Talk:Testudo formation

copyright stuff on illustration

The legal stuff from the official website seems to indicate that screenshots from the game can be used for non-profit, educational or research purposes, so long as sufficient legal acknowledgement is given to The Creative Assembly, and a license for the game has been purchased.

I have also tried contacting them via email to get express permission, but after several tries, and no response from them, I've given up.

see http://www.totalwar.com/community/legal.htm

I agree that if you cannot obtain permission then the images should be removed. I also think its much better to use real world imagery rather than [possibly] fake game ones. I have found another image at [1] from [2] website which might be worth seeking permission for us to use. Oh and please sign your comments because we have no idea who you are or what date that was posted. -- RND  T  C  08:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Carrhae

There is no mention whatsoever in the records of the battle of Carrhae of legionaries assuming the testudo formation.

WILL PEOPLE STOP USING COMPUTER GAME MANUALS AS REFERENCE MATERIAL!

Furthermore, shields pinnend to soldiers' arms and hands are likely to be rare incidents highlighted by ancient authors for dramatic effect.

Yes, it would be nice to have a citation for this. Our only sources for the Battle of Carrhae are Plutarch and Dio Cassius. Plutarch has the anecdote about shields being pinned to arms:

... being driven into a narrow compass, and falling one on another, they were wounded and died no easy nor yet a speedy death, for tortured with violent convulsions and pain, and writhing with the arrows in them, they broke them in the wounds, and, by trying to pull out by force the barbed points, which had pierced through their veins and nerves, they increased the evil by breaking the arrows, and thus injured themselves. Many thus fell, and the survivors also were unable to fight; for, when Publius encouraged them to attack the mailed horsemen, they showed him that their hands were nailed to their shields, and their feet fastened right through to the ground, so that they were unable either to fly or to defend themselves. (Plutarch, Life of Crassus, XXV.)

Dio Cassius gives a similar account to Plutarch, and says:

Finally they were shut up in so narrow a place, with the enemy continually assaulting them from all sides at once, and compelled to protect their exposed parts by the shields of those who stood beside them, that they could no longer move. (Dio Cassius, Roman History, book 40.)

which sounds a bit like a tortoise, but on the other hand surely any group of soldiers being shot by arrows will form a shield wall like this. It's not clear evidence that the Romans tried to use a tortoise formation at Carrhae. The account in the article is certainly plausible, but I think we need some more evidence. If this the opinion of historians about what the Roman tactics probably were, then we should be able to find someone to quote. Gdr 04:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, at the time of Carrhae the Romans were using oval shields - much less suited to a testudo formation in any case. 88.81.140.6 (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I erased the Carrhae exmple for many reasons... First, there is no testudo attested (although I believe that the Romans surely did deploy in s testudo like formation). Secondly, the part abut the cataphracts charging the Roman line whenever it "formed testudo" was also pure fiction. As for oval shields, there is no problem using them or even circular shields to form a testudo like formation. The Greeks did so with their hopla, so did the Byzantines. GK1973 (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Movie use

should there be mention of this tactic's use in movies? it was notably used by the Orks at Helm's Deep in The Two Towers 71.31.87.67 (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Spartans in 300 also used a Testudo-like formation near the end of the movie. I don't know that it is relevant to this article though. 69.92.25.74 (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Could also be mentioned that it is used in Red Cliff, and another formation in the film is referred to as the tortoise formation, but is something entirely different. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 01:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

And in "Asterix and Obelix: God Save Britannia"124.171.159.133 (talk) 08:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Name

Please don't move an article by cut-and-paste, it loses the history. If you want to move to testudo formation but can't do it yourself, make a proposal at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Gdr 00:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Formatting issues

Fixed formatting issues with the two left side images eating into the text. --RND 14:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Added "the" before "testudo's formation". -- RND  T  C  09:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Encumbre?

I've heard that "encumbre" was the command shouted when the turtle dispersed. Just seeing if anyone could validate this truth or non-truth of this. Just H^{editor review} 00:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Testudo-rtw.jpg

