Mid-Republican Roman Shields

[Smackyderm]

I have seen what appear to me to be two different styles of shield coloration for Polybian legions:

1st method: each element of the legion (velites, hastati, principes, triarii) gets its own shield color.

2nd method: each legion gets a uniform shield color (the blue legion, the red legion, etc.).

Are there any good arguments to be made for either mode, or is it purely a matter of aesthetic preference? Thanks for your help.

[Blathergut]

No one knows. An argument could even be made that there was no uniformity...to shields or tunics...or even armour...would have been an awful lots of 'grampa's helmet' type of thing.

[BrianC]

No one knows. An argument could even be made that there was no uniformity...to shields or tunics...or even armour...would have been an awful lots of 'grampa's helmet' type of thing.

I have heard from more experienced gamers the same thing. Usually it comes down to preference. How can someone prove you wrong sort of thing? So I go with the 1 legion has the same shield colour theme. I like the uniformity. Right now I have red shields and white shields. After a few more projects I might do another legion in a different colour. Still its always nice to hear what others are doing?

[Redpossum]

Prior to the Marian Reforms of 107 BC, legionaries supplied their own equipment. Indeed, the most controversial aspect of the Marian Reforms was that the state then equipped the legions, allowing the capite censi to serve.

Thinking about this, I doubt there was much standardisation or consistency at all

The Wikipedia article linked above is a bit brief. More detailed (and better documented) info is available here.

[BrianC]

Prior to the Marian Reforms of 107 BC, legionaries supplied their own equipment. Indeed, the most controversial aspect of the Marian Reforms was that the state then equipped the legions, allowing the capite censi to serve.

Thinking about this, I doubt there was much standardisation or consistency at all

The Wikipedia article linked above is a bit brief. More detailed (and better documented) info is available here.

Why can't anyone find a photo or 2 from this period, it would help so much . For the people who field Mid Republican Armies do you have the same shield colours or is there a mixture of colours in 1 legion? Just curious. I must admit that the velite that I have seen with different colour shields within a BG looks pretty good. But now that I have mine matched with the Legion they will be attached with I am not overly motivated to re do them

Brian

[footslogger]

Does anyone know when the first documented shield pattern is found in art for a roman legionary? I know that on the arch in Orange there is a legionary with a capricorn on the shield that could be dated at the earliest around the 20s BC, but I'm not sure it would qualify as what we would think of as a shield pattern. The stuff on Trajan's column is a century later.

[fredrik]

My guess would be that you could go for either option (uniformity or no) depending on the army in question.

For a newly raised citizen army we know that each citizen would supply their own equipment. Considering the importance of social standing and class to the romans I think it is fair to assume that a roman man would take great care to appear before his equals with as good-looking arms and armour as he could afford and that he would take great pride in his shield in particular, with the shield sporting family totems etc to mark him out as a person of good family and social standing. It is not inconceivable that he would be accompanied by a junior member of his household (a son, little brother or slave) to maintain his arms and armour for him, cook his food etc. Serving for a campaign year only it is fair to assume he would strive to keep his equipment in as good order as possible for the duration of his service year, keeping his shield cover on except for parade and battle (considering it's status as a family heirloom). For this type of army I would go for no uniformity at all with elaborate shields, colored tunics etc (think Greek citizen hoplites).

An army that spent an extended time in the field, serving for years on end such as the survivors of Cannae during the second Punic war would be another matter. Under these conditions it's fair to assume that as equipment got lost or damaged there would be a tendency for homogenization within the army as soldier-supplied items gradually were replaced with items produced in the field by the weaponsmiths of the army. Shields replaced on campaign would likely be rather simpler compared the the citizen supplied family heirlooms with just a monochrome coat of paint to preserve the wood. Naturally, this would also apply to hastily recruited armies such as penal legions where the state supplied arms and armour. For this type of army I would go for simple monochrome and uniform shields and plain undyed linen tunics.

[daleivan]

My guess would be that you could go for either option (uniformity or no) depending on the army in question.

