""The Eagle" accuracy questions" Topic

Just watched "The Eagle" with Channing Tatum and Donald Sutherland and 2 questions arose for me from the movie:

Did Romans use testudo just to deflet missile fire or did they run this formation into enemy infantry like a 40 legged tank?

Also, did the Britons use scythed chariots?

No and no

The testudo was used exclusively at sieges to allow the Romans to approach the walls of the besieged fort/city in relative safety; it was never a field formation.

The scythed chariot was originally a Persian weapon that was later adopted by the Successor armies.

While mostly agreeing with Sr. Martini (95%), I have heard it said that the Romans used testudo at the battle of Carrhae as a STATIC formation in order to repel the arrows of the Parthian horse archers. Only this did not work so well, because the arrows at close range could punch through the shields and, in such a formation, the ROmans were all close in…in other words, the Parthians practically could not miss and did grievous damage.

Interestingly enough, Livy has the Romans using Testudo back during mid-Republican days during the Samnite Wars back in 293 BC at the siege of Aquila… his words (as verbatim as I remember)…"the Romans approached the gates by means of a testudo"… (Latin ablative case to show usage "testudine").

It's a fantasy film. Don't let the Romans in it trick you into thinking otherwise.

Movies should not be taken as evidence for anything without a lot of good backup. They are created for entertainment and even when good research has been done for a film it is often ignored for visual effect.

x42

Mars Ultor:

If I remember correctly, wasn't there an account by one of the surviving Roman officers where he described trying to get his men to advance, but they were unable to, and pointed to where arrows had pinned their feet to the ground and their shields to their arms ?

I have always suspected that the Parthians were the reason that some Roman units dropped Hamata in favor of segmentata, with various types of right arm and leg armour as well.

Kindred,
I do remember something of the kind…I'm pretty sure you're right! And it's also a good excuse for not having to chase horse archers on foot.

The only ancient movie that is even remotly acurrat is Alexander, and even that is far from perfect

"In the same way Gaius Caesar met the scythe-bearing four-horsed chariots of the Gauls with stakes driven in the ground, and kept them in check."
(C. Caesar Gallorum falcatas quadrigas eadem ratione palis defixis excepit inhibuitque. )
- Frontinus, Stratagems, II.3.18

This may be the origin of the 19th-century tales of British scythed chariots – such as link. Personally, I suspect it's a mistake for Pharnaces' chariots at Zela.

As for the testudo, here's Cassius Dio (Bk XLIX) on Antony's Parthian campaign:

One day, when they fell into an ambush and were being struck by dense showers of arrows, they suddenly formed the testudo by joining their shields, and rested their left knees on the ground. The barbarians, who had never seen anything of the kind before, thought that they had fallen from their wounds and needed only one finishing blow; so they threw aside their bows, leaped from their horses, and drawing their daggers, came up close to put an end to them. At this the Romans sprang to their feet, extended their battle-line at the word of command, and confronting the foe face to face, fell upon them, each one upon the man nearest him, and cut down great numbers, since they were contending in full armour against unprotected men, men prepared against men off their guard, heavy infantry against archers, Romans against barbarians. All the survivors immediately retired and no one followed them thereafter.

This testudo and the way in which it is formed are as follows. The baggage animals, the light-armed troops, and the cavalry are placed in the centre of the army. The heavy-armed troops who use the oblong, curved, and cylindrical shields are drawn up around the outside, making a rectangular figure; and, facing outward and holding their arms at the ready, they enclose the rest. The others, who have flat shields, form a compact body in the centre and raise their shields over the heads of all the others, so that nothing but shields can be seen in every part of the phalanx alike and all the men by the density of the formation are under shelter from missiles. Indeed, it is so marvellously strong that men can walk upon it, and whenever they come to a narrow ravine, even horses and vehicles can be driven over it. Such is the plan of this formation, and for this reason it has received the name testudo,8 with reference both to its strength and to the excellent shelter it affords. They use it in two ways: either they approach some fort to assault it, often even enabling men to scale the very walls, or sometimes, when they are surrounded by archers, they all crouch together — even the horses being taught to kneel or lie down — and thereby cause the foe to think that they are exhausted; then, when the enemy draws near, they suddenly rise and throw them into consternation.

