"Are shields really high-tech?" Topic

I'm currently painting a force of Libyans as mercenaries for my NKE forces. These doughty warriors come unshielded.
Their appearance on Egyptian wall paintings depicts them thus, so I can't argue with the historical accuracy of the figures.

But. But. What were the Libyans thinking? They fought against & with their Egyptian neighbours who clearly knew the value of a shield. How hard would it have been to knock something together as a shield or to pick up shields from fallen enemies? Isn't the advantage glaringly obvious?

These Libyans aren't the only unshielded warriors in Ancient times. I can understand the difficulty of, say, learning to use a complicated weapon like a bow. Or to lack the wherewithal to equip your troops with armour. But a shield? Is it that hi-tech?

But it's not traditional…

Perhaps the Egyptian artists didn't show shields that the Libyans were actually carrying? It wouldn't be the last time artistic license got in the way of historical accuracy.

Only cowards need to hide behind shields.

Only LIVING cowards need to hide behind shields.
DEAD heroes clearly don't.

ISTR Libyan warriors shown wearing big cloaks. ISTR it's thought that the cloaks were heavy hides, and served as a limited but light weight kind of armor. A heavy hide cloak could have offered some protection against stone-tipped arrows at medium to long range.

ISTR that most Libyan warriors were archers. Hard to shoot a bow while carrying a shield.

The Egyptians were close order spearmen, and were trained in the use of shields.
Libyans were open order spear or javelin skirmishers. Shields would have gotten in their way. You have to train a man how to use a shield properly. This is a skill movie and tv actors have yet to learn.

Egyptians had companies of close order spearmen, companies of 'strong arm' assault troops who attacked with axes and maces, and companies of archers. The spearmen and assault troops used shields. The archers did not.

I'm going by the irrefutable source, Field of Glory army lists, so the Libyans are archers, swordsmen, javelineers & even some chariots.

I'm referring to the Swordsmen (which my figures certainly are as they're holding swords) as being shield-deprived (a recognised disability).

In FoG terms they are "Unprotected": a state of existence neither good in close combat or in dating.

I'm afraid I must also reject WS's assertion that using a shield is only slightly less difficult than driving a Formula 1 car. You hold it up when someone throws something at you. Not that hard.

I'm afraid the win goes to Lloydthegamer for his suggestion of artistic licence. A solid, logical & plausible solution. The check is in the mail.

It is a stretch to think that artistic license covers so many pieces of art. My understanding is the same as zippy's.

Difference in philosophy.
Egypt had a standing army, while the Libyans did not. Or did they?
Perhaps the advantages of shields were not all that obvious for skirmishing irregulars.

Libyans didn't spend a lot of time actually fighting against Egyptians.

I seem to recall that their weaponry pre-ironage was largely fire-hardened sticks of various projectile systems. A hide cloak is plenty good armour protection vs. pointy sticks.

zippyfusenet has it right.

Thanks for the input but I still think artistically removed shields are the more compelling argument. So I think gluing on spare Egyptian shields onto my Libyan swordsmen would do the trick?

Unless they picked up some Sea Peoples' shields during their "Great Conspiracy" period (Ramses 111)?

BTW rather than all this guess work, I actually turned up a source.
Spallinger on 'Warfare in Ancient Egypt'.

There are suggestive passages in the e book excerpts that mention their probable if limited use of chariots (now that's hi tech) and how some clans had even settled along the Nile possibly in exchange for military service.
It is hard to imagine an Egyptian military that storehouses weaponry not giving them shields or at least providing examples.

I've ordered the book for a more thorough search.

ochoin,
It seems that you've asked for explanations/opinions and cherry-picked the best reply to suit your desired preference.

I'll admit, I don't know the answer but I do know that not all ancient peoples fought in the same manner. To say that because the Lybians saw Egyptians using shield they must have used them too is like saying they saw them using chariots and decided to use them too when this is obviously untrue. I mean, surely,they must have seen the benefits.

It could be that Lybians relied on speed and they considered the weight of a shield would have slowed them down. Maybe they didn't possess the resources to produce large amounts of shields. Maybe they didn't have the requisite skills to make them. Maybe it was a cultural opinion (like the republican Roman's who believed that the wearing of trousers was effeminate).

Well, I'm not sure what else I should do other than evaluate the replies and decide which seems to be the more plausible. I guess I could just go with the crowd but I thought scholarship demanded more than that?

You provide some very clever arguments but I can counter them. Even fairly low tech Australian indigenous people constructed shields. The Libyans had access and clearly expertise with leather, a good material to construct shields from. And finally, speed is indeed an important aspect of fighting with missile weapons but we are specifically discussing the Libyan troops shown fighting with swords: Melee weapons that are complemented with shields. I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm just not persuaded.