For a newly raised citizen army we know that each citizen would supply their own equipment. Considering the importance of social standing and class to the romans I think it is fair to assume that a roman man would take great care to appear before his equals with as good-looking arms and armour as he could afford and that he would take great pride in his shield in particular, with the shield sporting family totems etc to mark him out as a person of good family and social standing. It is not inconceivable that he would be accompanied by a junior member of his household (a son, little brother or slave) to maintain his arms and armour for him, cook his food etc. Serving for a campaign year only it is fair to assume he would strive to keep his equipment in as good order as possible for the duration of his service year, keeping his shield cover on except for parade and battle (considering it's status as a family heirloom). For this type of army I would go for no uniformity at all with elaborate shields, colored tunics etc (think Greek citizen hoplites).

An army that spent an extended time in the field, serving for years on end such as the survivors of Cannae during the second Punic war would be another matter. Under these conditions it's fair to assume that as equipment got lost or damaged there would be a tendency for homogenization within the army as soldier-supplied items gradually were replaced with items produced in the field by the weaponsmiths of the army. Shields replaced on campaign would likely be rather simpler compared the the citizen supplied family heirlooms with just a monochrome coat of paint to preserve the wood. Naturally, this would also apply to hastily recruited armies such as penal legions where the state supplied arms and armour. For this type of army I would go for simple monochrome and uniform shields and plain undyed linen tunics.

I agree. A MRR army that has spent considerable time in the field would appear differently from a recently raised one.

Cheers,

Dale

[MarkSieber]

I painted different but uniform shield colors for each legion, thinking this makes them easier to spot on the table--but in practice, I can't see the shields (unless, of course the troops are routing--I do actually see them more than I'd like.) I painted the tall helmet feathers uniformly for each legion, and varied the tunics from legion to legion--some red, some linen.

If I were painting from scratch today, I'd probably organize the legions with feather & tunic colors: red tunic/black feather, red tunic/white feather, linen tunic/black feather etc. and have some variety in the shields--if only various shades of a similar color within a legion. It's easy to scan for the tunic/feather combination from behind, if you care to visually distinguish legions.

Another option is to avoid uniformity by stand and allow for grouping stands into different sized BGs without violating a particular aesthetic.

[ColeF]

I paint hastati white, princeps red, trarii blue and velites a mixture of greens, yellows and reds.
Looks nice IMO.

[Redpossum]

Serving for a campaign year only it is fair to assume he would strive to keep his equipment in as good order as possible for the duration of his service year, keeping his shield cover on except for parade and battle (considering it's status as a family heirloom).

Fredrik, with all due respect, I have to differ on a couple points here.

First, shield as family heirloom. Say what? A sword, sure, but a shield? Bud, a shield could be hacked to splinters in a single battle, especially as the roman style involved doing all blocking with the shield, and reserving the gladius for offense.

Sorry, but, shields were as disposable as kleenex.

Second, the part about "strive to keep his equipment in as good order as possible for the duration of his service year". Now, I know Sweden has compulsory military service, so I'm guessing you did your time in the Navy, right?

Seriously, soldiers in the field are a far different thing from soldiers in barracks. Keeping your gear sharp and free of rust, sure; your own ass depends on it. But all that spit & polish crap? Not even the Marines do that in the field, any more than they salute an officer in the field. And you will not convince me that the basic nature of the "line animal" has changed one damn bit since Sargon the Great kicked ass on the Sumerians.

If you put my stepfather, a career Marine NCO, in the same room with a centurion from Caesar's "X Leg Fret", the two would discover a soul-deep kinship as soon as they got past the language barrier

[fredrik]

Possum, with all due respect, I have to differ...

I believe a modern soldier would have more in common with a late republican soldier than a mid republican one with regards to his attitude towards war and his role in the army. To a late republican roman soldiering was a job, and his arms and armour tools. To an early republican roman soldiering was a way of participating in the civic life of the republic, his role in the army reflective of his role in the civil society. Remember that early republican roman soldiers were all levied men of property and not the disenfranchised "proletarii" of the later republic so considering the huge importance put on class in the roman society I believe the early republican soldier would strive to reflect his relative wealth and status in his gear.

And no, I did not serve in the navy...

[nikgaukroger]

Seriously, soldiers in the field are a far different thing from soldiers in barracks. Keeping your gear sharp and free of rust, sure; your own ass depends on it. But all that spit & polish crap? Not even the Marines do that in the field, any more than they salute an officer in the field. And you will not convince me that the basic nature of the "line animal" has changed one damn bit since Sargon the Great kicked ass on the Sumerians.

