Everybody was shieldwall fighting ....?

[Erpingham]

And I think so too Anthony and the bit that interested me about bows is the sort of thing that the men of the region praised for their skill would remember and passed down.
Roy

Telemark - famous for archery, heavy water and ski jumping

One of the things I think marks the heroic literary origins of the acount is this emphasis on the list of heroes and their bands and what they get up to.  Fits quite well with Tacitus on the Germans and the sort of heroic culture of Beowulf IMO.

[Patrick Waterson]

Persius will give you all the stats and references for usage by Caesar. 
Fearless men leaping over an enemy formation goes right back to Homer and Virgil. It's so ingrained in the culture that several comedies have someone looking up and seeing the awful truth as they are leapt over (shades of Scotsmen, kilts and carry on up the Khyber!)

Ooh, I don't know ... 

Looked up Gallic War in Perseus to check 'insilirent' (jumping on) - one use only, against Ariovistus - and 'testudo' - six uses (II.6 [Gauls, siege], V.9 [Romans, siege], V.42 [Gauls, siege*], V.43 [Gauls, siege*], V.52 [Gauls, siege*] and VII.85 [Gauls, siege])

*translated as 'mantlets', presumably because they were still there after the Gauls had gone

So what do we conclude?  Far from being a 'topos', Caesar's soldiers leaping onto an enemy shieldwall occurs only once, when the enemy has formed a 'phalanx' (hey, let us look that one up, too):

I.24 the Helvetii form a 'phalanx' and advance up to the Roman line
I.25 the Helvetian 'phalanx' gets messed up (perfregerunt) by Roman pila
I.52 our old friend Ariovistus has his 'phalanx' jumped on by Caesar's men, who were in too much of a hurry to use their pila

In each case Caesar uses 'phalanx' to designate what looks very much like a shieldwall (a moving one in I.24 so the idea that barbarians can only make static shieldwalls goes out of the window in the case of the Helvetii).  He uses 'testudo' only in the context of a siege, and half the time it seems to mean a protective mantlet or gallery.

[Imperial Dave]

A very good way to break up an enemy shieldwall is physical disruption caused by momentum of combatants as per the reference above. If you "leap" or jump over the rims of those in front, you have a chance of interferring with the structure of the shieldwall you are facing. If not and the usual pila or showers of javelins etc did not cause sufficient disruption (of a shieldwall) prior to contact then a shoving, rolling maul of combat would ensue.

If you're brave enough or daft enough, a vigorous physical "airborne" contact could speed things up 

[Patrick Waterson]

It is interesting to note that Caesar's leaping legionaries did not end up kebabed on German spears, which if they were leaping as high as Tom's topos suggests could have been seriously painful for them.  This leads to the question of what the Germans were armed with, and why it was not ready to receive - and the extent to which the legionaries' own shields and armour protected them during their 'airborne assault'.

Dave, you are a man who has been there, broken the shieldwall - any thoughts?

[Imperial Dave]

Patrick,

I would love to say that reenacting shieldwall combat is like the real thing but it only goes so far! Even when you dont have sharpened spears and swords waiting for you, shieldrims hurt! I have fractured ribs doing stupid things like this in reenactment and one of my friends split his face from lip to chin doing similar (and it was a very small shieldwall combat too!)

Shieldwalls are like any other close up (infantry) formation. They require will, stamina and reliance on those around you to stay intact. If they wobble (ie gaps open up), they usually "go", well at least in reenactment terms anyway.

A charge at a shieldwall gives you momentum and an opportunity to scare the waiting line into wavering, if that doesnt work you do have time to rein it in a little before impact. IF it does, you can charge home/leap into gaps/shoulder people aside. I suggest that the leaping legionaries is slight poetic licence as the 60lbs or so in equipment they are wearing is not an easy thing to get truly "airborne". I have seen people in reenactment combat reaching over and pulling shields away/down to present even more gaps (remembering that in my day, a minimum requirement for being allowed to "play" on the combat field was a padded jack or similar, a helmet and gloves).

My suggestion is that charging home, the legionaries were presented with a wavering shieldwall and enthusiastically "leapt" ie put a shouldering barge into gaps literally just prior to impact. I dont see antelope like jumps being quite possible especially with a dirty great shield in your hand

[Erpingham]

Rereading the passage, I think caesar is telescoping things a bit.  It looks like there are four phases

1. Germans come on quickly
2. Romans countercharge
3. Swordplay
4. Germans in locked shield order are attacked by Roman crazies, physically pulling apart shield and getting on top.  This looks like a formation with front rank presenting shields to front, second/third holding overhead.

I am led to speculate that the two sides clash violently between 2 &3, then Romans get the upper hand and force Germans onto the defensive between 3 & 4.  Has Caesar missed a phase and the Romans have forced the Germans back, allow a fresh attack with missiles (hence the Germans assuming an overhead cover), followed by a violent assault (phase 4) - a bit of chuck and charge?  Or are the Germans simply trying to force a break, giving a bit of ground and reforming and the Romans aren't letting them get away?

