Why didn't more ancient armies use the Spartan shield?

Cafe Society
1

I’m a fan of Spike TV’s Deadliest Warrior. If you’re unfamiliar with the show, it pits historical and modern fighters such as Vikings, Samurai, or the Green Berets against each other in a simulated computer battle to the death, while modern experts expound on a selection of weapons unique to each warrior.

In season one, some of the winners were Spartan over Ninja, Spetsnaz over Green Berets, and Apache over Gladiator. For season 2, they brought back the winners and tried to see which one’s the best. It ended up where the Spartan beat the Samurai. A big advantage of the Spartan was the gigantic shield that most of us have seen in the movie 300.

That brought to my attention that I have never seen any other ancient army use a shield of comparable size.

First, I know I probably shouldn’t be getting my fighting tactics from a show on Spike TV, even though they tried to be scientifically accurate and impartial. Second, maybe there’s the thought that if an army was conquered, their weapons and technology probably weren’t that good to begin with. Then of course, maybe some places just doesn’t have the capital or natural resources to steal a tech from another army.

But we all know the invading Persian army got their asses kicked at Thermopylae, and though they won eventually out of sheer number and a sneak attack, they were sort of driven off. It was said that the Persian’s Immortals were armed with simple wooden or otherwise crappy shields, and they were no match for the big bronze shields that the Spartans had. So if I were Xerxes at that time, I would have told my engineers to start making millions of those shields. Train an elite group of Immortals in their use, then do to the Spartans what they did to me.

Why didn’t more cultures adopt that shield if it was so great? Was it’s benefits simply exaggerated through history? In modern times, once a nation gets something like a nuke, a bunch of other nations have it within 10 years. One nation comes up with bunker busters, and pretty soon others have it. I’m assuming lots of enemies of the Spartans knew about the shield and had trouble with it, so why didn’t more of them start using it? Later empires like the Romans, or even the Athenians who were conquered by the Spartans for a time didn’t use those shields. Why not?

2

A big shield like that protects a lot of the fighters body, but also interferes with his fighting (you have to strike around it, just like your opponent) and also reduces mobility (both in a fight, and (being heavy) travel across country).

So, in effect, this large bronze shield is most useful in a defensive fight – staying in one spot and fighting with an individual opponent of an invading army.

The Roman shields, for example, were designed more for offensive work by a group. Their shields were rectangular, so a group could put their shields next to each other to form a movable wall of shields – the famous Roman phalanx. Romans fought battles in companies, like modern armies, rather than individual warriors hand-to-hand. They were trained to move in groups as ordered by their commanders. Also, they fought campaigns rather than single battles – thus their shields were smaller & lighter, so they could be carried by a Roman soldier marching miles & miles to conquer an enemy land.

Different tools for different tasks!

3

I’m not familiar with any of the shows you listed, or their given reasons for the superiority of the Spartan shield, but my WAG:

It wasn’t the shield itself. It was the way they were trained to use it. The phalanx formation was state-of-the-art in its day, and the heavy, overlapping shields provided massive protection, particularly in a place as friendly to infantry defense as Thermopylae. Unfortunately, it was a slow-moving formation, because of the absolute necessity of coordinating the movements of a large number of crowded-together men. It would be weak against fast, flanking attacks and massed artillery assault. It might, depending on the length of their spears, be effective against direct cavalry attack, but not for long. A massed charge of heavy cavalry would probably crack a phalanx open.

Again, WAG. What was it about the shield in particular that the TV shows were impressed with?

4

The Greek hoplites were eventually replaced by the Macedonean-style phalangites, who carried much longer spears, and as a result, much lighter shields (if any). Having a big heavy shield isn’t that useful if your enemy’s spears are ten feet longer than yours - your enemy will get though, eventually, why you just wave your weapon impotently. The Romans managed to beat phalanxes, eventually, by being more maneuverable; with their short swods and lighter shields, they could sweep around spearmen and hit their formations from the side and rear.

5

The show is geared more towards 1 vs. 1, or small 5 vs. 5 battles, that might be why you guys are right and they are hyping the shield too much.

In the tests, they put the shield in the category of Special Weapons (every fighter is limited to about 4-5 different weapons). It went up against the special weapon of the Ninja (Kusarigama) and later the Samurai (Kanabo).

