[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Jesse Eaton]

Quote: “As an I.33 fencer, I regret to inform you that your buckler is less than useful.

The buckler is used to bind an opponents shield and weapon, as well as to protect your sword arm from a counter cut while you execute an attack.”

The I33 combat is limited to a single type of combat where both opponents are unarmored and equally armed with sword and buckler. In the case in point, the armored Legionary wields a relatively short blade (about 20”-26”) and a large (4’ x 2’) shield against a spatha (30”-36” blade) and buckler wielding armored opponent. The tactics and techniques are very different here. The comments from George Silver are appropriate, and what I had in mind. The lack of a strap on the legionaries arm changes things a bit, but the mass of the shield is not in the Roman’s favor in an open field. Silver’s comments point out the problem. The buckler does not hinder the variable fight. Meaning that the range can be controlled, gauged, and manipulated by the less encumbered fighter. The spatha out reaches the gladius by about 10”, so with a lighter shield and longer reach, the variable fight is definitely in the favor of the spatha and buckler fighter.

Quote: “The large tower shield is not going to be bound by your smaller buckler, and you're in a bigger risk from the thrust to your gut from behind the tower shield than a cut to your attacking arm. “

What I meant was that the Roman, in the variable fight, is vulnerable to strikes to his hand, if he extends beyond the reach of his shield. Even if the Roman strikes from underneath his shield, his sword arm is exposed. The longer reach of the spatha can then be used to pick shots and force the Roman to close the distance and engage at short range. But, since the buckler is far less encumbering (2lbs vs. the Roman’s 15lb.+) mobility is in the favor of the buckler-wielding fighter. Given that this is a 1-1 fight in the open, the buckler-wielding fighter should have room to maneuver. Now, if the circumstances were different, like a crowded city street or battlefield, then yes the buckler would not be an advantage.

Quote: “Additionally, a back sword refers to two things: a sword with only one edge, or a type of 16th / 17th century cavalry weapon. These are not used in sword and buckler fighting.”

This is how the ARMA website defined “backsword”

“The back-sword or Backe swerd was a less-common form of single-edged renaissance military cut & thrust blade with a compound-hilt (side-rings or anneus, finger-rings, knuckle-bar, etc.). Most popular in England with a buckler or target from at least the 1520’s, it was long enough for both mounted and infantry and favored because its single-edge designed allowed for a superior cutting blow. It was also popular in Germany. Back-swords may be related to later single-edged European blade forms and came in a variety of hilts and lengths. They also include later Hangers and hunting swords, as well as Mortuary-hilt and Walloon-hilt broadswords.”

ARMA has several world-renowned scholars, including the founder John Clemens, doing its research.

Quote: “I have fought some damn good buckler fighters with my heater shield”

Great! But, a heater is much smaller, lighter, strapped to the arm, and you are probably wielding a sword of equal length. Additionally if you are fighting SCA rules, shots below the knees as of limits (for safety reasons), but not in this case. So, I’m not sure how applicable your analogy is.

Quote: “I agree with M. Eversberg II, that there is no need to bother with sword arm. If it happens to be hit it, fine, but there is a whole lot of head, body and leg available to hit.”

Legs yes, but body and head are armored and the body is well covered by the scutum. Picking shots at range and forcing the Roman to extend makes his hand the obvious target. Flanking to his shield side stifles his ability to close the distance and forces him to leave the relative comfort from behind his shield. His head will also be a target, but then again, it’s also armored. Cut the unarmored hand with a spatha and the fight is nearly over.

[Otto Karl]

Well, the numeric item is at this point well understood, actually, a big powerful catapult and a bowman squad would be a great help on fighting a roman legion. Thanks for everyones help and enthusiasm.
Now, I was wondering if a one handed war hammer or an Axe whit a back spike could do a better work against a roman whit that big square shield and a gladius that the one that could be done whit a german longsword, a kriegsmesser or a katana.

[Robin Palmer]

Hi all

For what its worth here are my thoughts on various points raised. First the roman shield the design was such that they tended to plant them in a wall and fight over then as much as anything else. If needed they could and did fight free style and they were very good giving excellent defence. On the matter of penetration I read a few years ago that tests had shown that a well thrown pilum could penetrate something like two or three inches of pine. the roman shield was made of cross ply laminate and the same pilum was unable to penetrate it so arrows would have little chance.

On the issue of the cutting ability of the gladius either type the later style had more weight but both had a good edge well capable of doing serious damage. Some years ago I made a sharp gladius Hispaniolas for a friend when he collected he it bought a couple of pig hind quatres with him and we tried it out. While not in the same class as a sabre it still did enough damage to make the person you hit want to have a lie down feeling very unwell. The later longer blade would have had cutting ability equivalent to a Saxon Viking sword.

personally I think the best combination to beat a single legionary is probably a good body shield and a sword.

lastly given that the pilum head is solid metal I seriously doubt if it would be possible to cut it off. Given the head would move under impact and reduce the force it would also seriously damage the edge of any weapon used probably more than the pilum haed.