As everyone has already said, No they didn't use it that way, but damn it did look really cool in the movie.

Thanks, GurKhan. I bet you're right on the chariots. Common wisdom (seeminly backed by the historical record) says that the Gauls last use of the chariot was about c.225BC, but of course Britons kept using it with annoying effect. And Caesar comes along 170 years later…

Good translation on that, too. I'm working through Caesar's Latin account of the revolt of the Belgic tribes, who lured and destroyed an entire Roman winter camp of soldiers. The accounts is pretty creepy…it's Caesar's Teutoberg disaster on a smaller scale (and, of course as he tells it, not his fault,as he wasn't there and his legates did the complete wrong thing). But his soldiers, being ambushed in a wooded valley, form an orb formation…he does not mention the testudo at all, but I wonder, since the Belgae held back and pelted them with missiles, if the ROmans did indeed use it. If they did, it didn't work in the end – they all died. I'll put my version of it up sometime…Caesar does a good job in evoking the horror and despair well, and mentions how his main officers died during the fight and their wounds (as reported by a small trickle of survivors who straggled to other Roman camps).

Its a western…

Britons with scythed chariots did not come from Caesar's account.
British scythed chariots mentioned poetically (i.e. not an historical work) in Pomponius Mela (A.D.44) "De Situ Orbis." The chariot reference is repeated by Caius Silius Italicus in his "Punicorum" Bk17, lines 416-417.

Some Ancient British Chariots could take off vertically.

That is an interesting quote, GurKhan.

The bit about the shields. It would appear that different shapes were in use simultaneously and had different uses! We usually get told that oval shields were used up to around a certain date and then rectangular shields took over.

Wouldn't the oval shields be the auxiliary troops? Would make sense for them to be in the centre while the better armed and amoured legionaries form the outer wall.

IIRC some cut off cohorts used testudo at the battle of the Sambre in order to regain the main lines and part constructed camps.

Probably not. The battle was fought in 53 BC, so it's hamata with oval shields for the legions.

Having said that, we don't know exactly when specific changes came into being for armor, shield design, etc. Only rough guesses based upon archeological finds.

It is assumed that with the Empire came the segmentata and rectangular shields, but from evidence we know that at least SOME troops continued to use hamata, and squamata was also seen right through the periods.

It has been my opinion, and only my opinion, that the segmentata which everyone associates with the EIR and later, was a response to the horse archers and powerful bows encountered with the Parthians. Segmentata isn't always easier to make that hamata, but it IS better equipped, since it's sheet iron, to prevent arrow & javelin injuries.

The question is also how long it took to transition from one style of armor to the next, and whether an army-wide transition took place at all. Again, my personal opinion is that hamata continued to be worn by some legions, based upon where they were stationed, and what the threats they were facing consisted of. It's also quite likely that even when a legion converted to segmentata that it was likely a long period, perhaps a year or more for everyone to get the proper kit. It's quite possible to see some cohorts in hamata and others in segmentata within the same legion. It might well be possible to find both types mixed within a single cohort.

It's an interesting conjecture, and my own (again) opinion is that the universal sort of armor styles we see associated with different periods is more fiction than fact.

Anyway, I'll step off my soapbox now.

Accurate or not, it was a fun bit of fantasy action! If I want history, I will pick up a book…

@TKindred I don't see why hamata and and oval shield should exclude the use of testudo, armour is armour, and the concave shield was only rounded at the corners

Jarrovian: Agree, I don't think the "oval" shield excluded testudo at all. Refer to my above reference in 293 BC: testudo against Samnite-held city. One might maybe argue that Livy is making an anachronism, but my counter to that would be that the source says what it says, there's no evidence to the contrary, and that – as you say – no logical reason why not.

I never implied (or stated) that the Testudo could not be formed with Republican-era armor and shields. I am positive that it could.

V/R

TKindred, sorry, I took the first two words of your post (which followed mine) as a negation of what I had said

JARROVIAN,

Sorry, I was posting while you were and missed your comment. I was replying to the comment above yours, by JexEger.

V/R

Cheers TKindred, I just read it wrongly