Here is a spin off from the thread on the battle of Chalons. I think we can take it as read that close-order formations creating a wall of shields are commonplace of European history. Gauls do it, Greeks do it, even educated fleas do it. But once we get to the early medieval warfare (500-1100 ish) we see a particular formation of men in close order , often so close their shields overlap, primarily with spears but missiles shot or thrown from the back, rolling into each other or forming circles to resist cavalry. What is the evolution of the formation commonly called "the shieldwall"?
Once upon a time, the shieldwall was considered the ancestral Germanic military form. It slowly evolved from the time of the Roman through to the 12th, maybe the 13th, century. In passing it influenced late Roman/early Byzantine tactics, because of the large numbers of barbarians recruited into the late Roman army.
Now , however, there is more uncertainty. Did Germanic armies form shieldwalls before confronting the tightly ranked armies of the Romans? Did the fact that archaeology suggests that the long shields of the early Germans gave way to smaller round shields by the 3rd or 4th century mean that looser formations were the norm? Were shieldwalls of big round or oval shields in fact introduced in imitation of late Roman infantry?
Are shieldwalls (and hence large oval shields) reflective of defensive formations? If so doesnt that actually make sense with regards to the chronology of arms stated in your passage above
Early Imperial arms (offensive infantry) using rectangular curved shields gave way to oval flat shields in the 3rd,4th and 5th centuries as infantry became more defensive. Also the importance of the offensive cavalry arm grew at the same time (chicken and egg?). As Roman infantry tended to become more defensive, did Germanic tactics change to allow for more offensive armaments (smaller more maneuverable shields etc)?
There is certainly archaeological evidence around to support.
If we then take the hyposthesis further, as cavalry arms in Germanic armies (late and post roman) increased and the settlement of established kingdoms took hold, did they slowly switch back to shieldwalls and large oval shields as a defensive force in parody of the Roman model?
Exhibit One
Gaul, 58 BC
Accordingly our men, upon the signal being given, vigorously made an attack upon the enemy, and the enemy so suddenly and rapidly rushed forward, that there was no time for casting the javelins at them. Throwing aside [therefore] their javelins, they fought with swords hand to hand. But the Germans, according to their custom, rapidly forming a phalanx, sustained the attack of our swords. There were found very many of our soldiers who leaped upon the phalanx, and with their hands tore away the shields, and wounded the enemy from above. - Caesar, Gallic War I.52
The Germans, after a very rapid assault, close hand-to-hand. At about this point, they 'form a phalanx' (phalange facta) and receive the Romans. That this is a static 'phalanx' (which we can understand as a shieldwall) is evident from the fact that Roman soldiers could time their leaps to get hold of the shields and pull them away.
A similar static shieldwall was formed by the Gallic infantry in the last stages of the battle of Sentinum (295 BC). The Romans destroyed this one with a bombardment by pila.
As I said in the first sentence, there was a lot of it about :) But there is 500 + years from the beginning of the period in question and the later of these examples. What happens between? And how important is the size and shape of the shields?
A point I make frequently, if you hold a smaller shield out at arms length it covers as much of the body as a large shield held close .
That troops with a shield of from 18 inch to over 3ft diameter or spine length form a wall of shields when they close up is surely a commonplace as Anthony says. It would also seem to be usual that men in the back ranks will throw or shoot missiles over the 'shield wall' to degrade the opponents as they come on.
I thought the ancestral German formation was allegedly the keil?
Roy
Exhibit 2
Media, 36 BC
Day was already dawning, and the army was beginning to assume a certain order and tranquillity, when the arrows of the Parthians fell upon the rear ranks, and the light-armed troops were ordered by signal to engage. The men-at-arms*, too, again covered each other over** with their shields, as they had done before, and so withstood their assailants, who did not venture to come to close quarters. [2] The front ranks advanced little by little in this manner, and the river came in sight. On its bank Antony drew up his horsemen to confront the enemy, and set his sick and disabled soldiers across first. And presently even those who were fighting had a chance to drink at their ease; for when the Parthians saw the river, they unstrung their bows and bade the Romans cross over with good courage, bestowing much praise also upon their valour. - Plutarch, Anthony 49
*'hoplitai' - heavy-armed troops, in this case legionaries.