In the extracts from the book I cited, the author mentions that the Egyptian representation of the Sherdan is both potentially positive and a negative propaganda. Harnessing the exotic aggressors to the Egyptian army is clearly a positive thing. However, the perceived dependence on foreigners may well indicate Egyptian weakness. Hence, they are shown in their outlandish dress whether enemies or mercenaries. They are, artistically, rendered as beaten foes even when providing armed strength for Egypt……and surely receiving at least some Egyptian accoutrements.they are, thus, pigeon holed and not necessarily shown accurately in what is a very rigid and convention bound art style.

I think this may well apply to the Libyans but will await a reading of the book when it arrives in a fortnight or so.

The speculations offered by you and others are ingenious. Bill's concept of tradition is perhaps the best anti shield argument in the thread. I still feel a published author, using the interpretation of the hard evidence of art work, may carry more weight.

Finally, I don't wish to seem churlish and I thank the various participants for their input but I can only be persuaded by what I think is the stronger argument? I haven't persuaded you as to the strength of what I believe but honestly, that doesn't bother me.

ochoin,
I didn't see your post regarding a source book. If you notice the time fram I was typing (slowly) when you posted that so it wouldn't have appeared to me until after I posted.

Still, I think your claim is tenuous. But, then again, I'll never have to play against your bogus Lybians.

"Egyptian wall paintings depicts them thus"… but are these Libyans depicted in profile on the shielded or the unshielded side ?

"Bogus Lybians"?

Clearly I've offended you. Not my intention.

@ Ochoin
The Libyan swords appear to be the same pattern as Sea People ones, perhaps acquired as upper class 'status' weapons during their alliance. I think any shields they 'may' have adopted would likely be od Sea People pattern too. Perhaps swords and/or shields should be limited for the Libyans to the time of their alliance with the Sea Peoples?

old thread on a similar topic, but not overly definitive either.

TMP link

The thing about a question like this is that there is so little definitive "proof" that regardless of what you decide it is unlikely to be altogether right or wrong. I think that the argument of artistic license is perfectly acceptable, but is weakened if Lybians are always represented thus in artwork of the time. Unless there was some understanding among artists like 'important people will always be depicted as larger' or 'when representing previously conquered allies we will depict then sans protection.'

Egyptian art work depicting battles are usually propaganda murals.
The question is whether the Libyans would be depicted realistically or menacingly.
If the artist wanted to make them look strong, wouldn't he give them shields? Or maybe everyone knew they were fierce just as they were and shields were irrelevant.

I know squat about ancient Libyan battle tactics, putting this out there: How did the Libyans use their spears? If they used them with a two handed grip and as a thrusting and blocking weapon, they'd have no use for a shield. If on the other hand, the used it one handed (overhand thrust or what not) then the "nakedness" off their off-hand would almost compel them to adopt a shield of some sort.

Never mind, just read back and they are swordsmen, not spearmen.

@ Jarrovian
Interesting post. It is possible though that the depiction of Sea People's style swords in Libyan hands is just artistic convention too. I throw this in to make the point that interpretation is often wide open.

@ PaulCollins

I think your comment is on the money. This is the Bronze Age. We, perforce, put much emphasis on so little evidence because there is so little evidence. Egyptian art was subject to very rigid conventions & (outside of the Amarna period) is remarkably consistent for millennia. So though a tomb painting is hard evidence, even then how much can we accept as unqualified truth?

TMP is *not* some academic forum but provides, I hope, informed comment in this case on the nebulous.Really, there is no definitive answer to the question posed in the OP. Again, I thank all the participants & hope the topic hasn't ruffled too many feathers.

I love the sound of ruffled feathers in the morning. Or afternoon.

I think that the artistic convention argument is convincing.

So is the "tradition" argument the other way.

Another example of people not adopting their enemy's weapons and armor are the Bedouin who, during, before and after the crusades "period", made a point of not wearing armor, since armor will not save a man when it is time for him to die. But that would be the norm, not exclusive. Exceptions can always be found when examining "tradition". If that were untrue, traditions would never change….

One thing about the artistic depiction of Libyans without shields – if there was a convention to depict enemies without shields, wouldn't this apply to all enemies? I recall seeing displays of, for example, Sea Peoples where they ARE shown with shields. I think Hittites have been depicted with shields as well. Is there any possible reason why they would want to strip off the shields of just Libyan warriors in their depictions?

I don't know the history: were Libyans deemed especially nasty customers? If so, leaving the shields off might depict them as more naturally dangerous without any help from shields. Or, were Libyans some kind of butt for jokes? Leaving shields off might make them appear to be even more stupid….

Interesting why high tech swords but no shields. I wonder if shields were more costly to add into equipment. Syrian soldiers are shown without shields….was it cheaper or just enough for front row to have them.
The Egyptians were high tech at their time but low tech compared to Romans. The cloak may well have done work of light armour and shield to some extent.
Perhaps a small kings retinue could have bought or stolen Egyptian type armour at a push.