Login

Carlton Bach · 03-27-2005, 05:12 PM

Salve 
 
It's shield time again, and I figured I'd ask those on the know. Just hoping this isn't another one of those 'jihad' things... 
 
I am still working on that auxiliary shield and not sure how thick to make it. I've worked out the size and shape reasonably well. Now I have three plates of 4mm birch plywood and I'm not sure whether to use two or three. The one surviving shield is stated to have been '10mm' thick, but is that with or without cloth/leather backing? Junkelmann writes of 12mm shields with cloth/leather, so I'm guessing the core would be about 8mm. (my 12mm wood core parma now is 16mm thick, but I may have used too thick a variety of leather). 
 
Those of you with experience: how well does a shield about 8mm thick stand up to use? How does it handle? This is strictly for display - I don't fight - but I'd like it to feel right. I have a finished scutum wood core that is 8mm thick, and it feels flimsy to me (but of course it doesn't have any supports or covering yet).

03-27-2005, 05:56 PM

The Dura scutum is 5 to 6mm thick. I believe that this measurement includes the linen and hide coverings. Gluing on a layer of linen dramatically transforms the wood. You're left with a material having a stiffness similar to fiberglass. The oval shaped plank shields from Dura varied in thickness, from 10 to 12mm in the center, tapering down to 5mm at the edge.

Daniel S Peterson · 03-27-2005, 11:18 PM

My several pieces of original 1st century cupric alloy Roman shield edging also suggests a shield of only about 5-6 mm on the edge. But I believe the 1srt century legionary scuta were considerably "beefed up" with the protruding, deeply embossed wings filled with gypsum, and metallic lighting bolts based on archaeological finds. The earliest surviving medieval shields are made exactly this way, and it does explain why so many shields depicted in Roman art have carefully sculpted shield decoration. Since we know these monuments were painted, and some are incredibly detailed right down to foot wraps under the caligae, we should assume that these shields were embossed, probably in the same way as the Medieval shields I have mentioned. 
 
Dan

03-28-2005, 02:15 AM

Quote:<hr>wings filled with gypsum, and metallic lighting bolts<hr> 
 
Dan, Can you provide a picture? None of my references show anything like this.

Carlton Bach · 03-28-2005, 10:38 AM

OK, so I assume that Dixon/Southern's 5cm (2in) thickness for the Dura scutums is a typo? 
 
Yikes... 
 
(check it out: Dixon/Southern: The Late Roman Army, London 1996 p 101)

Daniel S Peterson · 03-28-2005, 11:19 AM

Neuralmancer, 
many books on medieval military equipment show these shields, for they are as famous to students of this period as the Dura shields are for Roman enthusiasts. The earliest ones are of the Norman Kite style with the rounded tops cut off. One has a large eagle, the other a lion. Most of my books are still packed up from the move, but they should be out soon. Rawhide faced shield in relief, backed by gypsum must have been commonplace based on accounts of battles in which the intensity could be measured by how much gypsum dust was in the air from the furious smashing of shields. 
This is probably how the high relief 1st century Roman shields were decorated as well. 
Dan

caiusbeerquitius · 04-01-2005, 08:28 AM

The earlier medieval shields were made of wooden planks which were glued next to each other. They were glued in the form of a "V" to increase the surface to which glue could be applied, thus increasing the shield's stability. 
The oldest shield known for that period (high middle ages) was in Norway, but it is lost now. It was made in the plywood-technique and was the only known kite shield preserved. Only a aketch is left over: 
<img src="http://www.dignitas-equestris.de/deq/pic/sch_roel.gif"/> 
The second oldest shield, constructed in the technique mentioned above, was covered with rawhide/parchment and decorated with "gesso". 
it was the shield of "Arno von Brienz": 
<img src="http://www.tempus-vivit.net/hma-info/images/belege/seedorf.gif"/> 
 
It has been argued from the 19th century onwards, that it originally was a kite shield an that it had the edges cut off, however more recent examinations (published by Jan Kohlmorgen in: Der Mittelalterliche Reiterschild, 2002; ISBN 3-935616-10-4) have shown, that this is not the case. 
A couple of other shields from this period are preserved, all deriving from Germany or austria and Switzerland, all of them described in detail in Kohlmorgen's book.

04-01-2005, 12:44 PM

This is great, but how do we know that what was done in the middle ages has anything to do with things roman?

Daniel S Peterson · 04-02-2005, 07:27 AM

well........Virtually all scultural evidence suggests 1st century Roman shields were embossed, and here we see a technique that easily could have originated in Roman times. I can't imagine anyone doubting that the metallic lightning bolts from Kalkriese weren't originally nailed to shields, and there is quite a few other artifacts of a similar nature which obviously diecorated shields. 
Dan

Tarbicus · 04-02-2005, 07:42 AM

I dare say a bit of extra metal on your shield couldn't do any harm.

04-02-2005, 02:19 PM

Does anyone have a photo of the metal lightening bolts that they could post here? I haven't seen these.

Andrew Brozyna · 04-04-2005, 12:38 AM

I think the carefully sculpted shield decorations in Roman art can more easily be explained as a guides for the sculpture painters. Certainly some shields Incorporated sheets of metal in their design, but I'd like to see some direct evidence backing the claim that the Romans employed the Normans futuristic gypsum construction method. Were those texts describing gypsum dust at battles in a Roman or Medieval context? 
 
 
P.S. Don't forget the Doncaster shield is another example of a shield design using metal pieces.

