Topic: Of shields

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

RM classifies shields as "target", "normal", "full" and "wall". Since neither are actual shield classes, I always wondered what they could be. While the "target" shield is probably a buckler, would the "wall" shield be a pavise (either the one stuck in the ground and not supposed to be held or the smaller one that was held) or a kite (or even a scutum-like shield)? All three of them even? The hardest to classify would be nathless IMO what are "normal" and "full" shields. Is the heater shield (or a parmula-like) the "normal" one? The rondache the "full" one? Or is the kite shield also considered a "normal" shield with only the pavise and the scutum considered a "wall" shield?

How do you treat them in your games?

[Marc R]

I beleive the ends are easiest to resolve:

A Target is a targe, which would also cover a small buckler.

Wall would cover rectangular shields intended to be interlocked with neigboring shields, so covering the full body in a manner that could also be interlocked to neigbors to form a proper interlocked full shield wall without gaps.

I would then break the middle two "Normal" and "Full" based on coverage, with full offering full body coverage without being large enough to use for a complete interlocked wall. . .i.e. a kite would be full.

All the rest of the various round and spade shaped shields that are roughly torso sized would be "Normal" shields.

At least, that's my opinion on the matter.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Wall would cover rectangular shields intended to be interlocked with neigboring shields, so covering the full body in a manner that could also be interlocked to neigbors to form a proper interlocked full shield wall without gaps.

I would then break the middle two "Normal" and "Full" based on coverage, with full offering full body coverage without being large enough to use for a complete interlocked wall. . .i.e. a kite would be full.

Where does the pavise fit then? While it's not designed "to form a proper interlocked full shield wall without gaps" (so it would be a "full" shield according to you), it is designed to act as an actual wall against projectiles (when stuck in the ground).

Also, so you'd put the rondache as a "normal" shield but I seem to recall it is most often refered as the default "full" shield in most RM supplements? Of course, I agree the main probelem is with the sizes between the buckler and the scutum. As far as I kow, we could define six shield sizes. From the smallest to the largest, they would be: the buckler, the heater/parmula, the rondache, the kite, the pavise and the scutum...

[markc]

A wall shield from Wikipedia:
The Imperial ScutumThe oval scutum was only gradually replaced with the rectangular scutum. Curved, rectangular scuta were constructed largely of strips of overlapping[/color]bentwood, possibly set in place by steaming over a curved form (in much the same way as a modern plywood chair is made) although no direct evidence survives to prove this. This meant the shield was strong and yet light enough to be carried over long distances. The best surviving example, from Dura-Europos in Syria, was 1.06 m (42 in) in height, a chord of 0.66 m (26 in), with a distance around the curve of 0.86 m (34 in), and a thickness of 5 mm to 6 mm.


A pavise (or pavis, pabys, pavesen) is a large convex shield of European origin used to protect the entire body. The pavise was also made in a smaller version for hand to hand combat and for wearing on the back of men-at-arms. It is characterized by its prominent central ridge. The concept of using a shield to cover an archer dates to at least to the writing of Homer's Iliad, where Ajax uses his shield to cover his half-brother Teucer, an archer, while he would "peer round" and shoot arrows.[1]


 The shield worn on the back IMO would be a full or normal shield and the entire body shield would be a wall shield. But note there was also calvary pavise that may have been different from a body shield type, I could not determine from the pictures.


Does that help?
MDC



[/b][/color][/size][/font]

[Marc R]

I think the issue lies not in the imprecise use of RM cats, but the imprecise useage of the real world. . .the RM categories define by size and utility, while there's a lot of fuzzy in the size and shape distinctions of the shield terms you're using from real world sources.

The wall Pavise, since it's not worn, isn't a shield at all, it's a somewhat mobile peice of cover. . .if you don't wear it on a limb, I wouldn't consider it a shield at all. . . .it's a peice of mobile cover designed to be moved around, but once it's in place the user lets go of it and just uses it for cover. . .so for a pavise I wouldn't use the shield rules at all, I'd use the cover rules. . . .The same as I'd use if a PC ripped a door off it's hinges, walked at an enemy hiding behind it, then stuck it into the ground.

If it's a "strapped to your arm" pavise or a rectangular Scutum it's a Wall Shield IMO. It offers full body coverage, can be interlocked to form a gapless wall, and also missile protection not only from dead ahead, but from the angles to either side of dead ahead also.

A kite shield covers you ankle to head, but due to it's shape wouldn't offer you good missile cover from angles other than due ahead, nor could it be interlocked to offer a true shield wall. Same is true of the Oval Scutum. . .they'd be full shields.

Rondache come in so many sizes, to me it comes across as "Round shield" which covers a lot of ground from Target to full.

Heater/Parmula fit the normal shield logic, though again the latter tend to vary a lot in size and could potentially be full or target shields depending on size.

Target/Targe shields are meant to be actively used for parrying more so than either blocking or covering, so I think would cover bucklers. . .but if a Heater, Parmula or Rondache gets small enough it could be a target shield.

The chaos and confusion lie in the real world, and the way shields of the same name varied by region or era, not the rules side.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

The chaos and confusion lie in the real world, and the way shields of the same name varied by region or era, not the rules side.

Oh, I'd agree with that. My main problem however how small/large a shield should be to be called "target", "normal", "full" or "wall". For the matter, your definitions are very helpful. I may go with them, then.

• "Wall" shield: offers full body coverage, can be interlocked to form a gapless wall, and also missile protection not only from dead ahead, but from the angles to either side of dead ahead also. Ex.: rectangular scotum, hand-held pavise.
• "Full" shield: also covers you ankle to head, but due to its shape, it wouldn't offer you good missile cover from angles other than due ahead, nor could it be interlocked to offer a true shield wall. Ex.: oval scutum, kite shield.
• "Target" shield: meant to be actively used for parrying more so than either blocking or covering. Ex.: buckler, small rondache, small parmula.
• "Normal" shield: all the other shields! Ex.: heater shield, average size parmula, average size rondache.

Thanks a lot.

[Marc R]

That kind of issue comes up often on my end. . .

I just recently had the same issue with "Saber". . . do they mean a medium full-curved mongol saber, a heavy curved-only-at-the-end turkish saber, a medium barely-curved US Cavelry Saber, or a light straight fencing saber? Sometimes it's easier just to ignore the name and go with the description to figure out which table/modifier to use.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Hahahah, I understand that, though I foremost have the problem with determining when to use the "short sword" or the "broadsword" table. I mean, okay, let's say the early gladius is a short sword since it's about 70 cm long. Now, what RM calls the "broadsword" is apparently the medieval arming sword, that is about 90 cm long. Now, where lie the katzbalger (85 cm long) and the viking sword (varies a lot, depending on the exact date)?
Someday, since I have his books, I'll take Oakeshott's classification and attribute a weapon table to each sword type. :p

[markc]

BTW, when I looked at the pavise I noticed it was not curved like the Roman Wall Shield. IMO this would reduce the OB provided by the shield as well as cause the shield to be damaged and unworthy to be used faster than the Roman Wall shield.


 I was also thinking that the term "Wall Shield" maybe confusing as it describes a specific type of shield and it describes a specific type of shields function. ie that of being placed in the ground to provide cover like a low wall would. Not all shields that provided cover when set upon the ground IMO will be treated as Roman wall shields some will be Full Shields in nature.


 Does that make sense?
MDC