[Shayan G]

[Dan Howard]

[Shayan G]

Firstly, it was an experiment of a pilum being thrown, hardly comparable--as I stated in my previous post--to a composite bow. Secondly, there are two accounts of Carrhae--Plutarch's Life of Crassus, and Cassius Dio's Roman History. If there is reason to doubt the veracity of these authors, please inform me. However, they were respected in their times and continue to be quoted as sources on many topics. Perhaps a thread on their credibility would be worthwhile?

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/T...0*.html#22
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/T...s*.html#24

Thirdly, I see no stretch of reason in thinking that an arrow traveling at 150 ft/sec would have true difficulty in penetrating 5-7mm of plywood and paint. Just this summer I was playing with a 40-lb draw-weight adolescent's bow at an outdoors archery range. An arrow glanced off the target and penetrated a tree behind it at least two and a half inches (i.e. the length of my thumb). I was unable to pull the arrow out, and compared the broken arrow (I broke it so it wouldn't remain jutting dangerously at eye-level) to a whole arrow to get an idea of the depth. If a target-weighted (ie light) arrow, with a target tip, from a 40-lb Walmart bow can do this to a tree, I absolutely believe a wooden shield could be penetrated at least a few inches by a warrior's composite bow with war-weighted arrows, enough to "rivet" an arm. I ask not rhetorically but in earnestness, does that seem reasonable? Are there significant factors I'm not accounting for?

I'm sure at a great distance the circumstances change, but Parthian tactics (known for the Parthian shot of course) involved a feinted charge, close range shower of arrows, and a retreat, followed by a longer "Parthian shot."

Regards,
Shayan

[Jared Smith]

I would hesitate to dismiss the spear as a good weapon candidate for fighting against a Roman legion. Optimally, I would ambush it when it was not on advantageous ground and best defended formation. Add a little cavalry if possible. You might repeat something like the battle of Teutenburg Forest.

I have read a couple of the current trendy military history magazines that give well researched accounts of the Roman Gaul conquest (specific battles and accounts referenced.) The Germanic tribes did start off with a launch of thrown weapons (even just rocks, axes or clubs, etc), which generally did not come close to finishing off the Legion. They did manage to disturb the Legions this way sometimes, and were capable of combining it with flanking maneuvers and ambush type subterfuges. The naked Gauls actually did not do too bad at the open combat scenario using hand held spears (slashing and thrusting, not throwing the spear in up close combat), and knives. The Gauls could plausibly have won the war, but consistently made mistakes (looting, not pursuing when they had the advantage and ability to finish of their enemy, allowing themselves to be flanked, etc.) Ground (swamp, night or fog), and maneuvering errors really had more to do with the victories than the weapons and armour match up, at least in Gaulish Roman conquests.

[Gavin Kisebach]

Shayan I agree with you on the arrow issue. I think this is a good arguement for using a centergrip shield; you can hold it at arm's length during arrow or javelin vollies. A heater might just get pinned to your shield arm. The only part of your body that stays close to the shield at this point is the hand, which is nicely protected in a boss. It says a lot to me that vikings carried extra shields into battle. I would almost be inclined to bring a large disposable shield just for these opening vollies, then switch to a nicer shield when the armes came to grips. That's just me though.

[Robin Palmer]

Shayan I have to disagree the pilum was specifically designed to penetrate the head shape was one of the best possible. I agree an arrow is going faster but the pilum is designed to concentrate its full weight and enegy into a very small area. The enlarged tip splits the target material the narrow shank simply slides through the hole I am sure there is a maths formula to work out the relative forces but I am useless at maths.

On the matter of historical acounts of Roman shields being pieced I recall one I believe by Caesar where he states that after a perticulaly fiece battle one of his veterans shield had been pieced over 100 times. The ability of any shield to resist weapons is a relative thing depended to a large extent on how the blow is delivered and how the shield is held. A shield braced on the ground with no movement will be pieced by a strike which had the shield been held free to move with the strike may well have failed. No shield that is practical to use is impregnable but how well one can resist is difficult to determine as there are so many variables. Test on accurate reproductions are useful they give us base line data but no test can answer all the questions that doesn't invalidate the tests or results.

On the matter of arrows versis shield I would point you to incidents during the 100 years wars 1360-1460 where French infantry facing long bows advanced behind body shields and suffered I quote, ' No hurt closing on the English archers forcing them from their positions despite their best efforts'. I will try to find the source for you no promises.

Having done dark age re-enactment I can testify to the speed shields can be destroyed we used blunt weapons and five layer ply shields rope edged and covered in leather. It was common to need to replace a shield every three or four battles due to damage. The Vik and Saxons carried spares simply to replace the first one when it was destroyed. I would point to the holmganger in the thirteenth warrior the fight gives a fair idear of how long a shield lasts.