GaiusManliusMagnus · 04-04-2005, 03:42 AM

Andrew raises and exellent point. Would there not be some kind of reference somewhere of clouds of white dust? Especially durring civil war engagements, where all of the combatants are Romans? (This might also create annother argument for white Tunica, BTW, if gypsum dust were a battle field staple...) 
Is it not simply possible that the relief carved into statuary evidence is the result of experience on the part of the sculptor? I mean, really. The Roman culture was eight hundred years old in the first Century. Surely someone must have noticed that the paint on statuary needed fairly regular maintainance to remain visible. Perhaps the sculptors included details like wings and thunderbolts on their work so that there would not simply be a big blank square at the subject's side in twenty years. Or two hundred. 
Sure, we've found thin metal wings. It's reasonable to correlate that they were for decoration on scuta. Is it reasonable to assume everyone had them? I suspect we'd have found a fair number of them if so, given a hundred and fifty thousand Legionaries in service at a time. Or is it more likely that some guys spiffied up their shields when they had some time on their hands? This could be done in winter quarters and nailed onto and exisiting scuta. Laying gypsum under the rawhide would take a near total rebuild of the shield. Not quite a quicky deal if it's not done at the fabrica. 
Also, have we found any particulate evidence of gypsum on any of the scuta fragments that have been discovered? It is a mineral, and would thus be somewhat more resistant to archeologic decay than organics, right? Microscopic traces would seem to be likely on something. Even if the bulk of such gypsum residue were removed as part of the cleaning durring preservation. 
There are things where speculation about processes and materials works for me because the context is close enough to speak of plausibility. Guessing that Pugio sheaths may have had plate rivited on at one point because we find versions with faux plates embossed upon them makes sense to me. Saying that the Romans embossed sheilds because the Normans did is pretty rough. There are, to my mind, to many other likely reasons why the statuary may have been made in relief. 
I eagerly await continuing discussion on this topic. 
 
Si vales, valeo 
Gaius Manlius Magnus

caiusbeerquitius · 04-05-2005, 02:07 PM

There are several possibilities for the shield decoration in the Early Empire. 
 
1. Metal attachments (Kalkriese, as Dan has mentioned). However, the Augustean Army was much richer than the armies only 20 years later, and style/taste had changed also significantly in a rather short period, as can be seen e.g. at the belt decorations. Thus a legionary from 35 AD may already have no longer metal attachments on his shield. 
 
2. Leather (cuir cuite(?)) attachments. These could be filled on their backside with wax or other material, making them quite stabile. 
 
3. Gesso, as discussed above 
 
4. A mixture of bone/hide glue and minerals like gypsum or chalk, perhaps containing tendon. This would be quite stabile and would not leave any white clouds in battle. Such a mixture was applied to the Dura shields. 
 
5. No relief decoration at all. 
 
As long as no original shield(s) from the period is (are) found, all these methods are equally usable/senseless for the post-Augustean era. 
 
Why are the medieval shields important? 
We have a certain continuity in working/production methods, also for specific objects, such as tools e.g., from the Roman period up to the early modern period. The most famous example are probably the knives used in viticulture. If a certain object from/in a certain region does not change significantly in use and form over the time, it can be assumed, that the basic characteristics of the object, as well as its production method, do not change significantly. However, each case has to be examined very carefully. 
 
As in most cases with equipment, it seems very difficult to me, to use relief as a source for answers to detailed questions. Reliefs were usually, just like pictures and mosaics, copied out of a "catalogue" of popular scenes. This tradition remained in use well into the middle-ages (see "Sermo Corporeus" by W. Kemp, Munich, also available in English). Thus, any sculptor, painter or mosaicist in Roman times was a craftsman, not necessarily an artist. By copying out of a sketchbook, the craftsman can make many mistakes, and also he may use a variety of methods to make his work easier. The sketchbook itself may contain a mixture of styles which themselves were permanently exposed to always-changing taste. (In silverwares the symptoms of these processes can be seen very well). Thus, I suggest to be extremely careful with relief depictions, if one has to ask detailed questions.

Daniel S Peterson · 04-07-2005, 10:51 AM

A good post Caius, but I think you are dismissing too lighting the high degree of accuracy in many Roman reliefs. Consider the trouble the artist went to, to sculpt even the delicate details of cloth bandage under already archaologically "perfect" Caliga. This perfection of detail was common in the early imperial monuments and strongly supports the theory of embossed shields during this era. For example, on the battle of pydna monument the Macedonian e shields, (which we know were of embossed bronze sheet) are perfectly executed this way, while the republican legionary scuta, which we understand from literary sources had painted emblems, were left "plain", so the designs can be painted on. On the Mainz praetorian reliefs, which show true Coolus and Imp Gallic style helmets, the legionary shields are carefully executed with embossed detail, yet on the same monuments, an Auxillary has a perfectly smooth shield. we can assume both units had shield emblems, and were painted, but only the legionaries had the emblems executed in relief. 
 
The surviving medieval shields "prove" the techology to do this work was probably known. 
 
I think it is possible that some 1st century scuta may have been completely made of rawhide, two sheets, with the embossing to give them even greater strength. Consider how thin the shield must have been to be covered by some of the actual finds of cupric alloy shield edging, and how little defensive value it really provides, but it would be the most practical thing to hold two pieces of rawhide together and provide more stiffening. The Parma equestra, was surely a piece of embossed rawhide. The "donut" like design only makes sense in a formed rawhide shield, which would be both light and incredibly strong. 
 
The Kalkriese lightining bolts, one example from Mainz, a flat capricorn emblem with rivet holes and a whole cache of luna emblems found together with umbos all prove that some relieve was executed with metal relieve, but probably larger areas like the wings were done in a method similar to that of the early medieval shields. 
 
I don't think there can be any doubt about this embossing practice in the 1st century, but people do not want to accept it because we as yet, do not know exactly how they did it. 
 
Dan

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me