Display appears to have been an important part of ancient warfare with things like helmet crests only put on for battle so I would not discount that ancient soldiers would have been more likely to have ensured that their battle kit was nice and shiny.

[fredrik]

I might add that the Osprey on punic wars armies state that by the time of the second punic war the state supplied the arms and armour for the legions, so for an army of this period a more uniform look would be appropriate.

[Redpossum]

I might add that the Osprey on punic wars armies state that by the time of the second punic war the state supplied the arms and armour for the legions, so for an army of this period a more uniform look would be appropriate.

That's a very sloppy, generalised statement on Osprey's part.

See my post above on the Marian Reforms

[nikgaukroger]

See my post above on the Marian Reforms

Which was sloppy on your part as Polybios (IIRC) states that the state provided basic equipment for some legionarii - the square pectoral for example.

[Redpossum]

See my post above on the Marian Reforms

Which was sloppy on your part as Polybios (IIRC) states that the state provided basic equipment for some legionarii - the square pectoral for example.

Mea Culpa.

Polybius is hard to argue with, being not only a contemporary, but also a tutor of Scipio Aemilianus. I'll quite cheerfully malign and dispute Titus Livius, but Polybius? Mmmmm, no. The only way to credibly argue with Polybius would be to go back and dispute translation, and in that case it's not Polybius you're arguing with, just the translator

On the subject of Osprey and accuracy, though. Osprey is still selling the exact same book on the Punic-war-era armies that I bought used at the swapmeet in 1972.

Now, in our various discussions in the Army Design forum, it has come up many times that today's ideas on the composition of ancient armies vary considerably from those commonly accepted in the early 70's. Slitherine staff and mods themselves have cited this reason many times to explain the differences between DBx army lists and FoG army lists.

Yet Osprey's books remain the same. This alone seems to me sufficient reason to cast some doubt upon their accuracy.

[nikgaukroger]

Polybius is hard to argue with, being not only a contemporary, but also a tutor of Scipio Aemilianus. I'll quite cheerfully malign and dispute Titus Livius, but Polybius? Mmmmm, no. The only way to credibly argue with Polybius would be to go back and dispute translation, and in that case it's not Polybius you're arguing with, just the translator

Mind you there are credible arguments that even Polybios may have got things a bit mixed up and he was partly describing the army before PW2 and partly after ...

[Redpossum]

Polybius is hard to argue with, being not only a contemporary, but also a tutor of Scipio Aemilianus. I'll quite cheerfully malign and dispute Titus Livius, but Polybius? Mmmmm, no. The only way to credibly argue with Polybius would be to go back and dispute translation, and in that case it's not Polybius you're arguing with, just the translator

Mind you there are credible arguments that even Polybios may have got things a bit mixed up and he was partly describing the army before PW2 and partly after ...

Well, yes, and issues of time are not always clear in latin tenses, which is where, IMO, errors in translation are most likely to creep in. Latin implies so much that is not said.

But the business with the pectoral plates makes sense, in a very pragmatic sense. "Bring your own sword, shield, dagger, sandals, goat, WTF else, and the state will supply the bit of heavy armor to hang over your ticker."

We were talking about the shields, before I went off on a tangent as usual. On the one hand I just don't see them being too consistent. OTOH, I am a big believer in paint your army the way you like. If they look better to you in absolute uniform colors, go for it!

Personally I have a sneaking urge to paint up an NKE army with their kilts in bright pastels of every color in the rainbow. It wouldn't be accurate at all, but it would look great on the table

[daleivan]

We were talking about the shields, before I went off on a tangent as usual. On the one hand I just don't see them being too consistent. OTOH, I am a big believer in paint your army the way you like. If they look better to you in absolute uniform colors, go for it!

FWIW I feel the same way about folks painting an army to their preference. At least getting in the ballpark historically is important to me, but that's my thing, and of course, hitting that ballpark can be pretty problematic depending upon how much we may know about a particular period's military uniforms (or lack there of)

Personally I have a sneaking urge to paint up an NKE army with their kilts in bright pastels of every color in the rainbow. It wouldn't be accurate at all, but it would look great on the table

An amazing technicolor dreamcoat of an NKE army (as opposed to Hebrew)--that might be quite a sight.

Dale