[Shayan G]

Thanks, Gavin. I was thinking about that, how holding the shield just behind the boss would protect the hand and arm. But then there's a lot of arrows coming at you if the Parthians are ambushing you, so your arm may be the least of your worries

Robin, I wasn't disparaging the pilum, I'm simply saying that two Roman historical records and numerous personal experiences I've had involving wood and archery all point to the fact that I believe a Roman behind a shield may still get struck through the arm with an arrow. I would trust Asian horse archery as the best tactic against a Roman, individual or otherwise. However, projectiles were forbidden from the options in the first post.

Regarding the French and English, those were different bows, different shields, etc...apples and oranges.

[Dan Howard]

The Roman shield was centre-gripped. The legionary's arm does not usually lie against the back surface and if he faced arrows he would make sure that it did not lie against the back surface. The chance of an arrow punching through far enough to injure the bearer is negligible. Obviously it happened on occasion but nowhere near enough to affect the outcome of a battle. I emboldened the last because this is the only fact that is important. Discussing exceptions is a waste of time since, unless the leader is killed by such a fluke, it has no bearing on a battle.

[Shayan G]

So essentially we are declaring Cassius Dio and Plutarch to be historiographically void, and erring on the side of 5-7mm of plywood rather than a composite bow remarked upon by numerous authors for its power? The bow won the battle against the Romans, as is quite explicitly emphasized in both accounts. It was no "exception."

I think I'd better just shake digital hands with you and agree to disagree.

It's one thing when it's a longbow vs plate or longbow vs. mail thing to say it would be so rare it's negligible, but in my opinion the two historians' explicit statements regarding the shields and armor, coupled with the efficacy of the Parthian horse-archery against the Romans and the experiences I've had with arrows and wood, all lead me to (with very little doubt) surmise that the Parthian arrows were largely effective against shielded Roman soldiers. I'm not saying they acted like a .357 magnum and knocked them down like a lightning bolt, however the composite horse bow was obviously vindicated historically. I've often read you post regarding armor "If it weren't effective, they wouldn't have worn it." Shouldn't this apply to the Parthians against shielded Roman soldiers? They continued to use it as their primary armament, and as a weapons system it proved effective to the point where it was still emulated well past the Mongol period. Writing that all off as cultural affectation or disregarding it by saying logistics or strategy was key would be simply callous--many cultures adapted it that previously had no basis for it in their culture due entirely to its efficacy, and although strategy is essential in warfare, strategy without effective weaponry is a car without fuel or a sail without wind.

Let's just hope someone cares to take a reconstruction of a Parthian horsebow up against an accurate reconstruction of a contemporary scutum, and until then call it "pax."

What would be a reasonable reconstruction with common backyard materials to replicate this? I doubt any scientist or experimental archaeologist will decide to test this anytime soon, so it's up to the backyard enthusiasts. I'll be back from studying abroad in 3 months (5 if my internship goes through!) and only at that time will I have access to a bow. I'm not sure what the laws are in Ireland--I have a feeling they won't want an American buying a bow and shooting arrows at things though. Perhaps if ANYONE on this forum would volunteer for such an experiment? Bow-owners, scutae/scuti/scuta (pardon my complete ignorance of Latin grammar) re-creators? Anyone?

Again, I'm not saying arrows are lightning rods of death, or that bows penetrate plate armor like soft butter--simply that the evidence weighs in the favor of the efficacy of the composite bow the Parthians used against the shields of the Romans. The Romans themselves seemed to agree.

Note: I won't be able to respond til Saturday in all likelihood due to two papers and an internship application due Friday. I'll try to respond during breaks if I can, but if not, I'll be back soon!

Best regards,
Shayan

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Shahril Dzulkifli]

I don't know, maybe a straight sword used by Germanic tribes during their battles with the Roman legions.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Ben C.]

[James R.Fox]

Sirs- The Romans had 3 things going for them.First, an incredible talent for organization and dicipline,coupled with a culture that valued military agressiveness. Second, by chance or choice, they had come up with the perfect military equipment for their time and place. Third, they were, like us Scots, true he-men who wore skirts, Not @#$%^ kilts.Scots wore their version of the Roman toga, a wide , long,sheet of wool cloth wrapped around the waist, then around the back and shoulders.Everybody from that general area of Europe wore the toga, Greeks,Romans, and Hallstadt Celts,and the Scots were a Hallstadt culture in origin who were driven out of Ulster by the La Tene culture Celts led by the UaNeil (Nial of the 9 hostages and his sons) Down the UaNeil !!! La Tene Celts were so wimpy the had to wear pants to keep their bums warm

[Matthew Amt]

All seriousness aside, there is no relationship between the Scottish plaid or kilt (or even the brat) and the Roman toga. Different shapes, different sizes, different colors, worn in different ways and for different reasons. Most every culture back then did have cloaks of some sort or other, but such things date back to the Stone Age, whereas the toga does not.

Vale,

Matthew

[Marcos Cantu]

What type of gladius would the Romans have been using about mid-3rd century BC (280-240)?