Late Republican Re-Enactment groups + handspun fibre query

[Lepidina]

If he has a long shield, and especially if he is not very experienced, a kick against the base of his shield can affect his balance and his ability to defend himself for a fraction of a second, which might be all the time you need to get the point of your sword into his neck.

I don't think this would work as well as you think. Case in point, the scutum is held horizontally, not vertically (well our unit's shields are.) At an event, a bratty kid tried to karate kick the bottom of one our guy's shields while he was holding it. Our guy just stood there firm and didn't do anything to brace the shield. Said kid landed a well-placed kick and beaned himself in the head when the shield pivoted forward. *whap* It was classic.

So I would think that the first thing you would learn in shield 101 is "don't kick the bottom of the shield."

deb

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

yes, it really doesn't work like that, I have tried the kicking thing, it proved to be the stupidest Idea I ever had, when there is continual pressure with shields together as there often is it makes you lose most balance if you kick, one on one melees usually don't last as long as one might think, usually one person is hit and placed in a bad position in the first collision, a few blows and it is over, therefore you pick a blow to win early. Head injuries, not when you are wearing a helmet, you will recieve some rather jarring blows to the head though, so make sure it is padded well, I was doing live steel against a fellow armed in late roman fashion with an ax (although wearing 1st century gear), one of his blows put a dent in my helmet at least a quarter inch deep, it was quite a blow, but it didn't hurt terribly underneath my well padded (and cheaply bought ) Gallic style helm. I don't like to aim for the legs though. There are some ancient sources (can't recall at the moment, help, someone) that describe an attack on the legs and hams by soldiers.

yes, it was just a deepeeka, you guys don't think I would take a custom helmet into real live steel combat 8)

[Matthew Amt]

OH now here's a statement from the University of Richmond website:
"Women in ancient Rome, like the men, wore long togas made of silk in the summer or wool in the winter. " - now according to what I've read so far (Adkin's Hbook to Life in Ancient Rome, I think) - only prostitutes wore a toga. What gives? (should I move this part of the discussion to the Civ threads?)

As I understand it, the toga was WOOL, period. Except in summer, when it was WOOL! If it's linen or silk, it might be a wrap of some other name, but it ain't a toga. Ditto for the women's palla--it's wool, or call it something else.

Double-check with Toga Man on this, but I believe the current wisdom is that VERY early in the Roman Republic (back into the Monarchy, really), the toga was worn by men and women. It was the Roman national garment, and very commonly worn. By the late Republic, however, it was only worn by men, and was becoming more of a formal garment, like a business suit (or even a tux in some places!). I have heard that prostitutes wore togas--maybe it was some sort of logic about them not being dressed like decent women? I think Colleen McCullough says they wore flame-colored togas, but no idea if there's evidence for that.

Helena, I haven't read a lot of the recent historical fiction that's come out, but one common failing I've seen is that the author tries to throw in all sorts of neato technical details--and gets them wrong! Or at least over-emphasizes them or does something controversial. Vagueness is still your greatest weapon, as I'm sure you know! You don't have to describe armor or weapons or gear when you mention them. You can say that the heroine's spinning was lousy without saying how! Heck, saves you research time anyway, eh?

Good luck with the book!! Valete,

Matthew/Quintus

[Crispvs]

"I don't think this would work as well as you think."

Actually, it can work extremely well. I have used the technique on a number of occasions. It is true that the top of a horizontally held shield will swing forward, just as it is true that a verically held shield will swing sideways. However, whatever concussive effects this swinging action produces can easily be countered by your own shield. To be hit on the head by the top of the shield, the "bratty kid" must have been very short and can't have been carrying a shield himself.

"when there is continual pressure with shields together"

Don't lose sight of the fact that the primary purpose of a shield is defence, rather than shoving, although it can of course be used for this too. To be most effective as a defence, a shield must be able to be moved fairly freely, not something which can easily be achieved whilst pressing your shield against someone else's. If you charge into combat a collision is likely, which would involve a momentary or sometimes longer shoving action. However, if you advance into combat in a disciplined manner you do not necessarily get such a shoving effect. Don't get me wrong about shoving - I am fairly convinced that in hand to hand combat the legionary put his shoulder to his shield and stabbed with his sword (as shown on one of the Mainz column bases) if he needed to drive the enemy back. It cannot always have been like this however and lines must often have faced off against each other and ground each other down until one could gain some clear advantage. In this situation any technique which can give a momentary advantage over the warriors standing a few feet in front of you is potentially useful.

Crispvs