cut and thrust.....

[madoc]

I was at Roman event at the weekend and it was repeated over and over again that the gladius was solely a thrusting weapon ....

I know there are a couple of different quotes you can use to prove or disprove that and I would agree that in a close press of men then the thrust is definately the way forward

However, as re-enactors who use steel weapons then to just use the thrust is to halve the flexibility of the weapon and in some instance you have to cut. After the all, the weapon has two edges and a point. All things being equal, I'd maintain that a soldier who limits himself to a thrust only will always be defeated by one that uses both the cut and thrust. We would be happy to prove this to anyone who wants to see it.

The only thing that makes me uncomfortable about being so definitive, is that there may be "custom bias". For example, the cavalry in the British army was constantly arguing about the superiority of the cut over the thrust and designing swords to be better for one. Depending on the exact period, soldiers would be encouraged to use one rather than the other. I wondered if the same could be true in the roman army....... (although the pompeii gladius is evidently designed for both)

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

Gladius isn't only the short sword, gladius means sword, short and long.
A spatha is a gladius too.

Can you be more specific?

If you mean gladius mainz, it is a thrusting sword because his short blade. If you try to cut with a Mainz, you are too exposed to the enemy.

My opinion...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Actually the Mainz is a cut or a thrust sword. The blade is ideal for hamstringing somone when they are well covered up in places you want to stab them.....it is definately not just a thrusting weapon.

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

It isn't too clear:

Scholars differ over the function of the two types of blade. Many of the Mainz type swords had waisted blades and one wonders if they were deliberately made this way (and if so, why?) or whether they had been worn down by repeated sharpening. Vegetius' comment about the Romans scorning anybody who cut, rather than stabbed, with the sword is too vague to be of much use.

Coulston & Bishop. Roman Military Equipment.


Las cortas espadas imperiales del s. I d.C., que responden a una forma de combatir por completo distinta, donde la espada es solo punzante, y no punzante [thrust] y cortante [cut].

Quesada, Fernando. Armas de Grecia y Roma.


Dans la premiere moitie du siecle suivant, un nouveau modele de glaive apparait (type Pompei). Comme son predecesseur [Mainz], ce glaive est avant tout destine a etre manie d'estoc.

Gilbert, François. Le soldat Romain: a la fin de la Republique et sous le Haut-empire.


Sorry for accents, it's my computer :?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Sorry but it is really clear if you go with the source who talks about the slashing of the backs of the legs/tendons when the face and torso are well covered. The victims screaming and biting the edge of their shields in agony.....this has been mentioned in other threads before.

The mainz blade would be a perfectly suited shape for such purpose, and while sharpening may account for the difference in the mainz/fulham shapes, I would not think the mainz shape was an accident.

[le Cavalier Invisible]

It isn't too clear:

Scholars differ over the function of the two types of blade. Many of the Mainz type swords had waisted blades and one wonders if they were deliberately made this way (and if so, why?) or whether they had been worn down by repeated sharpening. Vegetius' comment about the Romans scorning anybody who cut, rather than stabbed, with the sword is too vague to be of much use.

Coulston & Bishop. Roman Military Equipment.

So in that case there should be some Pompeii blades as well with a wasted shape due to sharpening.. Are there?

Greetz,

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

Vegetius' quote:

They were likewise taught not to cut but to thrust with their swords. For the Romans not only made a jest of those who fought with the edge of that weapon, but always found them an easy conquest. A stroke with the edges, though made with ever so much force, seldom kills, as the vital parts of the body are defended both by the bones and armor. On the contrary, a stab, though it penetrates but two inches, is generally fatal. Besides in the attitude of striking, it is impossible to avoid exposing the right arm and side; but on the other hand, the body is covered while a thrust is given, and the adversary receives the point before he sees the sword. This was the method of fighting principally used by the Romans, and their reason for exercising recruits with arms of such a weight at first was, that when they came to carry the common ones so much lighter, the greater difference might enable them to act with greater security and alacrity in time of action.

[liber I. Not to cut, but to thrust with the sword.]


Caesar, what source are you saying?

[Salvianus]

I agree the edge was used in practise: I think Vegetius reported the prefered method for close melee, but describes a very dynamic fighting style with room to manouvre including the use of the edge as well.

For what it's worth, those Vegetius quotes in full (Clark's trans, sorry):

Liber I. XI... Contra illum palum tamquam contra aduersarium tiro cum crate illa et claua uelut cum gladio se exercebat et scuto, ut nunc quasi caput aut faciem peteret, nunc a lateribus minaretur, interdum contenderet poplites et crura succidere, recederet adsultaret insiliret, quasi praesentem aduersarium, sic palum omni impetu, omni bellandi arte temptaret. In qua meditatione seruabatur illa cautela, ut ita tiro ad inferendum uulnus insurgeret, ne qua parte ipse pateret ad plagam.

