Were shield walls the best option?

I am currently re-reading The Conquest of Gaul by Caesar. Well, I am actually listening to it on audio but lets not get pedantic.

I came across this section where Caesar is talking about driving Ariovistus from Gaul:

Our troops [the Romans] attacked with such vigour when the signal was given, and the enemy also dashed forward so suddenly and swiftly, that there was no time to throw spears at them. So the men dropped their spears and fought hand to hand with their swords. By quickly adopting their usual phalanx-formation the Germans were able to withstand the sword-thrusts, but many of our soldiers actually threw themselves on the wall of shields confronting them, wrenched the shields out of the enemy's hands, and stabbed them from above.

THE CONQUEST OF GAUL, II, 2.

This account is from a battle in 57 B.C. and clearly describes a shield wall formation and this got me thinking...

I have struggled long and hard for the last 12 months writing a book about the Battle of Hastings. One of the aspects of Hastings was the shield wall adopted by the 'English' army. Some historians would have us believe that it was a very basic formation adopted by Harold because he lacked either the vision or troops to do anything else. However, on reading this account I am now starting to wonder if the shield was in essence the only formation open to Harold.

Warfare in 1066 was very similar to that in 57 B.C., using similar weapons and to an extent similar tactics. I am now starting to believe that the shield wall (interlocked shields) was the 'default' formation for infantry troops. It seems that it may have been the natural formation, the formation most troops would have learned from boyhood. Think 4-4-2 for British footballers. Is it possible that a direct line can be drawn from the fighting in Gaul in 56 A.D. and the battlefield of 1066?

This wiki article offers a bit more of an insight.

Technorati Tags: Military History, Romans, Battle of Hastings

Comments

[Pete Roberts]

I think you can draw comparisons between the 2 eras but if anything the roman one being more effective . Nowadays the military seems obsessed with suvive-ability and the roman troops were protected by a concave shield that when crounching probably protected their total frontage . Their helmet design was not copied until cromwells lobstertail helmets and to top it all they threw 2 pilums before engaging close up with their short thrusting sword . I think the legions of 200 b.c . till 200 a.d. would of defeated most medieval armies . Maybe the English longbowmen and foot infantry there greatest test . Gengis Khan tactics were nothing new as the parthians and latter the huns were very familiar .

[CFD Trading]

Well, now that we have the best technology in making shields, helmets and top of the line military gear, I have to say that the shield walls can still be applicable. This is for the reason that we can incorporate new material in making it. Thanks a lot for the info. There are a lot of interesting topics we can share especially during the Roman era. Keep it up.

[marketing bureau]

That was a great article. I have read the story and it made me impressed on how the story was delivered. This kind of quest could be an inspiring story to the readers.