Mycenean/minoan shield classification

[Jerry Haworth]

I am looking at building this army.
They carried a large shield that covered the whole body. And were used as a shild wall from which the archers could gain cover from. Also through which they could use their spears

My question is, the spearmen are only given 'shield cover'.....is there any evidence for or against why this classification should not be 'shieldwall' or even 'pavise' as this seems to be a more accurate description of their use

[IanN]

Hi Jerry - it's a good, fun army, however
Pavises : are defined as 'free-standing barricade'  - iirc the only pictorial representation is of the 'shields' being carried by infantry, so does not fit the definition; plus they were generally used by missile troops which the spearmen are not.
Shieldwall : there is little information on how the infantry were used; the only comment am aware of is that they 'cowered at the back'.  Question what enemy they would need shieldwall protection, whereas shield cover would be helpful against neighbours.

[nikgaukroger]

I think Ian has it right. Given what we know Shield Cover makes sense, the others much less so.

[Jerry Haworth]

Thankyou for your replies, but I still question this.
The Large shield was carried by the spearmen.. Archers operated from between the ranks of the spearmen seeking protection of the shields.
the spearmen were in close formation and the shields would have operated as ashield wall.

link to minoan fresco at thera



[attachment deleted by admin]

[nikgaukroger]

Problem is that by that sort of logic anyone with a reasonable sized shield and fights in close formation would get Shieldwall. The definition requires them to be particularly resilient and not just have the kit and formation; now I doubt that we have detailed info on these guys in melee, however, in the period no infantry can, IMO, be classified as especially resilient but the fact they are Close formation in a period when the vast majority of infantry are Loose does make them more so and gives them the potential of Shove to boot. IMO for the period in question they are correct.

[Jerry Haworth]

ummmm....ok, mayhaps in reality, a unit with a reasonable sized shield and fights in close formation could use it as a Shieldwall.
but as regards a game convention and lack of evidence as to how the minoans actually fought, I accept the argument agaist claiming pavise or shielwall.

I await further archeological evidence..

[IanN]

I would agree with Nik's comments, and would add that there is no evidence for how these people actually fought.  The only pictorial information is from hunting scenes , and yes, a big shield would be advantageous against wild animals. And yes, such scenes do show archers hiding behind the spearman's shiield - ie gaining shield cover. There is no pictorial or other evidence of the shields being erected - as the babylonians and persians did. For now, and until new evidence appears, would agree with current definitions. As for the future .....

[Simon Meg-Meister]

Thanks for posting.

For all classifications is

a) having the gear
+
b) being able to apply it said way

So many troops that carried a lance for instance don't get Charging Lancer due to b.

I think the classification is probably correct as it is with shield cover as a and b feels likely. I doubt shieldwall would be in character of the army - fails the b test. 

Pavise who knows.  Possible they did a 2 man job to protect a bowmen from missile fire. As Ian said for the future .... we keep an eye one everything we find or hear.

Si