Round Roman Shields 30631464 vs 30631962

[cheng]

these 2 shields appear identical(I do not know which one I have )
why are there 2 ETN for this round shield?
Neither are stickered right?

were there any rank and file Roman soldiers/units that carried round shields (instead of the rectangular shields)?

is PM historically correct(PM usually is correct but it doesn't make sense on the battlefield) to show an officer (6491) carrying a spear?

[sbblabotw]

I had to go back and make sure I hadn't made a mistake, and I didn't - 30 63 1962 appears on instructions for 4271, 4273, and 5841; and 30 63 1464 appears on the official spare-parts list for 6491 (only visible in the HTML source at the moment, unfortunately). Neither stickered, as far as I can tell from the part numbers ("30 63" parts are, by and large, printed). They sure look alike to me. Can't comment on the historical authenticity though!

[tahra]

Could it be the different gold color?

I don't have any of the more recent add ons...

[Tiermann]

Looks the same from here, i will put it on my order list to compare it at some point. If someone who has one can let us know before that would be great.

[Macruran]

I have all the old Roman sets and all the round shields are definitely painted, not stickered. 6491 is part of the new line so it may be different in some way - possibly stickered, or possibly with a different handle like they changed the handle on the scutum (rectangular shield) for the new series.

Regarding historicity, the Romans did have round shields. There's some contradictions in the naming: I've seen clipeus and parma (or parmula) used to refer to round shields. Clipeus and cetratus are also used to refer to the oval shields. I haven't sorted out which is right yet.

The scutum was dropped in the Late Empire and the rank and file all went to the round shield. There's some famous imagery in a codex called the Notitia Dignitatum that displays the wide variety of shield decorations, including what looks like the first yin yang symbol in the world! Point being that if you're doing a late period unit the round shield will be appropriate.

They are wrong about the spear. During the period that their theme represents (ca. 100 A.D.) officers would not be carrying long spears into combat. The new Roman series is full of inaccuracies like this.

[cheng]

thanks for the reconfirmation and comments, Heather!

and Tiermann, if they supply you 1 of each part number, you wouldnt know which ETN refers to which shield....happened to me once when i was checking out different colors of a part, so i couldnt tell Heather which ETN was for which color 

and Macruran,
i'll see if i can find and understand this codex thing, one more question if i cant find it or understand, does it mean that round shields were exclusively for officers before 100AD? and this pattern was for which era?

[Macruran]

The scutum disappeared by 300AD, so before that time the round shield would have been used by officers (notably the various signifers), and also some cavalry and auxiliary units.

The Notitia Dignitatum is probably from around 400AD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notitia_Dignitatum

[cheng]

thanks Macruran!
i remember and agree bout the (better) repoisitioned hand grips for the tortoise(?) and the printing not to edges and flat (boss)centre.
I do not need to construct a 'tortoise' formation....can we still order the old rectangular shield(if the ETN is different from the new one)?
is there a different in periods between the old and new 'yin-yang' designs for the rectangular shield?

[Macruran]

The yin yang design only appeared on one round shield in the Notitia. Both the old and the new scuta are designs of circa 100 A.D.

US DS is still selling the 7878 sets, which gives you three old rectangulars. I don't know about the individual part.

[cheng]

thanks Macruran! (luckily they changed the design/motifs in the new scuta, otherwise there's less reason to have the new design