Posts: 165
Threads: 23
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
0
After watching my Barbarians DVD from the history channel it showed similar Roman shields, if you have seen those ones about the Goths and Huns then you might know what I am talking about. However since similar shields were used in movies I don't know if I trust the history channels dipiction if the roman shields. Does anyone have an image of what a shield from the legionarries from, oh lets say about 5th century A.D. Speaking of A.D. is it more appropriate to use BCE and ACE, or is the old BC and AD still used more. thanks<br>
<br>
Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus <p>THERE ARE NO STUPID PEOPLE, ONLY PEOPLE STUPID ENOUGH TO NOT KNOW WHEN THEY'VE MADE A MISTAKE</p><i></i>
"Freedom was at stake- freedom, which whets the courage of brave men"- Titus Livius
Nil recitas et vis, Mamerce, poeta videri.
Quidquid vis esto, dummodo nil recites!- Martial
Posts: 2,540
Threads: 43
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
In short,<br>
They were circular, about one meter in diameter and dished. They were made of wooden planks, glued edge to edge and reinforced by a sewn rawhide border and an iron reinforcing bar on the back side. The surfaces of the shield were most probably covered in rawhide, painted following the unit's blazon. The shield bosses could be domed or pointed, following German models.<br>
Summing up, yes, the 4th-5th century (AD or CE is your choice!) shields were much like those of the European 'barbarians'.<br>
BTW, by that time there were some residual legionaries yet but it would be more proper to speak of soldiers (milites) or more concretely, infantrymen (pedites)...<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>
It\'s all an accident, an accident of hands. Mine, others, all without mind, from one extreme to another, but neither works nor will ever.
Rolf Steiner
Posts: 15,118
Threads: 417
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
79
Oval shields were also very common.<br>
For the rest i agree with Aitor.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>
Assuming the C4thAD shields were pretty much the same as the C3rdAD ones excavated at Dura they would have been a very circular dished oval, slightly taller than they are wide. All Roman bosses found are, IIRC, domed and not pointed.<br>
<br>
The Notitia shows a large number of (possible) units shield patterns.<br>
<br>
Nik <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 2,540
Threads: 43
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
The iconographical record from late 3rd century (Luxor frecoes) on, shows circular shields (be careful with three-quarters views! ). The actual early 6th century shield remains form Egypt in Trier are circular. I shan't deny the possibility of oval shields but they were the exception, not the rule, IMHO.<br>
About bosses, maybe during the first half of 4th century they remained mainly domed but you can find pointed ones without problem from then on. One of the most conspicuous ones is that from the Vermand grave, silver plated and with a unit? stamp MART(ENSES). It was just a matter of fashion and Germanic element became predominant in the Roman army about those dates...<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>
It\'s all an accident, an accident of hands. Mine, others, all without mind, from one extreme to another, but neither works nor will ever.
Rolf Steiner
I doubt things were ever exactly standard.<br>
<br>
Doesn't the missourium (excuse spelling) of Valentinian and/or Theodosius show ovals as does the mosaic in Ravenna of Justinian?<br>
<br>
I seem to recall the Strategikon description of infantry shields would indicate oval - but don't quote me on that - and it also mentions spiked bosses for the front rank IIRC.<br>
<br>
Nik <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 15,118
Threads: 417
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
79
Hi Aitor,<br>
We've been over this before, and I maintain that when in the icongraphical record both feet and shoulders are seen from the front, it is reasonable to assume that the shield depicted is seen from the front as well, and therefore truly oval. I also maintain that while round shields of course existed as well, based on the icongraphical record one can't say oval ones were the exception during the 4th c.<br>
But we agree to disagree..<br>
<br>
I agree with you on pointed bosses.<br>
<br>
Nik,<br>
Indded, plates showing Valentinian, Theodosius as well as Justinian show oval-shaped shields. Even more so, while shields were also mass-produced by the sate we can assume that there was standardisation up to a certain level. Which is also why I maintain oval was more of a standard than round.<br>
<br>
However, not knowing any actual numbers menas this discussion is of course pointless and round (going in circles)..<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 2,540
Threads: 43
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
OK, to my mind, the shields on both missoria are depicted as seen in three-quarters but we should ask the men who chiseled and embossed them to know it for sure, and that is a little difficult now...<br>
BUT,<br>
How can you say that oval was more standard than round?!<br>
If oval was the standard form, why should the shields depicted on the Notitia Dignitatum be depicted round? (Please, use something more elaborated than 'round is easier to draw than oval'!)<br>
Moreover, a good deal of the blazons seem intended more to fit round than oval boards (Even if some of them are forgeries or corrupt, which I don't think to be so!)<br>
And don't forget that the only real late (not 3rd century) Roman shields are clearly round...<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>
It\'s all an accident, an accident of hands. Mine, others, all without mind, from one extreme to another, but neither works nor will ever.
