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

[madoc]

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

As the chap that asked the question then I didn't actually tie it to one specific type of weapon.
In any case, what makes you so certain that that the spanish sword is cut and thrust - have you got some definitive evidence ? Please let me know if you have ........

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

It's difficult to debate about an uncertain weapon, because they all are different and they answer to a different kind of combat.

The gladius hispaniensis already existed before 225 BC and was thus the Roman sword described by Polybius (II.33) as used by Romans during the battle of Telamon. This is not very likely, because on one hand that text does not mention the essentially multi-purpose character of the Hispanic sword (cutting and thrusting) and on the other because the Suda insists that the Romans adopted the Hispanic weapon after the war with Hannibal.

[...]

Nevertheless, the term hispaniensis or hispanicus came in time to refer to any short, multi-purpose and robust double-edged sword with a straight blade, as a kind of byword for quality...

Conclusions by: Quesada, Fernando. Gladius hispaniensis: an archaeological view from Iberia. (Jrmes 8, 1997. 251-70)

[Matthew Amt]

In any case, what makes you so certain that that the spanish sword is cut and thrust - have you got some definitive evidence ? Please let me know if you have ........

Isn't there the anecdote from Polybius about the Macedonians being shocked at all the severed heads and arms all over the battlefield, due to the Romans' swords? There may be some ambiguity about that passage (might have been discussing a cavalry attack?), I don't recall the specifics, but severed limbs and heads are from cuts, not much doubt about that!

I've got a hispaniensis made by Mark Morrow, the outline copied from one of the Smihel swords, and the cross-section is about the same or a tad thinner than those I've seen. And you REALLY want to cut with it! Not even sure it would be great for stabbing cuz it's a little point-heavy. Any decent Mainz gladius is a fabulous cutter, too, and that idea about the shape being due to sharpening is basically ridiculous. (It implies that EVERY Mainz gladius was owned by someone who didn't know how to sharpen a blade correctly, and that EVERY Pompeii and spatha owner did!)

Granted, some of the smaller Pompeii blades (and most repros are very large!) don't really have much mass, so they're not going to do any serious chopping off of heads or splitting ribcages. But give someone a swat across the back of the hand, about as hard as you'd need to kill a bug, and his tendons will be severed and his weapon falls to the ground in a spray of blood. He's out of action, probably permanently, and he may very well die of infection in a week or so.

Sharp edges are hideously dangerous, and every gladius had 2 of them. Sure, we know the Romans emphasized the thrust, for good reasons. But to say they never cut, well, Never say "Never"!

Valete,

Matthew

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

Then, how we can explain the evolution of hispaniensis to Mainz? Why this change then if both are for cutting and thrusting?

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

For example, maybe a little stupid, but it explain what I mean:

You can kill a man beating him with a rifle's butt, but a rifle is made to shoot, like Mainz is made to thrust, althought you can cut with it.

[M. Demetrius]

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.

GJC, I'm with you entirely. I've read it, too, but can't remember where. IIRC, there was talk about quite a few of the enemy being dispatched by a drawing cut at the back of the knee.

If either of those big tendons were cut through, standing or walking would be near impossible. Unlike our "mock" combat, simply going down on one knee after a leg injury isn't how it would have been. The wounded man's ability to fight would be severely compromised.

Thrusts are quicker, give less warning, and in those days, a deep stab in the intestines meant a sure but slow death from peritonitis, if you were able to survive the bleeding. Someone earlier said that a wounded soldier in that case could continue to fight for a while, and that's probably true, endorphans and adrenaline contributing to that, but shock sets in after every wound, sooner or later. And once it does, that man is out of the fight, period--easily dispatched by anyone with a spear.

Heck, even modern knife fighting (not martial arts style, but military) uses the femoral artery as a lethal target. Thrust and sever that, and then all you have to do is stay out of his way for a minute or two, and he'll succumb.

I think if there had been no drawing cuts or slices, the swords wouldn't have had a cutting edge, and the troops would not have practiced them in recruit training. Doesn't that seem realistic? Why train for something you won't use?

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

The problem is that we don't know about what kind of sword is Vegetius speaking.

[Olaf]

if you look at the evolution of the gladiatorial straight sword you can see that it was deliberatly shortened from the mainz gladius used bevor mid 1st AD to a very short "knife" that cant be used to delivery anything else than short fast stabs.

