[Preview] Imperium Romanum

[FliegerAD]

Regarding shields, 10th century seems to be still age of round shield, 11th century - kite.

I have taken a closer look into the matter of the kite shields. It is tricky. You are right saying the round shield was dominant in the 10th century, while the 11th century saw the kite shield. The problem is: there is nothing in between.

Almost out of nowhere, kite shields pop up, fully developed, and are universally used in the 11th century in western Europe, be it Spain, France, England, Germany or Italy. The Eastern Romans used it, and even the Islamic forces to a small extend. Yet there seems little to no transitional shield between the round and the kite shields, unless you count the sparse evidence for oval shields, including 10th century Germany. You see our Franci equipped with them.

The very first depiction (there are no surviving examples) is in the so-called Farfa-Bible (Cod. Vat. lat. 5729), which probably dates around 1000/1001 and cannot be younger than 1047; its folio 145 is the best image but I cannot find this online. By the mid-11th century, there were only few if any round shields depicted; in the German Codex Epternacensis (ca. 1030-1050) there is not even a single round shield!

It is subject to debate from where these new shields originated. Considering the Franco-Spanish evidence being the earliest, and Italy being late to the show with the first kite shields appearing only in 1070, but Byzantine art depicting them as early as second quarter of the 11th century, neither a west-to-east nor an east-to-west line can be drawn.

The shield itself, as many have noted, is perfectly suited for cavalry combat, shielding the left completely when necessary, especially during the charge. This was the ultimate shield for charges with the lance couched. Still it allowed for flexible use in hand to hand combat.

See attachment for nice picture of the advantage offered by the kite shield:

[ebs]

Good luck...

[neoptolemos]

Just a simple addition to the interesting points Flieger has raised:

[NikeBG]

Is the guy on the left here, on the third row, using a kite shield?

[AnthoniusII]

Is the guy on the left here, on the third row, using a kite shield?

Actually Avars first brought kite shaped shields in th eeastern europe.
But for some reason those shields remained rare in use...Maybe in the dark ages , europeans wanted to avoid experiments and rely on well proven millitary elements.
Romans may used them but scutaria teleia (large round shields) considered proper equipement for nobles there for for Saints pictures.
Kite shields in smaller versions used rarely but considered "barbaric" for an iconograph to potray a Saint with these.
Ofcourse later things changed in the opposite way. Even when round shields were still used 13th-16th iconocraphy presents Saints (aka officers) with kite/leaf/triangonal shields almost every time.

[neoptolemos]

There are kite shields depicted on warrior Saints iconography from 11th cent.That means that the conservative iconography follows the earlier standardization and widely use of the shield from the Eastern Romans.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Marvellous work there. Well researched and beautifully rendered units!

[FliegerAD]

There are kite shields depicted on warrior Saints iconography from 11th cent.That means that the conservative iconography follows the earlier standardization and widely use of the shield from the Eastern Romans.

I am afraid that is a non sequitur. It may be possible yet the arguments against that call for caution: the warrior saints are the very first examples of Byzantine art showing these shields and there are not many in the 11th century, which, as correctly pointed out by Grotowski in the book you linked before, may be the result of the conservative iconography. Yet this conservatism does not explain why there are no other art branches depicting kite shields before the few warrior saints with them - on the contrary in other art (when exactly datable) they appear rather mid-late 11th century, i.e. later than in warrior saint iconography, like the 1066 Theodore-Psalter for example. Neither does it explain why it appeared only later in Italian art, again mid-late 11th century, where people would have seen these shields a lot.

Lastly, a certain conservatism can be observed in most medieval art, especially in the eccessial sphere which includes the Farfa-Bible or the Echternach-Codex. This is yet another reason not to jump to conclusions so hastily, unless you want to proclaim a "standardization and wide use of the shield" by western European armies in the 10th century already. (But even if you'd do this, we were back to the original non sequitur).

Until there is more evidence available I stick to the current academic trend putting kite shields firmly into a 11th century context with their origins remaining an unresolved question.
Of course, we can always go back to Livy, and credit the Samnites with the introduction of the kite shield:
forma erat scuti: summum latius, qua pectus atque umeri teguntur, fastigio aequali; ad imum cuneatior mobilitatis causa. (9,40)

[NikeBG]

So, is the guy on the third row using a kite shield or not? I'm not so familiar with these things (what's f.e. the difference between a kite and a teardrop, leaf, almond and heater shields?), so...

[FliegerAD]

Unfortunately, the picture is way too crude to make out anything! Is it a shield at all?