The show tests weapons by measuring throwing speed, or accuracy when used by an expert, or in the case of the shield and Kanabo, the power of the hits. They mentioned that that shield recorded the highest strike damage ever recorded (though it was an early episode so I don’t know if it was surpassed). 45G’s to the side of a crash dummy’s head, instant kill. After inputting the power and other random data into the computer, it came out that the shield had more kills than either of the weapons it went up against. The producers were impressed that a defensive item had such a high kill count. Most other defensive items in the show did not record much kills, if at all.

The producers were also impressed that it cushioned the blow of the Kanabo and withstood high rates of impact damage (other episodes with shields included the Viking Shield and Shaka Zulu’s hide shield, both of which sustained heavy damage during tests). In the simulated battle, the shield had the most kills of any weapon vs. the Ninja and the 2nd most kills vs. the Samurai.

6

The experts on the show were very impressed with the shield’s ability to be used as an offensive weapon. Basically, a giant disc of layered wood covered in bronze is a really effective weapon for beating someone to death. Although the Spartan shield was also the most effective shield they tested for blocking blows as well, much more durable than other shields.
As t-bohman pointed out, Spartan shields were heavy motherfuckers, and hauling them around on campaign would slow you down a bit. Cost was another factor. Bronze was expensive, and so was metal working in general.
The hoplon or aspis, as the Spartan shield was caused, was used pretty much by all the Ancient Greeks. And the Ancient Greeks were spread throughout the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions and often served as mercenaries in other nations’ armies, so this style of shield was by no means unpopular.
I love the Deadliest Warrior by the way. They play light and fast with the history but the actual weapons tests are fascinating. The concept in general is absurd but that just adds to its awesomeness, in my opinion.

7

I’m amused by this hoplon qiktionary entry, notably definition 4 vis-a-vie 5.

I don’t have anything new to add to what’s been said. Basically, it’s not a good weapon for fighting solo, and at the time, only the Greeks fought in phalanxes. That’s why they got to name it :).

8

Not an army, perhaps, but see Brave Sir Robin.

9

A phalanx is Greek, and characterized by its protruding long spears. The Roman formation was called the testudo (“tortoise”). It was a purely defensive formation, used when a century was being targeted by enemy javelins or arrows; while in testudo, the legionaries could not even hurl their own javelins.

10

Actually, from what I understand, cavalry charges were rarely successful against a disciplined infantry force armed with spears or something similar. If the infantry broke and ran they would be slaughtered, but if they stood the cavalry were unlikely to crack them. Horses, while stupid, are not stupid enough to charge into a wall of pointy things.

11

Is this true? I genuinely assumed that a group of horsemen could drive straight into a group of spearmen and the horses would simply follow their training.

12

The testudo was a particluar formation though. THat wasn’t their main tactic or formation. If you look at this entryyou can see how they would normally move.

13

The greek phalanx was the ultimate weapon of its time. No cavalry could crack it, no infantry could resist it. Against missile troops the shields provided excellent protection. Remember that the cavalry of the time had no stirrups. Cavalry was never used to crash into prepared troops, it was used to harass the flanks, and run down and slaughter routing troops, and to tip battles at the moment of decision–if troops were wavering you could quickly send your cavalry to reinforce your own wavering troops, or break enemy wavering troops. Cavalry could only break second-line units. If you see the cavalry charging at you and get scared and try to run away, you’re sure to die, because you can’t run faster than a charging horse. If you and your buddies stand fast, then you’re likely to win.

The problem was that the phalanx system was very hard to duplicate. The men of the phalanxes were all citizens of the same city. And it only worked when everyone was packed in shoulder to shoulder. Hoplites never fought as individuals, that was the point. They fought as highly disciplined formations. Each hoplite protected every other hoplite. Remember in 300 where Leonidas gives the thumbs down to the deformed guy, because he couldn’t lift his shield to fight in formation? Of course, the Spartans in 300 never actually fight in formation, but rather jump and spin around ballet-style, which was completely pointless and ahistorical.

No infantry of the time could break a phalanx because no one else could fight so close together. Each attacker would face three or four spearpoints at once. The hoplites fought in a methodical fashion, that was their strength, not the prowess of any individual warrior.

And the Macedonians refined the phalax by lengthening the spear so yet another rank could bring their weapon to bear, and by shrinking the shield to increase strategic and tactical mobility. The giant shield wasn’t the secret weapon of the hoplite, it was the dense formation of spears, and the moral effect of being supported by your buddies.