** 'katerepsantes' - covering over, roofing
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 15, 2014, 06:16:30 PM
Exhibit One
Gaul, 58 BC
Accordingly our men, upon the signal being given, vigorously made an attack upon the enemy, and the enemy so suddenly and rapidly rushed forward, that there was no time for casting the javelins at them. Throwing aside [therefore] their javelins, they fought with swords hand to hand. But the Germans, according to their custom, rapidly forming a phalanx, sustained the attack of our swords. There were found very many of our soldiers who leaped upon the phalanx, and with their hands tore away the shields, and wounded the enemy from above. - Caesar, Gallic War I.52
The Germans, after a very rapid assault, close hand-to-hand. At about this point, they 'form a phalanx' (phalange facta) and receive the Romans. That this is a static 'phalanx' (which we can understand as a shieldwall) is evident from the fact that Roman soldiers could time their leaps to get hold of the shields and pull them away.
A similar static shieldwall was formed by the Gallic infantry in the last stages of the battle of Sentinum (295 BC). The Romans destroyed this one with a bombardment by pila.
I would be very surprised if that's what Caesar meant by 'phalange facta', he used testudo for that sort of formation. Here he means an ordered formation of ranks and files. The leaping over the top is a literary tropos that he frequently uses to show how brave and fearless his men were.
Tom..
Quote from: tadamson on February 16, 2014, 10:28:58 AM
I would be very surprised if that's what Caesar meant by 'phalange facta', he used testudo for that sort of formation. Here he means an ordered formation of ranks and files. The leaping over the top is a literary tropos that he frequently uses to show how brave and fearless his men were.
Some examples to back up these statements would be nice. :)
The thing about having shields, it becomes pretty obvious that it can be used to form acollective barrier between us and them. Even
Egyptians and Persians do it, everyone does.
Its the armament that determines whether its an offensive or defensive thing. And that armament affects the shape and size of the shield, but as Roy says,
The size is less important theman how far out you hold it, which is likely a function is weapon length.
Unless you are talking about individual fighters in loose formations, or light shields fitmr evaders, all shields are part of a collective unit defense
Quote from: aligern on February 15, 2014, 07:34:36 PM
I thought the ancestral German formation was allegedly the keil?
Roy
Fair comment - certainly Delbruck would say so. But what did it look like? Some relate the
keil directly to the Roman
cuneus, which would suggest relatively small groups. But we also see huge deep columns (Patrick will doubtless quote the details :) ) and at one point we get Franks in a large triangular formation (we also get Iron Age Scandinavians in large wedges at Bravellir).
I love it. that you think Bravellir worthy to be cited as an example of Iron Age Scandinavians. I use it as an example of the use of massed bows by Scandinavians, but ut is sometimes criticised for being in a much late source saxo Grammaticus, I think, is 13th century... I am happy ut is oral tradition.
Keils. have been criticised as being actually the result if a standard column miving forward and the flank men getting a bit left behind so becoming wedge shaped rather than a wedge. However I wonder if that isn't sophistry as the Early Germans could just as well form wedge.
The example of Franks in a wedge is presumably Casilinum and there I would suggest is that we have a central wedge with two linear formations as wings and that, as the firmation advances the wings do get left behind itherwise, as Agathias defines it such an arrowhead formation would be extremely complex to form. the formation has a solid head, gut is holliw after that as the flanks stretch back.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on February 16, 2014, 07:47:11 PM
I love it. that you think Bravellir worthy to be cited as an example of Iron Age Scandinavians. I use it as an example of the use of massed bows by Scandinavians, but ut is sometimes criticised for being in a much late source saxo Grammaticus, I think, is 13th century... I am happy ut is oral tradition.
Saxo doesn't originate the story (there is another version from the same original). It would appear to have been one of those battles which was the focus of a lot of attention. It wouldn't, therefore, be unlikely it had a poetic tradition. I have to say reading it does seem very much of an earlier rather than 13th century tradition.
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
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 16, 2014, 10:35:42 AM
Quote from: tadamson on February 16, 2014, 10:28:58 AM
I would be very surprised if that's what Caesar meant by 'phalange facta', he used testudo for that sort of formation. Here he means an ordered formation of ranks and files. The leaping over the top is a literary tropos that he frequently uses to show how brave and fearless his men were.
Some examples to back up these statements would be nice. :)
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 ingraned 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!)
Tom..
Quote from: aligern on February 16, 2014, 09:45:08 PM
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.
Quote from: tadamson on February 17, 2014, 12:30:17 AM
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 ... ;D
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.
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 ;)
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?
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
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?
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?
Quote from: Holly on February 17, 2014, 01:41:50 PM
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?
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).
Quote from: Erpingham on February 17, 2014, 05:43:12 PM
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
Quote from: Erpingham on February 17, 2014, 01:33:09 PM
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.
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
Link here (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=186.0).
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?
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?
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.
Quote from: Holly on February 18, 2014, 10:19:13 AM
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?