I also dont think that it is right to consider thrusting and cutting as opposing movements.
Actualy a stab doesnt need to hit point first to deliver a wound, but can also cut the side or deliver the afformentioned hamstringing by a forward or backward drawcut following a stab at the back of the leg.

I think the distinction should be made between "stabbing/thrusting" and "chopping".

The Gallic , Dacian and German tribes were more accustomed to chop with the longer blades they used.
The Romans were however trained to cover their complete front with the scutum, keep the point hidden behind the scutum, take the chop on the shield, close in to the adversary and deliver a straight stab into the side, face or neck of the adversary.

As any martial artist will tell you a jab is always faster that a hook.

So yes the Gladii can be used too cut with their edges but they were specifcaly designed to be used in conjunction with the scutum to favor the stabbing thrust in close and ordered formations.

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

So yes the Gladii can be used too cut with their edges but they were specifcaly designed to be used in conjunction with the scutum to favor the stabbing thrust in close and ordered formations

.

Totally agree.

[Dan Z]

As any martial artist will tell you a jab is always faster that a hook.

I'll have to disagree with this. George Silver in his 1599 "Paradoxes of Defense" states quite clearly that cutting with a sword takes the same amount of time as thrusting with a sword and while he did have a certain bias, he was also writing from experience.

During the Middle Ages and Rennaisance the evolution of swords happened in parallel with the evolution of armor. By studying those relationships and through experimentation we can infer a few things about Roman swords:

Hispaniensis - a long waisted blade with an elongated point. The point is well suited for penetrating gaps in armor and stabbing the person underneath. The waisted shape gives a longer cutting edge for less blade length increasing this sword's effectiveness in cutting and slashing attacks. The fact that Matthew's is slightly point heavy means it is not only more authorative in a chopping attack but also tracks better (more likely to stay on target) in a thrust.

Mainz - this is basically a short Hispeniensis that is better suited to the closer formations the Romans fought in. The elongated point is still well suited for penetrating gaps in armor. The waisted shape still gives the sword a longer cutting edge for its overall length making it more effective for slashing and cutting attacks.

Fulham - still has the long point of the Mainz with the same benefits but no longer has the waisted shape. Short balde length is well suited for working in close formations. The straight edges are well suited for chopping/cleaving attacks. It flares out towards the base of the blade because...well...it just does.

Pompei - has a relatively shallow point and parallel edges. The shallower point is less suited for penetrating gaps in armor but will create wider stab wounds for less penetration against unarmored targets. Broad tips are also better suited for quick slashing cutting attacks - useful if the enemy exposes a throat or the area under the arm. The straight edges are well suited for chopping/cleaving attacks.

Spatha - basically a longer Pompei well suited for cavalry use began to be commonly used by the Roman infantry when the romans began moving away from the close formations of the Republic and Early Empire

One could say (with a fair degree of accuracy I think) that early on the typical enemies faced by the Romans were relatively well organized and equipped Hellenistic style armies. Chances were the enemy soldiers would be wearing some sort of armor so a sword with a long point would have been an advantage. As the Romans spread across Europe, however, fewer of their enemies were wearing armor and the longer points would not have been as effective so later swords have broader points.

On another notes, one tactic I read about for use in bowie knife fighting was a chopping attack to the top of an opponent's hand at the base of the thumb. The grip of a knife (or of a sword or the haft of a spear) makes for a very good chopping block. Your cannot hold a knife (or a sword or a spear) if your have no thumb. Is the hand difficult to hit? Yes, but if some barbarian has just landed a blow on your buddy's shield then for an instant his hand is not moving and his thumb is just sitting there on that chopping block. Of course any blow to the wrist or forearm would ruin that barbarian's day, but if the chance presents itself why not ruin his day and make him drop his weapon?

[madoc]

We must remember that it is really difficult to get a solid body shot when your opponent has shield, as most cultures did (Britons, Gauls ad Germans included). You also have to be really careful not to stab a wooden shield too hard as your weapon will stick half the time.

I agree totally with marginal hits and I think that Matt Amt has made the most sense ..

I go from this thread a wiser man and when I next meet the group in question I shall remember all that has been said .........