The term kite shield is usually applied to a certain type of teardrop shaped shield, which is strongly associated with the Normans due to its overwhelming presence on the Bayeux Tapestry (hence the shield was originally named Norman shield). The shield was further developed in the west during the 12th and 13th century to a more triangular shape; at the end of this development stood the so-called heater shield, which is the epitome of the knightly shield.

That is not to say there were never any almond or triangular shields before – Livy is a nice example, albeit not supported by archaeological evidence – but they never made any impact like the kite shields did, which largely superseded other shield forms in most of Europe within a very small period of time.

[robomanus]

beautiful units, but very clean... make those shields more dirty....

[NikeBG]

Why?

[AnthoniusII]

beautiful units, but very clean... make those shields more dirty....

Shields and armors get dirty durring the battle..

[Diocletianus]

Great preview guys ! I have now my faction to play with.

[Nelduin]

French translation of Imperium Romanum preview can be found at MundusBellicus.fr by following this link :

http://www.mundusbellicus.fr/forum/s...l=1#post120825

Thanks to TGC team for their amazing work .

[Wareg]

I've got question regarding early crossbows with simple wooden prod. What draw were they? Modern replicas of such weapon are max. 150 lbs, so bolts have similar power to 60-70 lbs bow. It is only a bit more than ordinary hunting bow and not enough to pierce mail and padding. Range and rate is inferior comparing to bows, only adventages are that such crossbow required less training and maybe were a bit more accurate than bows. On the other hand this weapon widespreaded quickly and some accounts suggested that they were able to penetrate mail or shield. Crossbowmen were effectively used against varangian guard at Dyrhachium battle. So were they stronger and able to penetrate armour or not?

[demagogos nicator]

A questuin which just came to my mind: Why the units are equiped either only with round shields or only with kite shields? Would not be unit equiped with mixture of both more historical?

[Heathen Storm]

l

A questuin which just came to my mind: Why the units are equiped either only with round shields or only with kite shields? Would not be unit equiped with mixture of both more historical?

It most likely comes down to balance. If they have different types of shields with differing stats in one unit its hard to have the unit balanced properly.

[AnthoniusII]

There are units that combine several shapes of shields.
But in th emajority of our units "visual" details (including shape of shields) have one purpuse:
Show the evolution of warfare equipment and tactics.
The easier example to see is the visual differences of :
Domini Ac Defensores & Loricati
Both "units" refer to knights.
But as FliegerAD pointed out with visual material the "good old" round shields of the Frankish past were not abandoned from one momment to an other.
That transition from the round shields to leaf/kite ones we want to point out.
That happens to many other units in game that their "upgrades" are connected to warfare change events.

[ArmoredCore]

It is funny but I was just looking at a Spanish forum discussing medieval Spanish forces and came across early images of kite shields from prior to the Bayeux tapestry. I believe personally that most histories of Europe are biased towards the west as some great crucible of war and mounted warfare when in reality it wasn't. Most of the wars were in the east with the Byzantines, Mongols, Kipchaks, Avars, Huns, Persians, Soghdians and so forth. I would argue that most of late medieval "knightly" technology came from central Asia/Persian developments, transmitted largely by the early muslims who directly conquered these groups and adopted the technology. For example, even the "robin hood cap" can be seen clearly in Kipchak and other Asian cultures. The Normans simply represent the rise of the Germanic northern tribes as Mercenaries from the East in the services of the Byzantines and Armenians, then later under the Lombards and into Southern Italy. The eastern lands from Eastern Europe to China is where most of the horse warfare techniques and technology were being developed and not really in Western Europe until somewhere around the 10th century proper as these Germanic folks spread South and West into Spain, France and England. Keep in mind Norman means "north man" so that is a fitting name for Northern Germanic folks who eventually became the heirs of the old Western Roman Empire. Note that much of the early christian art of Spain and Germany has a distinct "eastern" flair. The animals and art remind us strongly of the Umayyad form with tangled peackocks, dogs and lions all of which presage later European art. Not to mention the horses have the same fittings with crescent moons and pendants as seen famously in frescoes from Penjikent a few hundred years earlier, not to mention the armored cavalry with mail face coverings and fancy brocaded caftans and clothing. And most of the textiles represent an eastern import as well, with leggings and tunics for men and head scarves and capes for women being common attire from the east in Roman provinces, Persia and into Asia proper. This isn't "European" dress and most Christian art depict people from the "Holy land" which cover the same areas I just mentioned. (Heck ancient Greek sarcophagi show Persians wearing this form of clothing 1,000 years prior). So, if anything a lot of the confusion is due to the fact that most histories of warfare focus on western Europe in isolation with the east being far away and disconnected and the Romans not even existing, even though the Byzantine empire didn't fall until the 15th century. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...cophagus_3.JPG http://www.flickr.com/photos/waltercallens/1303126349/