This reminds me of another battle (with the Gauls I think) where pila are noted as pinning shields together, which implies a close, overlapped shield formation. I can't recall the details but I'm sure Patrick can :) Be interesting to see if the barbarians were on the attack or defensive at the time.
Its Bibracte which is covered in the Battles section of the Forum here.
Go look;-))
Roy
Caesar's Gallic War book 1, Chpt 24-5
The Helvetii having followed
with all their wagons, collected their baggage into one place: they
themselves, after having repulsed our cavalry and formed a phalanx,
advanced up to our front line in very close order. 25 Caesar, having removed out of sight first his own horse, then those of all, that he might make the danger of a11 equal, and do away with
the hope of flight, after encouraging his men, joined battle. His
soldiers hurling their javelins from the higher ground, easily broke
the enemy's phalanx. That being dispersed, they made a charge on them
with drawn swords. It was a great hindrance to the Gauls in fighting,
that, when several of their bucklers had been by one stroke of the
(Roman) javelins pierced through and pinned fast together, as the
point of the iron had bent itself, they could neither pluck it out,
nor, with their left hand entangled, fight with sufficient ease;
So, essentially, the Celts are attacking in a very close order phalanx - so close it appears that the shields overlap.
Exactly - this is the one case so far that is the exception to the rule of barbarian shieldwalls being static - this one is definitely recorded as moving. For the Helvetii's shields to overlap they would probably have to be advancing with an 18" per man frontal spacing - like the Macedonian phalanx - or in any event something rather less than the usual 3 feet per man.
If they are in dense formation with shields overlapping then then the advance will be slow and not a feral charge. Its unbelievably difficult to hold a shieldwall and charge over anything other than a few steps
This is the impression one gets from Caesar's account. He calls it a 'phalanx' rather than a testudo, which may be a clue to very close spacing, but it was a phalanx without pikes, so there was nothing to get in the way of the pila, which accordingly made a mess of the shieldwall. The Helvetii advance was evidently sufficiently slow and deliberate for the Romans to be able to aim and hurl their pila, perhaps two volleys, and then close sword in hand.
ouch.....
Turkey shoot springs to mind
Yes, which is one reason that I doubt that the best Celts fought in the front rank. I think that is something we wargamers thought up!
Roy
One suspects that the Helvetii shieldwall could shrug off ordinary javelins such as those in general Gallic use, but that the penetrative capability of the Roman pila came as an unpleasant surprise. The shields did at least prevent the men behind them from becoming pincushions, but the front ranks of warriors were effectively shieldless in the ensuing melee.
Caesar also comments that the Helvetii conducted their entire retreat backwards, with nobody showing his back to the Romans. This may have been the effect of their very close formation as much as their courage. That said, their very distant future relatives did much the same thing when faced with defeat at Marignano in AD 1515 ...
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 19, 2014, 10:02:16 AM
One suspects that the Helvetii shieldwall could shrug off ordinary javelins such as those in general Gallic use, but that the penetrative capability of the Roman pila came as an unpleasant surprise.
It shouldn't have been a surprise, really, because the Helvetii were not strangers to Roman methods of warfare; the Tigurini, one of the four
pagi of the Helvetii, had crushed the Roman consular army of Lucius Cassius a generation before, as Caesar (BG I.12) reports.
Very true; one wonders if the circumstances were different, or whether the Helvetii had used the same slow, solid, close-packed approach with success. If the latter, did their success come from Cassius' troops not getting the best out of their pila, or did the Helvetii deliberately retreat leading Cassius past an ambush that smacked into his right flank?
So, we can say that locked shield formations, including those with an overhead component , were practiced in the first century BC. If we were to look at descriptions of barbarians in later literature, do we see any change in this (e.g. a period of looser formations which then return to the closer order forms, perhaps when confronted with an increasing cavalry threat) or is there continuity?
Gauls seem to have abandoned shieldwalls while fighting Caesar, and thereafter they had little opportunity to fight anyone else until AD 69, but Tacitus prefers speeches to tactics and his account of the Gallic Revolt (involving several German tribes who arrived to help out) is sketchy in its descriptions of engagements, though one gets the impression that the Germans, Batavii and Gallic rebels rely on swift attack and prepared defences (ditches and breastworks of stone in one case) and not on shieldwalls.
If anyone is familiar with Rome's wars against the Dacians in the 1st-2nd centuries AD it would be as well to know if the Dacians ever used shieldwalls, and if so what for (battle or siege). My own impression of their tactics is that they relied on terrain and ambush to catch the Romans off-balance and get close with the falxes.
Alemanni and similar during the 2nd-3rd century AD should also be worth a look.
Shieldwalls are largely defensive and if they werent working against the encroaching Romans, maybe newer (more drastic) fighting styles and equipment were required?