloAD64]

Does common sense prevail in things like this.I always tend to think how would you do what they did back then.Carring a large sheild on a horse surley is not an effective way for fighting even if you are the strongest and well trained soldier.I do agree that it seems more logical to use a small shield like a Parma.I may be wrong but I just think it makes more sense.

[John Conyard]

Large shields are good for some things, small shields for others.

Infantry manage to carry large shields and so can cavalrymen. There is certainly no need to pad out the inside of the shield. A carrying strap is always useful, either attached to the handle and board Dura style, or attached to the shield cover.

[D B Campbell]

Does common sense prevail in things like this?

Not necessarily! :lol: :wink:

[mcbishop]

The well-known Doncaster shield had a vertical hand grip (behind the boss)

I think you may mean 'was interpreted as having' since the archaeological evidence was by no means cut-and-dried.

Mike Bishop

[D B Campbell]

... 'was interpreted as having' ...

:oops: (It was a long time ago -- memory plays tricks --, but wasn't the iron "mid rib" too long to have gone sideways, so it "was interpreted as having" gone longways?)

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi John,

[attachment=0:2b99sgtm]<!-- ia0 Arbeia 2008.jpg<!-- ia0 [/attachment:2b99sgtm]

Very nice picture!

Maurice describes the ideal cavalryman as carrying the kontos, the 4m long lance, and bow. These weapons require the use of both hands. Maurice believed you could not draw a bow effectively while carrying a shield. However I have experimented with a small shield, 450mm in diameter, strapped to the left fore arm. The small shield allows the kontos to be held in both hands, and allows for the use of bow even when using a western release. The shield boss is retained to allow the shield to be carried in a more conventional manner. Procopius mentions the use of small shields strapped to the upper left arm. Agathias mentions cavalry serving under Narses at Casilinum using shields, spear, bows and arrows.

You've tested this. What would you say is more comfortable /offers the best protection in horse vs. horse fighting: the scutum or the parma?

[John Conyard]

What offers the best protection - a fast manouverable horse plus a bow and arrow.

It's hard to be definitive about these things. Against a spear I would want another spear to parry with. The large scutum I'm using here was snapped in half by the first blow from a padded spear used at speed.

Against a sword it probably doesn't matter.
[attachment=1:wzvqj3gz]<!-- ia1 Kinneil.jpg<!-- ia1 [/attachment:wzvqj3gz]

Against several infantrymen a large shield protects one side of you nicely.

Generally I sit in the middle of the arena and various riders take it in turns to try and land a blow. I try and show them my shielded side, which involves riding backwards and trying to read their attact.

[attachment=2:wzvqj3gz]<!-- ia2 Sewerby fight.JPG<!-- ia2 [/attachment:wzvqj3gz]

It's easier to hit targets without shields.

[attachment=0:wzvqj3gz]<!-- ia0 DSCN5815.JPG<!-- ia0 [/attachment:wzvqj3gz]

[Americus]

This forum is truly a wealth of good information and opinions.
It never occurred to me to use the shield to turn the horse to the right as suggested by John Conyard.
Thanks for the responses.

[PhilusEstilius]

I have always been of the opinion that early cavalry were lightweight fast moving and used mainly in a rout, they could also be used in a fast moving flanking attack.
Therefore the shield would have been a lightweight piece of equipment simply used to ward off a spear thrust when charging anywhere near to infantry, infact cavalry should never become static against infantry for they then become most vulnerable with a sword into the horses belly.
Infact one can't imagine any cavalryman having his shield strapped to the arm for when a spear point begins to go thro' it he would need to dump it.
I do understand of course that the Cataphract can be considered as the smashing tank or bulldozer of the Roman era, for he is so armoured he can go closer to enemy infantry for indeed he has flattened a few by the time swings his horse about to start hitting.

[John Conyard]

When riding with a shield you can control the horse using various aids like voice, leg position, spurs, balance etc. Reins are just another aid. Every horse is different and will take the different commands to one degree or another. A grey mare I was training last winter was very sensitive, and a simple touch on her neck could get her to turn. When fighting you could drop the reins and just use other aids to control her. My normal mount is very bad tempered and insensitive. He responds well to my voice, and to spurs. As an early Roman rider I seem to spend a lot of time circling targets to my left. It's simple to pull on the left rein to get him to tun to the left. Turns to the right are conducted with every aid I've got and a lot of conviction

Calm horses can flatten infantrymen. Without a doubt. But I'm begining to suspect that wearing lots of armour is really just a measure against missiles, generally arrows. Armour is good in a melee, but I don't really want to fight infantry. So armour may just be a reaction to lots of arrows. And I suspect that the definition of a cataphract would vary from place to place. In Britain a chap in a helmet and body armour could rate the description of cataphract. In the east you would need some more armour to qualify as a cataphract. Indeed fighting with a bow and a kontos means no shield at all, or just a small shield, so more armour is needed to compensate.