[Imperial Dave]

If the Germans are interlocking shields to front and overhead, it is quite difficult to also effectively see and respond to hand to hand combat to the fore. Its really defensive and so allows the Roman "crazies" opportunity to tear into the formation to break it apart...are the Germans trying to withdraw in good order?

[Erpingham]

If the Germans are interlocking shields to front and overhead, it is quite difficult to also effectively see and respond to hand to hand combat to the fore. Its really defensive and so allows the Roman "crazies" opportunity to tear into the formation to break it apart...are the Germans trying to withdraw in good order?

They certainly have been driven onto the defensive.  I don't think they could reform into a "testudo-like" shieldwall in contact (I don't think the Romans could either) so there needs to be a gap but this needn't be long.  Are they trying to fall back? A bit of a complicated formation for that.  The complex multi-tiered shieldwall was typically used by the Romans against cavalry or shooting.  Caesar doesn't mention cavalry (I think) so have his men picked up the discarded pila and showered the Germans, forcing them into a defensive huddle, then rapidly renewed their attack?

[Erpingham]

Talking, as we were, about how you broke a shieldwall, here are two Early Medieval examples, from Egils saga (Chapters 52 and 53).  Egil and his brother Thorolf are fighting the Scots at Brunanburgh.

Then Thorolf became so furious that he cast his shield on his back, and, grasping his halberd with both hands, bounded forward dealing cut and thrust on either side. Men sprang away from him both ways, but he slew many. Thus he cleared the way forward to earl Hring's standard, and then nothing could stop him. He slew the man who bore the earl's standard, and cut down the standard-pole. After that he lunged with his halberd at the earl's breast, driving it right through mail-coat and body, so that it came out at the shoulders; and he lifted him up on the halberd over his head, and planted the butt-end in the ground. There on the weapon the earl breathed out his life in sight of all, both friends and foes. Then Thorolf drew his sword and dealt blows on either side, his men also charging. Many Britons and Scots fell, but some turned and fled.

Here was see Thorolf make a berserk charge (he doesn't protect himself), leading from the front.  His "halberd" incidentally is a spear (spjot), though it called a kesja when it is described.  It is essentially a long bladed spear with crosspiece mounted on a stout staff - a bit like an ancestral partisan.

Unfortunately, Thorolf is shortly after killed by the treacherous Scots who ambush out of a wood.  Egil sees his brothers men falling back and he knows his brother would never do this.  He rallies the men then sets off to get his revenge

Then did he keenly spur them on to the charge, himself foremost in the van. He had in his hand his sword Adder. Forward Egil pressed, and hewed on either hand of him, felling many men. Thorfid bore the standard close after him, behind the standard followed the rest. Right sharp was the conflict there. Egil went forward till he met earl Adils. Few blows did they exchange ere earl Adils fell, and many men around him. But after the earl's death his followers fled. Egil and his force pursued, and slew all whom they overtook; no need there to beg quarter.

Thorolf clearly charges on foot, Egil presumably likewise.  Note here how a rather impromptu wedge is formed, the role of the standard bearers marking the leaders and the "Route One" approach of cutting down the enemy leader.  Note incidentally that neither of the Scots leaders are in the front rank (nor are Thorolf and Egil initially).

[Imperial Dave]

Here was see Thorolf make a berserk charge (he doesn't protect himself), leading from the front.  His "halberd" incidentally is a spear (spjot), though it called a kesja when it is described.  It is essentially a long bladed spear with crosspiece mounted on a stout staff - a bit like an ancestral partisan.

This is actually a good bit of detail and just one way to break up a shieldwall when in close combat. The use of a spear with a cross-piece allows the wielder to pull shields away from their opponents allowing others around them to make killing blows. I have used this technique in shieldwall reenactment myself and as long as the guys around you know what they are doing its very successful

Another weapon, par excellence, for this type of attack is the 2 handed axe with the combination of reach and "arced" blade for either splintering shields or being able to pull them and their unfortunate owners inescapably forward

[Patrick Waterson]

Rereading the passage, I think caesar is telescoping things a bit.  It looks like there are four phases

1. Germans come on quickly
2. Romans countercharge
3. Swordplay
4. Germans in locked shield order are attacked by Roman crazies, physically pulling apart shield and getting on top.  This looks like a formation with front rank presenting shields to front, second/third holding overhead.

I am led to speculate that the two sides clash violently between 2 &3, then Romans get the upper hand and force Germans onto the defensive between 3 & 4.  Has Caesar missed a phase and the Romans have forced the Germans back, allow a fresh attack with missiles (hence the Germans assuming an overhead cover), followed by a violent assault (phase 4) - a bit of chuck and charge?  Or are the Germans simply trying to force a break, giving a bit of ground and reforming and the Romans aren't letting them get away?