[Dan Z]

Here are the relevant bits (and by relevant I mean as they pertain to the idea that thrusting is faster/better than cutting) of George Silver's Paradox of Defense:

Illusions for the maintenance of imperfect weapons & false fights, to fear or discourage the unskillful in their weapons, from taking a true course or use, for attaining to the perfect knowledge of true fight.

10

First, for the rapier (says the Italian, or false teacher) I hold to be a perfect good weapon, because the cross hinders not to hold the handle in the hand, to thrust both far & straight, & to use all manner of advantages in the wards, or suddenly to call the same at the adversary, but with the sword you are driven with all the strength of the hand to hold fast the handle. And in the wars I would wish no friend of mine to wear swords with hilts, because when they are suddenly set upon, for haste they set their hands upon their hilts instead of their handles, in which time it happens many times before they can draw their swords, they are slain by their enemies. And for Sword and Buckler fight, it is imperfect, because the buckler blinds the fight, neither would I have any man lie aloft with his hand above his head, to strike sound blows. Strong blows are naught, especially being set above the head, because therein all the face and body are discovered. Yet I confess, in old times, when blows were only used with short Swords & Bucklers, & back Swords, these kinds of fights were good & most manly, now a days fight is altered. Rapiers are longer for advantage than swords were wont to be. When blows were used, men were so simple in their fight, that they thought him a coward, that would make a thrust or a blow beneath the girdle. Again if their weapons were short, as in times past they were, yet fight is better looked into these days, than then it was. Who is it in these days sees not that the blow compasses round like a wheel, whereby it has a long way to go, but the thrust passes in a straight line, and therefore comes a nearer way, and done in a shorter time than is the blow, and is more deadly than is the blow? There fore there is no wise man that will strike, unless he is weary of his life. It is certain, that the point for advantage every way in fight is to be used, the blow is utterly naught, and not to be used. He that fights upon the blow especially with a short sword, will be sore hurt or slain. The devil can say no more for the maintenance of errors.

That a blow comes continually as near as a thrust, and most commonly nearer, stronger, more swift, and is sooner done.

11

The blow, by reason that it compasses round like a wheel, whereby it has a longer way to come, as the Italian Fencer says, & that the thrust passing in a straight line, comes a nearer way, and therefore is sooner done than a blow, is not true, these are the proofs.

Let two lie in their perfect strengths and readiness, wherein the blades of their rapiers by the motion of the body, may not be crossed of either side, the one to strike, and the other to thrust. Then measure the distance or course wherein the hand and hilt passes to finish the blow of the one, and the thrust of the other, and you shall find them both by measure, in distance all one. At let any man of judgement being seen in the exercise of weapons, not being more addicted unto novelties of fight, than unto truth itself, put in measure, and practice these three fights, variable, open, and guardant, and he shall see, that whenever any man lies at the thrust at the variable fight, (where of necessity most commonly he lies, or otherwise not possible to keep his rapier from crossing at the blow & thrust, upon the open or guardant fight,) that the blows & thrusts from these two fighters, come a nearer way, and a more stronger and swifter course than does the thrust, out of the variable fight. And thus for a general rule, wheresoever the thruster lies, or out of what fight soever he fights, with his rapier, or rapier and dagger, the blow in his course comes as near, and nearer, and more swift and stronger than does the thrust.

Perfect fight stands upon both blow and thrust, therefore the thrust is not only to be used.

12

That there is no fight perfect without both blow and thrust: neither is there any certain rule to be set down for the use of the point only, these are the reasons: In fight there are many motions, with the hand, body, and feet, and in every motion the place of the hand is altered, & because by the motions of the hand, the altering of the places of the hand, the changes of lyings, wards, and breaking of thrusts, the hand will sometimes be in place to strike, some times to thrust, sometimes after a blow to thrust, sometimes after a thrust to strike, & sometimes in a place where you may strike, and cannot thrust without loss of time, and sometimes in place where you may thrust, and cannot strike without loss of time, and sometimes in a place where you can neither strike nor thrust, unless you fight upon both blow and thrust, nor able to defend yourself by ward or going back, because your space will be too wide, and your distance lost. And sometimes when you have made a thrust, a ward or breaking is taken in such sort with the dagger or blade of the sword, that you can neither thrust again, nor defend yourself unless you do strike, which you may soundly do, and go free, and sometimes when you strike, a ward will be taken in such sort, that you cannot strike again, nor defend yourself, unless you thrust, which you may safely do and go free. So to conclude, there is no perfection in the true fight, without both blow and thrust, nor certain rule to be set down for the point only.

