Roman tower shields question

[MaleMaldives]

Why were the Roman tower shields and accompanying tactics not used during Medieval times? My guess is that better armor such as chain mail, and plate armor made protection from a shield less important. There were kite shields which were used in similar shield wall formations, but I don't think you could do a testudo formation with those.

[Tom]

The efficiency of the roman weapons and armour did depend to a good part on the roman military training, which was largely lost. The tower shield is dramatically effective if - and only if - used in a closed formation that is trained to stand together. It is too heavy to be used actively, so it works great if your shield covers your left side and the right side of your neighbor. In the less trained and organised formations of the middle ages, that simply didn't work. Fighting together in the extremely close quarters that the romans did required extensive training.

[Chenier]

The efficiency of the roman weapons and armour did depend to a good part on the roman military training, which was largely lost. The tower shield is dramatically effective if - and only if - used in a closed formation that is trained to stand together. It is too heavy to be used actively, so it works great if your shield covers your left side and the right side of your neighbor. In the less trained and organised formations of the middle ages, that simply didn't work. Fighting together in the extremely close quarters that the romans did required extensive training.

Come to think of it, though, I'm a little surprised that nobody tried to bring back that kind of warfare? Surely someone somewhere had the will, time, and resources to do this?

[De-Legro]

Come to think of it, though, I'm a little surprised that nobody tried to bring back that kind of warfare? Surely someone somewhere had the will, time, and resources to do this?

Standing armies like the Roman empire where kind of rare in the early middle ages. The class that could afford to train extensively in combat was the knightly class, and like many culture the elite favored cavalry.

Another factor that even in the late Roman age tactics were moving away from the massive emphasis on infantry. Roman legions had significantly increased the portion of cavalry and skirmishers. Finally I believe the glory days of the Roman infantry was long before the advent of heavy cavalry.

The Roman writer Cassius Dio gives and account of a defeat of Roman legions that showed a great weakness of the formations when faced by  Parthian knights and horse archers

"For if the legionaries decided to lock shields for the purpose of avoiding the arrows by the closeness of their array, the knights were upon them with a rush, striking down some, and at least scattering the others; and if they extended their ranks to avoid this, they would be struck with the arrows."

I can see how similar tactics could be used by medieval knights to disrupt such a formation. Though they would probably have foot archers which would change things a good deal.

Finally the classic Square  scutum disappeared itself from Roman usage in the 3rd Century replaced by the Clipeus. So it could be that it was believed the shield was obsolete.

[GoldPanda]

It was called the Dark Ages for a reason. The vast majority of a kingdom's dwindling manpower had to be dedicated to producing food, so keeping a large, trained standing army was mostly impossible. Your knights would be well trained, heavily armored, and probably fighting from horseback. You have to rely on peasant levies for infantry. Good luck getting those rabble to fight in Roman formations.

And God help you if you were attacked during harvest season.

(Disclaimer: I am not a historian, and learned most of my history from playing historical war games on my PC.

[MaleMaldives]

During the later eras of Medieval times weren't there a lot of more professional mercenary groups? Couldn't some of those have adopted similar tactics?

[De-Legro]

It was called the Dark Ages for a reason. The vast majority of a kingdom's dwindling manpower had to be dedicated to producing food, so keeping a large, trained standing army was mostly impossible. Your knights would be well trained, heavily armored, and probably fighting from horseback. You have to rely on peasant levies for infantry. Good luck getting those rabble to fight in Roman formations.

And God help you if you were attacked during harvest season.

(Disclaimer: I am not a historian, and learned most of my history from playing historical war games on my PC.

Its no longer called the Dark Age, and just how far "civilisation" fell has been revised. It is true that food was scarcer, and especially early medieval ages relied more on peasant levies, but most armies would have been able to count on small amounts of men-at-arms provided as part of a knights military obligation. A larger problem was that armies came together to fight, unlike Roman legions knights didn't tend to train and live with each other, thus military formations and tactics could not rely high levels of co-ordination and discipline.

During the later eras of Medieval times weren't there a lot of more professional mercenary groups? Couldn't some of those have adopted similar tactics?

They could, but this age was dominated by heavy cavalry initially, and the counter to that is not shield walls and short swords, but pikes. As pikes become larger wielding a shield as well is not possible. Some armies did use mixed formations where some soldiers carried shields and others pikes as a compromise.

[GoldPanda]

You mean these guys?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsknecht

[De-Legro]

You mean these guys?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsknecht

You are really talking early modern age by then, gun powder weapons where just starting to become available.

[Zakilevo]

I think scutum started to fade as Roman's enemies changed. I mean with that huge shield, Romans were slower than a turtle compare to their enemies such as Huns and Persians.

[Shizzle]

I think scutum started to fade as Roman's enemies changed. I mean with that huge shield, Romans were slower than a turtle compare to their enemies such as Huns and Persians.

Lol, Persians?

Also, in the late roman times, the whole army concept changed. Legions no longer garrisoned the line itself (such as the Rhine Limes), but were held back in centres away from the frontline, ready to reinforce positions in times of need. As such, it might have been more useful to shift to shift to lighter equipment?

[De-Legro]

Lol, Persians?

Also, in the late roman times, the whole army concept changed. Legions no longer garrisoned the line itself (such as the Rhine Limes), but were held back in centres away from the frontline, ready to reinforce positions in times of need. As such, it might have been more useful to shift to shift to lighter equipment?

Perhaps, but then part of the strength of the Roman military had always been the ability to deploy quickly. There is a good reason for their roads, and their logistical abilities where very well developed.

[MaleMaldives]

Here is a spinoff question. During the time of Julius Ceasar becoming emperor where his armies would fight other Roman armies and other similar times, why were the soldiers willing to kill fellow Romans? Money was probable a big thing, but it seems like all the conflicts where just an issue of gaining political power, rather then polices like American civil war over slavery. Why where the solider willing to kill people of their same country just to have a different person in charge of the empire. Like when Rome split into East and West, if one side then wanted to retake the other would be a bit more understandable.

[vonGenf]

Here is a spinoff question. During the time of Julius Ceasar becoming emperor where his armies would fight other Roman armies and other similar times, why were the soldiers willing to kill fellow Romans? Money was probable a big thing, but it seems like all the conflicts where just an issue of gaining political power, rather then polices like American civil war over slavery. Why where the solider willing to kill people of their same country just to have a different person in charge of the empire. Like when Rome split into East and West, if one side then wanted to retake the other would be a bit more understandable.

That's a very modern version of nationalism.

Roman citizenship was not linked to "race", family or brotherhood. It was a status you could gain for yourself. There were people who were born in Rome, spoke only Latin and were romans in every sense of the word, but were still slaves; there were people born outside of the Empire who made a name for themselves and became emperors (in the late empire at least, see Postumus).

To ask "why did Romans fight other Romans?" is akin to asking "why did nobles fight other nobles?". Fighting was the way to power within the empire, and outside of the empire, there was nothing but barbarism.

Also, human life was not valued the way it is now (or even the way it was in the middle ages). Remember this was the time of the circus and the gladiators. This way of life was not restricted to "others" like it was in the time of american slavery or even in the middle ages concerning serfs. Nobles in the middle age were born into power, and part of a separate lineage than the populace. The roman emperors, however, knew they were assisting to the games instead of participating due to their own success and strength only.

[Shizzle]

Romans fighting Romans wouldn't have been possible in the earlier Republic. I think the vital aspect is that under Caesar (and others), veterans received a plot of land after their service. This bound them to their General, making them very loyal. More loyal to their commander than to the people of Rome as a whole.