Interestingly enough, Appian (Gallic Wars 3) says this about the battle:

"[Caesar] also overcame the Germans under Ariovistus, a people who excelled all others, even the largest men, in size; savage, the bravest of the brave, despising death because they believe they shall live hereafter, bearing heat and cold with equal patience, living on herbs in time of scarcity, and their horses browsing on trees. It seems that they were without patient endurance in their battles, and did not fight in a scientific way or in any regular order, but with a sort of high spirit simply made an onset like wild beasts, for which reason they were overcome by Roman science and endurance. For, although the Germans made a tremendous rush and pushed the legions back a short distance, the Romans kept their ranks unbroken, and outmanœuvred [katestrategoun, showed better generalship or better manoeuvres] them, and eventually slew 800000 of them. "

Hence Appian has the Germans make a concerted rush and push back the Romans, after which the Romans gain the upper hand.  This would support the idea that Caesar conflated the different stages of the action.

[aligern]

Please go and look oat the description of the battle against Ariovistus in the Battles section of the forum. There is another informative account.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

Link here.

Cassius Dio's account (Book XXXVIII) from that particular entry bears repeating:

48 1 While they were encamped opposite each other, the women of the barbarians as the result of their divinations, forbade the men to engage in any battle before the new moon. 2 For this reason Ariovistus, who always paid great heed to them whenever they took any such action, did not immediately join in conflict with his entire force, although the Romans were challenging them to battle. Instead, he sent out the cavalry alone, with only the foot-soldiers assigned to them, and did the other side severe injury. 3 Then, becoming contemptuous of them, he undertook to occupy a position above the Romans' entrenchments; this he seized, and his opponents occupied another in their turn. Then, although Caesar kept his army drawn up outside until noon, Ariovistus would not proceed to battle, but when, toward evening, the Romans retired, he suddenly attacked them and all but captured their rampart. 4 Therefore, since affairs were turning out so well for him he paid little heed any longer to the women; and on the following day, when the Romans had been drawn up in battle array, according to their daily custom, he led out his forces against them.
49 1 The Romans on seeing them advancing from their tents did not remain quiet, but rushing forward, gave them no chance to form strictly in line, and by attacking with a charge and shout prevented them from hurling their javelins, in which they had especial confidence; 2 in fact, they came to so close quarters with them that the enemy could not employ either their spears or long swords. So the barbarians pushed and shoved, fighting more with their bodies than with their weapons, and struggled to overturn whomever they encountered and to knock down whoever withstood them. 3 Many, deprived even of the use of their short swords, fought with hands and teeth instead, dragging down their opponents, and biting and tearing them, since they had a great advantage in the size of their bodies. 4 The Romans, however, did not suffer any great injuries in consequence of this; they closed with their foes, and thanks to their armour and skill, somehow proved a match for them. At length, after carrying on that sort of battle for a very long time, they prevailed late in the day. For their daggers, which were smaller than the Gallic daggers and had steel points, proved most serviceable to them; 5 moreover, the men themselves, accustomed to hold out for a long time with the same sustained effort lasted better than the barbarians, because the endurance of the latter was not of like quality with the vehemence of their attacks. The Germans were accordingly defeated, though they did not turn to flight — not that they lacked the wish, but simply because they were unable to flee through helplessness and exhaustion. 6 Gathering, therefore, in groups of three hundred, more or less, they would hold their shields before them on all sides, and standing erect, they proved unassailable by reason of their solid front and difficult to dislodge on account of their denseness; thus they neither inflicted nor suffered any harm.
50 1 The Romans, when their foes neither advanced against them nor yet fled, but stood immovable in the same spot, as if in towers,12 had likewise put aside their spears at the very outset, since these were of no use; 2 and as they could not with their swords either fight in close combat or reach the others' heads, where alone they were vulnerable, since they fought with their heads unprotected, they threw aside their shields and rushed upon the foe. Some by taking a running start and others from close at hand leaped up as it were upon the tower-like groups and rained blows upon them. 3 Thereupon many fell immediately, victims of a single blow, and many died even before they fell; for they were kept upright even when dead by the closeness of their formation. 4 In this way most of the infantry perished either there or near the waggons, back to which some had been driven; and with them perished their wives and children.

This account supplies the 'missing links' and confirms Anthony's deduction or surmise that the German shieldwall was an end-of-engagement phenomenon, when the tribesmen were exhausted (as with the Gauls at Sentinum) - and also indicates why the Romans leaping at/pulling apart the shieldwall did not get skewered.

An interesting point is that Ariovistus' men placed 'special confidence' in their javelins - could these have been the forerunners of later bebrae and other heavy throwing spear types as later used by Franks, Rugians and Allemanni?

[Imperial Dave]

Also I guess that if Germans formed shieldwalls in dire circumstances means that it was viewed as mainly defensive.

If the Romans had lot of pila left, putting a few volleys into a shiedlwall would surely create gaps to exploit purely for the fact that many shields would be made unuseable?

[Patrick Waterson]

This seems to have been their usual system, e.g. at Sentinum and against the Helvetii.  Against Ariovistus they had dropped the things and presumably going back to get them would have involved unnecessary disruption and delay.