The recruit practised against this stake, just as if against an enemy, with that wicker shield and foil as though with a sword and shield, so that he might aim as if for the head or face; now he is threatened from the sides, sometimes he endeavours to cut down the hams and shins; he retreats, attacks, leaps in, as if the enemy were present; he assails the stake with all his might, fighting with all skill. In doing this, care was taken that the recruit should strike in this way in order to cause a wound, in case he partly lays himself open to a blow.

XII. Praeterea non caesim sed punctim ferire discebant. Nam caesim pugnantes non solum facile uicere sed etiam derisere Romani. Caesa enim, quouis impetu ueniat, non frequenter interficit, cum et armis uitalia defendantur et ossibus; at contra puncta duas uncias adacta mortalis est; necesse est enim, ut uitalia penetret quicquid inmergitur. Deinde, dum caesa infertur, brachium dextrum latusque nudatur; puncta autem tecto corpore infertur et aduersarium sauciat, antequam uideat. Ideoque ad dimicandum hoc praecipue genere usos constat esse Romanos;

12. Further, they learned to strike by stabbing, not by cutting. For the Romans not only easily conquered those who fought by cutting, but mocked them too. For the cut, even delivered with force, frequently does not kill, when the vital parts are protected by equipment and bone. On the contrary, a point brought to bear is fatal at two inches; for it is necessary that whatever vital parts it penetrates, it is immersed. Next, when a cut is delivered, the right arm and flank are exposed. However, the point is delivered with the cover of the body and wounds the enemy before he sees it. And on that account this in particular characterizes the practices of the Romans with regard to combat.

Liber II.XXIII... Ad palum quoque uel sudibus exerceri percommodum est, cum latera uel pedes aut caput petere punctim caesimque condiscant. Saltus quoque et ictus facere pariter adsuescant, insurgere tripudiantes in clipeum rursusque subsidere, nunc gestiendo prouolare cum saltu, nunc cedentes in terga resilire.

The recruits likewise are to be exercised with wooden swords at the post, to be taught to attack this imaginary antagonist on all sides and to aim at the sides, feet or head, both with the point and edge of the sword. They must be instructed how to spring forward to give the blow, to rise with a bound above the shield and then to sink down and shelter themselves under cover of it, and how to advance and retire.

Hope that is useful

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Possibly Polybius, I cannot recall, but it is definately there.
Tacitus is another possibility.....I have not read the book recently, but it has been quoted ad nauseum on here at one point or another, so you can trust me when I say I am not making it up.

[Mitra]

Phisiologically speaking the only system to killing immediatly a man with a blade in combat, is beheading him, or rapid blood loss or destructive hit to vital function of brain. For rapid blood loss we must hit a major artery or the heart; but in the heart case, the muscle pression can limit the blood exit. All the other mortal wounds take more that few seconds to cause death, so it is possible, in combat phisical situation, that the subject no feel the mortal wound just to last (like a LSD subject) and can also kill own proper killer. Only the pain of a kidney perforation is so strong to cause paralysis.

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

Possibly Polybius, I cannot recall, but it is definately there.
Tacitus is another possibility.....I have not read the book recently, but it has been quoted ad nauseum on here at one point or another, so you can trust me when I say I am not making it up.

During Polybius' times in Roman army there was in use hispaniensis, cutting and thrusting sword.


Salvianus, thank's for the quotes, what I mean is that main function of Mainz sword is to thrust. Of course you can cut with Mainz if situation permit it, but, as says Vegetius, the point of short sword is that you can wound the enemy before he sees it.
For to cut with a short sword you must be too near of the enemy, and it's dangerous, and, as says Vegetius: when a cut is delivered, the right arm and flank are exposed.

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

Caesar, I haven't said that you made up nothing, I think only that we must say who we are quoting. Sorry if I have said any offense :wink:

[madoc]

"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).

[Salvianus]

Salvianus, thank's for the quotes, what I mean is that main function of Mainz sword is to thrust.

Though I haven't used one, I agree it does seem a good thrusting design. That said, Vegetius clearly understood the cut to be used to good effect in the field, (as a hamstringing is, I believe, a very disabling injury in combat) and therefore should be practised, repeating his comments that the wooden practice swords should be employed "punctim caesimque" at Liber III.IV. After all "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy." (Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke). I should add that his emphasis on agility in leaping in and back in order to minimise one's exposure implies much more 'fencing' skill than typically associated with the press of the battle line and reminds me of Silver's much later advice for the use of the 16th/17thc cut and thrust sword: "winning the place", "pressing in" and "flying out" in one thought.

Of course, Vegetius is writing when spatha were used by infantry, and we are back at the question of how much is contemporary in his writing and which sections are lifted from earlier sources. Milner notes the key words caesa and puncta are Late, implying a contemporary view, but also references Polybius 18.30.7, which I see Madoc has found for us.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Caesar, I haven't said that you made up nothing, I think only that we must say who we are quoting. Sorry if I have said any offense :wink:

Not offense, but I just have a habit of remembering what a source says, but not always the source, especially when I have not read it in a year or 2. Being at work also restricts my time to search for them online.