That the blow is more dangerous and deadly in fight than a thrust, for proof thereof to be made according with Art, and Englishman holds argument against an Italian.

13

Italian: Which is more dangerous or deadly in fight of a blow or a thrust?

Englishman: This question is not propounded according to art, because there is no fight perfect without both blow and thrust.

Italian: Let it be so, yet opinions are otherwise held, that the thrust is only to be used, because it comes a near way, and is more dangerous and deadly, for these reasons: first, the blow compasses round like a wheel, but the thrust passes in a straight line, therefore the blow by reason of this compass has a longer way to go than the thrust & is therefore longer in doing, but the thrust passes in a straight line, therefore has a shorter way to go than has the blow, & is therefore done in a shorter time, & is therefore much better than the blow, & more dangerous and deadly, because if a thrust does hit the face or body, it endangers life, and most commonly death ensues, but if the blow hits the body, it is not so dangerous.

Englishman: Let your opinions be what they will, but that the thrust comes a nearer way, & is sooner done that the blow, is not true, and for proof thereof read the twelfth paradox. And now will I set down possible reasons, that the blow is better than the thrust, and more dangerous and deadly. First, the blow comes as near a way, & most commonly nearer than does the thrust, & is therefore done in a shorter time than is the thrust. Therefore in respect of time, whereupon stands the perfection of fight, the blow is much better than the thrust. Again, the force of the thrust passes straight, therefore any cross being indirectly made, the force of a child may put it by. But the force of the blow passes indirectly, therefore must be directly warded in the countercheck of his force, which cannot be done but by the convenient strength of a man, & with true cross in true time, or else will not safely defend him, and is therefor much better, & more dangerous than the thrust. And again, the thrust being made through the hand, arm, or leg, or in many places of the body and face, are not deadly, neither are they maims, or loss of limbs or life, neither is he much hindered for the time in his fight, as long as the blood is hot: for example:

I have known a gentleman hurt in rapier fight, in nine or ten places through the body, arms, and legs, and yet has continued in his fight, & afterward has slain the other, and come home and has been cured of all his wounds without maim, & is yet living. But the blow being strongly made, takes sometimes clean away the hand from the arm, has many times been seen. Again, a full blow upon the head or face with a short sharp sword, is most commonly death. A full blow upon the neck, shoulder, arm, or leg, endangers life, cuts off the veins, muscles, and sinews, perishes the bones: these wounds made by the blow, in respect of perfect healing, are the loss of limbs, or maims incurable forever.

And yet more for the blow: a full blow upon the head, face, arm, leg, or legs, is death, or the party so wounded in the mercy of him that shall so wound him. For what man shall be able long in fight to stand up, either to revenge, or defend himself, having the veins, muscles, sinews of his hand, arm, or leg clean cut asunder? Or being dismembered by such wound upon the face or head, but shall be enforced thereby, and through the loss of blood, the other a little dallying with him, to yield himself, or leave his life in his mercy?

And for plainer deciding this controversy between the blow and the thrust, consider this short note. The blow comes many ways, the thrust does not so. The blow comes a nearer way than the thrust most commonly, and is therefore sooner done. The blow requires the strength of a man to be warded, but the thrust may be put by by the force of a child. A blow upon the hand, arm, or leg is maim incurable, but a thrust in the hand, arm, or leg is to be recovered. The blow has many parts to wound, and in every of them commands the life, but the thrust has but a few, as the body or face, and not in every part of them either.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I do not contest the thrust/stab ability of the mainz, but as I have pointed out, and having 2 very deadly examples of my own to study, I have no doubt in my mind it was a dual purpose weapon.

I will find the passage eventually, but I have a lot on my mind right now, so it will take some time.

Thanks Dave, I think it is actually quoted on here a few times as well in one of the various threads on the mainz and methods of gladius fighting...

[le Cavalier Invisible]

I will find the passage eventually, but I have a lot on my mind right now, so it will take some time.

Thanks Dave, I think it is actually quoted on here a few times as well in one of the various threads on the mainz and methods of gladius fighting...

How about this one? P

Greetz,