Rolf Steiner
"If oval was the standard form, why should the shields depicted on the Notitia Dignitatum be depicted round? (Please, use something more elaborated than 'round is easier to draw than oval'!)"<br>
<br>
Why the need for something more elaborate as an explanation. It's perfectly logical and the most simple - why look for a more complex explanation when the simple one works?<br>
<br>
Equally why would shields be shown in 3/4 view when the men are shown front on?<br>
<br>
To my mind you are looking for justification of a position that is inherantly weak.<br>
<br>
Sorry, but I'm well and truly in the oval shield camp and haven't seen anything that convinces me otherwise. <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 15,118
Threads: 417
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
79
In my opinion oval shields are more common in the 4th-c. iconographical record than round ones. Sure, I know you see every oval shield as a probable 3/4 round shield, but I disagree with that. Like I said, both do occur, but I see the oval ones as true oval ones. Maybe round shields are really oval ones, but seen at 3/4 (I'm joking, I wouldn't even know if that were possible..).<br>
But maybe we should start a count of round and oval shields in Late Roman art.<br>
<br>
The Notitia I don't count, well not much anyway.<br>
The clipei themselves are obviously stylized, and the artist(s) really went for the easier solution. Not just because a round symbol is easier to draw, but it presents less problems when adding the shield design. Especially with a circular design, round shields are more easy to draw.<br>
Only the facing pages, showing round shields amongst the other weapons, I would count as evidence for round shields. that is, if you assume the drawings are contemporary and not influenced by later copyists, as some of the weapons clearly are.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 3,607
Threads: 226
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
5
This will probably not be accepted by the community, nonetheless it is true: There are certain psychological principles which determine organization of objects in a human brain. The two principles which are relevant for the organisation of objects as in the notitia dignitatum are<br>
1. the principle of closeness and the principle of grouping<br>
2. the principle of the proper Gestalt and the principle of importance<br>
<br>
Applying these principles to the way of depiction of shields in the CNH makes quite clear that just by what we see, no conclusions about the real form of the shields displayed in the CNH can be made. To say that they were circular is just as speculative as to say that they were oval.<br>
<br>
For more information consult:<br>
Zimbardo, Gerrig: Psychology and Life, 14th edition, 1996, New York, Chapters 3.4.2.-3.4.4. <p></p><i></i>
Christian K.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Posts: 416
Threads: 29
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation:
0
Wouldn't it be easiest for all of us to just admit that both styles were definitely used? What's the point in arguing which is correct when they both are? I bet ovals and rounds (as well as flat or convex) were used equally as much, depending on location and supply/manufaturing demands...<br>
For me, I like ovals AND rounds. But to Aitor's credit, I must admit that some of the designs from the Notitae Dignitatum seem more adaptable to a round shield... <p>Lucius Aurelius Metellus, draconarius, Secunda Brittanica<br>
www.greeneknightforge.bravehost.com </p><i></i>
Lucius Aurelius Metellus
a.k.a. Jeffrey L. Greene
MODERATOR
Posts: 32
Threads: 12
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation:
0
Well I have a question about the curve of the shields.<br>
<br>
My question is, were all shields curved? And if so, how exactly where they curved? Was the oval basically like the old 1st c Scutums, just oval instead of rectangular? So could you use a "scutum press" like shown on the Legio XX site for the ovals?<br>
<br>
And were the round ones curved, flat, or actually dished somehow. If they were dished, how would you DO that?<br>
<br>
Marcus Artorius <p></p><i></i>
M. Artorius C. f. L. n. Sub. Silvanus
aka David Coleman
Posts: 2,366
Threads: 187
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation:
0
Ave Marcus,<br>
<br>
This topic was discussed recently under the "Reconstruction" section of RAT.<br>
<br>
Here's the direct link to it :[url=http://p200.ezboard.com/fromanarmytalkfrm4.showMessage?topicID=1444.topic" target="top]p200.ezboard.com/fromanarmytalkfrm4.showMessage?topicID=1444.topic[/url]<br>
<br>
I think Arbogast and myself are the only Late Roman reenactors to have curved (concave) shields. I couldn't tell you HOW it was made since I didn't make it. I had to commission someone to do that .<br>
<br>
All types you mentioned were used in both the 4th and 5th centuries. I think the cavalry used exclusively flat round ones (smaller than infantry).<br>
<br>
Hope this helps.<br>
<br>
-Theo <p><img src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/RCasti998/CHI-RO2.jpg" style="border:0;"/></p><i></i>
Jaime
Posts: 27
Threads: 7
Joined: Dec 2004
Reputation:
0
Holger Ratsdorf of HReplicate and Jean Olivier Bourbon each make dished shields. Obviously, they are not cheap, but they do make excellent articles for living history as there is no doubt that dished shields are correct. I personnally think that flat shields are also probably correct, but curved are more common based on the finds, particularly of the bosses.<br>
<br>
Vadormarius/Jim <p></p><i></i>
|