Image:Testudo-rtw.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Foulkon

Foulkon was also used in mixed formations. Spearmen (skoutatoi, hoplitai or any other name mentioned in the Byzantine manuals) would deploy in foulkon, while the "entetagmenoi" archers would of course keep uncovered and shot against the enemy. Testudo was not used in such mixed formations or is not attested to have been used, mainly, because the earlier Romans did not regularly use such formations. Yet, this difference is enough on its own right to call foulkon an evolution of the testudo formation rather than just a different name. Shield design and weaponry has nothing to do with the specific formations (ancient Greeks used it with round hopla, Romans used it with many types of shields and of course sword, spear and pilum were all used by troops in testudo). Where do you base this certainty of yours? Actually I have many times debated against people who thought that foulkon was a really different formation, so it is actually a first to have to debate against someone who insists that it was the one and the same... I would advise to read Philip Rances' treatise, with most of which I agree, given in the bibliography of the article (full text linked). I will not revert you now, but I would like to hear your arguments. GK1973 (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Roman historian Ammianus tells how fulcum (Latin version for foulkon) was used by soldiers to advance during sieges against Persians by "interlocking shields which covered our men like moving arches". Surely does sound like testudo. Shield design and weaponry do effect how a testudo/foulkon is deployed. Obviously a rectangular shield provides more protection than oval shaped, which leaves very visible gaps when interlocked - as for weapons, one cannot move under such formation while wielding a spear the same way as with a sword. Even though it was used with archers deployed in it, it doesn't make it a different formation: the formation is merely being flexed to suit different needs. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is where our opinions differ. A different formation of men, as that of the Byzantine years, does mean that the testudo evolved into a new formation with many similarities to yet different from it (the plaision and the plinthion were also not the same formations although they shared great similarities, the same applies to the Cantabrian and the Scythian circles). On the other hand, the chelone and testudo was performed with various kinds of armament as I pointed out earlier. A hoplite chelone was formed with spears and a Roman testudo was formed with pilla in hand. As for the shield design, again, as long as they were of adequate size (no targes obvioysly), they could be used to form either a testudo or a foulcon, albeit less or more effectively. Sometimes, the same terminology is given for different formations, since the testudo used during sieges by small numbers of men had simlarities yet was not exactly the same as the testudo employed by a whole formation or a great part thereof. Yet, the very detailed accounts of foulcon that we have does not allow us to use it as an equivalent to testudo (although Ammianus obviously uses it thus). A synonym by all means, but not a tautonym. Arrian's account for example (Array against the Allans) does resemble a foulcon but cannot be called a testudo. Again I urge you to read Philip Rances' treatise on the exact issue of our discussion. GK1973 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It remains that historian Ammianus talks of fulcum (foulkon) as testudo; "interlocking shields which covered our men like moving arches". The "Late Roman Infantryman 236 - 565 AD", drawing from both Ammianus's writings and the Strategikon, speaks of fulcum as testudo also (description provided by the Strategikon; "The men in the front ranks close in until their shields are touching, completely covering their midsections almost to their ankles. The men standing behind them hold their shields above their heads, interlocking them with those of the men in front of them, covering their chests and faces, and in this way move to attack). An formation used with different layout of men does not make it a different formation, but means that the formation is being flexed to suit differnet needs. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Formation composition makes all the difference. The cohort system is nothing but a phalanx with more rear support(Alexander's phalanx had large amounts of help in the rear), but you don't call it that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.66.193 (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

So, according to this rationale, a shieldwall is effectively a testudo flexed to suit different needs... And a wedge is also a battleline flexed to suit different needs, yet effectively still men in close order... Our opinions do not differ that much. Yet, as I have pointed out above, sometimes even subtler differences can make the difference in a formation and the fact that the non-Ammianian foulcon was not performed by the whole line as was testudo nor was it solely employed by "legionaries".

According to the Strategikon of Maurice (6th c) : "The first, second and third men in each file form a foulkon, interlocking their shields, fix their spears firmly in the ground, holding them inclined forward and straight outside their shields, so that anyone who dares come too close will quickly experience them. They also lean their shoulders and put their weight against the shields to resist any pressure from the enemy.The third man who is standing nearly upright and the fourth man hold their spears like javelins so when the foe gets close they can use them either for thrusting or for throwing and then draw their swords.", Mau, B.XII.7

Differecces from a traditional testudo.

A. Only the first three men cover themselves.

B. The first two men are not upright (this was not the case in "foulcon peripatein")

C. Was used with mixed formations

I guess you have the Dennis translation, so I will also refer to Dennis' comment also printed on the same page (p.134). "Foulkon, related to German Volk, is a very close formation like the old Roman testudo: see H. Mihaescu, "Les termes de commandement militaires latins dans le Strategicon de Maurice, " Revue de linguistique 14 (1969): 261-72". So, Dennis also proposes that foulcon resembles a testudo but cannot call it such.

The account you give (B.XII.16) sounds more like a traditional testudo, but again, the key is "the front men".

More on foulkon... In Emperor Nicephorus Phocas' "De Velitatione Bellica" (10th c.) foulcon is a synonym to an ordered body close ordered infantry and has nothing to do with testudo. This s also the use of the word made by this certain "Anonymous" in the text known as "Campaign Organization and Tactics".

