cut and thrust.....

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

"However, according to the Roman methods of fighting each man makes his movements individually: not only does he defend his body with his long shield, constantly moving it to meet a threatened blow, but he uses his sword for both cutting and for thrusting. Obviously, these tactics require a more open order and an interval between the men, and in practice each soldier needs to be at least three feet from those in the same rank and from those in front of and behind him if he is to perfom his function efficiently."
[Polybius XVIII]

You see.
The are enough quotes, which you could use to prove it either way.

I believe, the only way to find out, is to use blunted swords (in full armour with the shield) against other people so armed. In this instance, as I said, I maintain that someone using a cut /thrust has more flexibility of use both in a line and individually.

I would imagine that most people that are killed in front line are not killed by a single deadly blow to the vital organs (or head) but are likely to have received a crippling or stunning blow that causes them to drop their guard or to stagger, in which case everyone else within range will administer more blows.
Some Saxon graves, believed to be of men who fought at fulford gate, show a series of wounds to the head and then down the spine and ribs. These could be interpreted as the results of a this sort of death (as you start to fall, stunned or injured, then everyone within range lands a blow to your unprotected body).

We are speaking about Mainz, not hispaniensis. I know that hispaniensis is a cutting and thrusting weapon.
Polybius is from ca. 150 BC.



Caesar, no problem