The real casualties in battles happened after one side or the other won. It’s when everyone is running away that they get slaughtered. And that was one secret weapon of Alexander–since he won every battle, his troops expected to win, and so held firm. And troops going up against Alexander knew his reputation and expected to lose, which means they routed sooner, which meant they lost. This explains the tremendous emphasis on bloody-minded physical courage, and disdain for cowardice. If you stood and fought, no matter what, you at least had a chance to survive. If you and your buddies ran, your side would get slaughtered.

14

You mean for example how they had Samurais but they weren’t equipped with the yari? Or how about they had the Waffen SS but apparently didn’t have them equipped with either the k98k, MG 34, MG42, MP40, or MP44.(Ok I haven’t seen it yet but I’m going by the summary on wikipedia. I’m guessing all the WWII buffs are laughing at this point.)

15

I just watched the William Wallace vs Shaka Zulu episode. I’m more Zulu than the 2 so called experts they had demonstrating Zulu weapons, and I’m about as white as you get. But at least I can actually pronounce iklwa, the klw is a wet clicking sound in imitation of an oponent being gutted. And when the iklwa was presented for testing I choked on my coffee, it was a puny anemic little thing not the proto sword of reality. I have seen genuine iklwas, the blades are a lot longer than the short handled spear they were testing. If he appeard in front of Shaka with that weapon he would have been gutted on the spot.

The attempts to show the fighting technique for the iklwa was also fanciful. Instead of the short controlled thrusts from behind a shield, in the same fashion as the Romans, we see slicing and dicing as the warrior uses his agility to dance around the target. The Zulu army was unstoppable precisely because they avoided fancy 1 on 1 combat and instead fought in cohesive disciplined formations.

And the totally fabricated ‘Spit of Poison’, I have never heard of this. I doubt any actual Zulus have heard of it. It exists only in the mind of an American who apparently learnt everything he knows about the Zulu from Wikipedia and a light sprinkling of hallucinogens.

16

Yep, that’s what made the Zulus so unstoppable–Shaka independently invented Roman infantry tactics, using a short stabbing spear instead of a short stabbing sword. And it illustrates that the key to victory in ancient times wasn’t the bad-assedness of your individual warriors, it was discipline and working together. The Romans slaughtered innummerable german and celtic champions, and it wasn’t because an individual roman soldier was a killing machine.

17

But the problem with the phalanx was that it was a highly directional formation, which is why it got murdered at Cynoscephalae. They did this one on Time Commanders, a TV show where a team of four players inexperienced in computer wargaming (or wargaming in general) take one side of a historical battle recreated using the Total War engine. They accidentally hit on much the same stratagem as the man on the spot did: Since the Roman formations are more flexible, detatch a maniple and get behind the phalanx. The pike’s a vicious weapon when you have maybe five or six points for every attacker to deal with - when he’s popping up behind you with a gladius, not so much.

18

I watch that show and it’s entertaining, here’s the main problem: it’s not “Deadliest Warrior,” it’s deadliest weapon(s). You can measure the force and effect of weapons all you want, the difference in a 1-on-1 fight is how you use said weapons. If you give a cross-eyed retarded guy an RPG and a marine sniper a Red Ryder BB gun, my money is still on the marine, weapon be damned.

19

That’s true since the show is kind of a joke when it comes to weapon effectiveness. (I guess that should be obvious when they have SWAT beat GSG9 which is basically an elite SWAT unit.) Actually one of the more glaring things for me is just the idea of using a bow in a 1-on-1 fight. I mean at any decent range (say 60-100 feet or so) a bow wouldn’t be that effective simply because the enemy has time to dodge or block. Also they don’t seem to care that there’s basically 3-5 seconds between shots. What this means is that at short range(<30 feet) after they shot the enemy could charge and run the shooter through. They don’t simulate stuff like this but then again the science on the show is pathetic. (I’ve written this before but Mythbusters does a better job on science than this show and supposedly one of their “experts” is a scientist. Then again what they count as a “computer whiz” is pretty lacking.)

20

0No, horses actually take a lot of training to be able to attack humans - many dressage moves are related to warhorse training.

Horses will actually actively avoid stepping on people if they manage to see them in time.