Now, using an Osprey book as a reference is not the best argument. Osprey books are good for getting an idea and to be led to sources, but are not exactly considered "masterpieces" of academic knowledge. I have to leave now but I will soon add more sources. By the way, can you give me the exact position of Ammianus' description? GK1973 (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sign your messages and try to remember the depth (or it gets confusing whose message is which), please. "So, according to this rationale, a shieldwall is effectively a testudo flexed to suit different needs... And a wedge is also a battleline flexed to suit different needs" No, because no one has even claimed that these would be such, unlike with the case of testudo/fulcum. "nor was it solely employed by "legionaries"." Yes - I haven't said anything about such. "By the way, can you give me the exact position of Ammianus' description?" Page 46, top left corner. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I mean in the original text, not the Osprey. And of course, the testudo is also not generally claimed to be the exact same thing with a foulcon, whereas the shieldwall is claimed to be nearer to a foulcon than a testudo. GK1973 (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not have access to the original text, but a line by Ammianus about the use of fulcum against Persians is given. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

..you should try to find it, since you wish to present it as evidence. I have both the latin and an English translation but I didn't find it (i just quick searched the text) and sadly I do not have the time to carefully read the text right now (I will have probably by tomorrow). I want to see the exact context of the use. Of coursde you should also take into account the other sources I have provided you. Is Osprey actually the only source you read about the issue in question? GK1973 (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"you should try to find it, since you wish to present it as evidence" I presented a borrowed line of Ammianus from a book; that is a source. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

An Osprey book is not a valid source for that kind of articles. The author of that book is not even a historian but a retired military officer if my memory serves me right. Unless you can back up your opinion with more (prominent and numerous) sources I will insist on the previous wording which mentioned the foulcon as an evolution of testudo. Not edit warring does not of course mean acceptance and things are more complicated than you seem to suggest. GK1973 (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"An Osprey book is not a valid source for that kind of articles." That's a PoV. "The author of that book is not even a historian but a retired military officer if my memory serves me right" And since when did military academies not tutor in history of warfare and tactics? --Kurt Leyman (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, an Osprey book is not a good source. It seems I was right all along. This author chose to deliberately NOT give the exact account of Ammianus. Ammianus, in his book, always calls the formation a testudo. Never does he mention foulcon... He just took Maurice's specific description (for Maurice gives more about foulcon he chose to ignore), and certain in his mind that testudo is the same thing as foulcon (an understandable one, since they are similar formations yet organically different) he described testudo as is given in Ammianus... I had to scrutinize the whole text in latin to see whether I had missed something in the translation but it seems I had not... He mentions testudo 8 times and most are about the formation (some about the siege engine). One of those is about the incident he mentions. He only mentions any latin words linguistically close to "fulcon" twice and this is the verb "fulcire" which means "to support" (most possibly (in my opinion) the etymologial origin of the formation name, although Rance prefers the Germanic etymology wishing to connect it with the shieldwall...) and its use is quite clear in the text and another totally irrelevant word... Do you now understand why we have to be able to give the original when we are asked about a text we use as a reference? You can't just claim that "according to x, Polybius wrote that...." You have to be able to give where Polybius says whatever he says... Interpretation of one's words and direct reference are two different things. And if you read clearly, this author NEVER mentions that Ammianus calls this formation a fouclon... This was just your assumption, thanks to the misleading wording of the text.

So... Ammianus calls his testudo a testudo after all and NOT a foulcon. Bearing in mind that this was your strongest argument I will now revert you and strongly suggest to either not pursue this any further or to be able to provide much better sources. GK1973 (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Modern Police

I'm sure I've seen police forces use this tactic, but I'm not entirely sure. Any info/images on that would be great. --Kurtle (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Description unclear

In the testudo formation, the men would deploy very densely and position their shields at the sides (rather than by the grip behind the umbo.

I added a {{Clarify}} tag with this reason: should this be "grip their shields at the edges? The words "position" and "sides" are ambiguous and confusing here. Could someone with access to sources rewrite this to paint a clearer picture of how the infantry held and positioned their shields? -84user (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Tactical Analysis

I know I've heard of the defenders in a siege pushing a siege engine off of their walls to drop on an attacking testudo in hopes of breaking it up; it failed. I don't currently have a citation for this (It would certainly need one!) but if I ever find one, I'll add it to this section of the article just above the comment that they weren't invulnerable. If anybody else finds a good source, feel free to add it yourself! JDZeff (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Use elsewhere

In the series King's War a 'testudo formation' is used (and would be a logical military tactical usage where shields are of a suitable size) - are there any equivalent names? (For non-technical contexts 'locking shields together in a tortoise-shell formation' would be appropriate.) 89.197.114.196 (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This would have been one of my contributions on a library website where signing in was not practical (so several persons on the IP).

The testudo is about 2/3 of the way in (depending upon which intro sequence, if any, is made use of) in episode 17.

Does anyone know if using the testudo for the jump would have been actually feasible? (I know it is 'a complex bit of filming and intercutting'.) Jackiespeel (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)