cut and thrust.....

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

Diodorus Siculus is from first century BC, mainly in use hispaniensis yet. But, someone knows about which kind of sword is Diodorus speaking?

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

The Greek historian Dionysus of Halicarnassus (contemporary to Emperor Augustus 63 BC-14 AD) describes Roman tactics with swords against the Gauls in the 4th C BC. Dionysus describes events that is some 300 years earlier than his own times, but we might perhaps presume that the fighting techniques he describes were not anachronistic to his own period. It is during the late 1st C BC that the Mainz type Gladius developed from the longer Gladius Hispaniensis that the Romans adopted during the Punic wars. Both the longer Gladius Hispanienis and the Mainz type gladius were effective cutting swords, even if thrusting was a favoured tactic in close formations.

http://www.albion-europe.com/shop/the_a ... -p-52.html

[le Cavalier Invisible]

Diodorus Siculus is from first century BC, mainly in use hispaniensis yet. But, someone knows about which kind of sword is Diodorus speaking?

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 thread I mentioned contained the "biting shields in agony" quote Byron meant though... :wink:

Greetz,

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

And? :?

[le Cavalier Invisible]

Well, he was looking for it, I was trying to be helpfull.. Nothing offensive!

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

Okay, sorry, I thougt that it goes to me, because you've quoted me.

[le Cavalier Invisible]

No I meant it was maybe not important to you, but it probably is for Byron, as it's his "precious shield biting quote"! At least I think it is..
Good luck with it Byron!

Greetz,

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

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,

:lol: :lol: That would be the one.....hmmmmdon't recal reading Diodorus, but there you go! :? lol:

[M. Demetrius]

hmmmmdon't recal reading Diodorus, but there you go!

Well, they say when you get older, you lose two things: your memory, and...what was that other thing?
:lol:

[le Cavalier Invisible]

hmmmmdon't recal reading Diodorus, but there you go!

Well, they say when you get older, you lose two things: your memory, and...what was that other thing?
:lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :oops:

[A_Volpe]

Dan Z - Nice quotes from George Silver! It's a fascinating system. I think it's no coincidence his manual shows up not too long after the Giacomo DiGrassi rapier manual (Arte of Defense) gets translated into English in 1594 (from the Italian in 1570's)...And how sad all of these good Englishmen are getting taken out by these silly Italian Rapiers

Anyway, I hold that the gladius used as a thrusting weapon was the *primary* tactic of the Romans (oh, here's a linger-longer, DiGrassi makes mention of the Romans and the superiority of the thrust! ha!), but I don't see it as the *only* attack. Slashing with a gladius is certainly just horrendous to the enemy, when the oportunity presents itself.

The swords getting shorter, I think in a few ways is similar to Bayonet tactics - The very idea to take an otherwise good man, and make him take a [musket] with a bayonet, and get so close to an oponent that a 4" extension puts that point through the oponent's face - Is terrifying to BOTH combatants. So you have these ca. 25" long Gladius hispanesis, ok, you can reach out and touch someone and cause horrific wounds...But now you give him a weapon (Pompeii gladius) that's maybe 18" long, he has to get THAT much closer to his oponent. I think the general idea is that the enemy will not see the thrust until it hits you, whereas one can see you swing up for a slashing cut...Meanwhile you're holding the sword so only the tip shows next to the edge of the shield, and all of a sudden, WHAM, you jump out into your enemy's face, press the shield into him, and stab him a few times...The mentality of being trained to do that, is horrificially violent and brutal - and I think that's the intent of the tactic as a shock to the enemy, both emotionally and physically. To get Toe-to-Toe with your enemy, you are staring into his eyes, you feel his breath and you're driving an 18" piece of metal into his body - I think is a horrific scene, but that's WHY the Romans trained this way, to make sure everyone knew Romans Meant Buisness.

On the flip side, you crash into the Roman line and end up using your longer sword more as a cudgel, bashing into Romans left and right, but then all of a sudden a gladius sneaks in below and gets your hamstring. Oops. Or, as someone else mentioned, your sword gets lodged into a shield, you're stuck for a second, just enough time for a well-trained Roman, working as a team - as opposed to a lowly farmer looking to bash some Roman heads in, likely with no formal weapons training - comes in and hacks up your arm. Bad place to be.

[Tarbicus]

It's in the primary sources that the gladius was used to both and cut and thrust, inflicting dreadful wounds.

Why contradict those who were actually there? It wasn't a major propaganda coup for them. :wink:

[Sean Manning]

Also, I think that the only ancient or medieval writer who argues the use of one attack rather than the other is Vegetius (and even he mentions cutting at the post). Of course legionaries would slash sometimes and stab other times, along with strinking with the pommel, smashing with the shield, and so on. They might have debated which was better around the cookfire at night, but I think that's a debate which will go on forever.

[Dan Z]

Andy - George Silver cracks me up when he starts into his ranting. A long while back on Sword Forum a few of us had a thread going about with a George Silver-esque arguement about the pros and cons of swordfish and narwhales. At any rate I get the feeling, seeing as he does make a few jokes in his writing, that George Silver had a pretty good sense of humor.

I don't think I made it clear during my rambling in my earlier posts, but I agree that thrusting would have been the primary tactic supported by whatever worked against targets of opportunity. Especially since that's what our primary sources are telling us! :wink:

I think this is also supported by the the evolution of blade shapes. The change to the tips of the swords has a much more significant impact on performance than the change to the edges. Just as an example, I have a Fulham and a Pompeii both with blades about 2 inches wide. On the Fulham, two inches back from the tip the blade is 3/4 of a inch wide while on the Pompeii two inches back from the tip the blade is 1.5 inches wide. In other words the Pompeii will create a stab wound that is twice as large, both linearly and volumetrically, as the Fulham. This implies to me that they really wanted to make those stab wounds count.

They also changed the edges though and this implies that, while they had a different notion about what they expected soldiers to be doing with those edges, they did indeed expect them to be doing something with them.

[Marcus Mummius]

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

Greetz,

If such a blade was found it would be classified as a Mainz :wink: