Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated? - Printable Version +- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat) +-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8) +--- Thread: Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated? (/showthread.php?tid=17955) |
Re: Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated? - Matthew Amt - 12-10-2010 Strictly speaking, what the auxiliaries used was the lancea, a throwing spear with an amentum (throwing loop). Still a spear, granted! Good for throwing or thrusting. I tend to think of the hasta as meant for thrusting rather than throwing (due perhaps to length or weight). But now we're into hair-splitting, of course, since the discussion is really about swords and *spears*, of whatever type. Valete, Matthew Re: Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated? - PMBardunias - 12-10-2010 Quote:They didn't. The auxilia continued to use the hasta. I was referring to the Hastatii and later the Princeps, because the Triarii retained the hasta for a long time. Later, auxillae would still use them as you say, and the fact that these troops did not use pila along with them probably shows the reason for the switch. Re: Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated? - rrgg - 12-10-2010 Quote:By way of analogy, Zulus appear to have had some success with a reduced length, stabbing weapon, the iklwa, against foes armed with longer spears.I'm no expert on zulu warfare but according to wikipedia they switched to the shorter spear and retained the longer ones for javelins. Although I will say that the fast, agressive tactics that Shaka used are what would be necessary to make shorter weapons effective. Quote:Romans ditched their hasta for a good reason, holding a full sized hasta limited the number of pila you could bring to battle. If not primarily, roman battles were extensively missile duels during the period of the switch. Far from being surrounded by armies of heavy battle-spear armed men, their primary foes were armed with throwable spears and swords in a similar fashion: Samnites, Iberians, Thracians, Greek thureophoroi, etc. When hasta were called for, there was always the Triarii.Skirmishers and light infantry like the velites often used very short light javelins because they needed to throw long distances and run away. However, the vast majority of the heavy infantry were armed with trusting spears like the hoplites or triarii. However, keep in mind that most spears could be easily thrown anyways (I hate to bring up Deadliest Warrior but they were able to get 8 inches of penetration into wood logs by hurling 7 foot viking infantry spears) the question was whether a warrior decided to throw his spear and hope for a free kill early on or whether he held onto his spear to keep people at bay in combat, however most tended to choose the latter since they usually couldn't guarantee good penetration. The pilum is what changed that for the Romans, the iberians and probably the celts used similar javelins (the Iberians even occasionally used all metal javelins, which would be the ideal heavy javelin if you wanted something that couldn't be used in hand to hand) although they were never really made a standard like they were with the Romans and normal spears remained popular. The Etruscans had weapons similar to the pilum although the leaf blades and thick,widening shanks are somewhat inconsistent with later Roman designs, it may have just been an attempt to reduce damage to the wooden shaft. Quote:This passage in Polybius was alluded to earlier. It illustrates not only the shortcomings of longer slashing swords, but also shows quite clearly that Pila were not Hasta and could not do the same job. The triarii had to hand forward their hasta when battle-spears were needed. It also shows that Romans, like Spartans, simply added a stride forward to the length of their blades.The claim that the gauls couldn't stab with their swords is probably an fallacy, while some gallic swords were found without tips most tended to look just like the Roman swords and even the ones with rounded tips tended to stab just fine. Although he does seem to hint at the effectiveness of spears against charging infantry. When Ceasar went to Gaul he rarely mentions the Gauls as fighting with swords and usually depicts them as fighting instead in very dense formations he refers to as phalanxes. From his first engagement with the Helvetii Quote:Chapter 24 Re: Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated? - rrgg - 12-10-2010 Quote:What a silly thread. Henry, part of the issue is while you're asking "why", it appears you've already formulated the answer in your mind. As such, you're close minded to everything that is presented to you. Instead of considering what others have written, you counter it constantly with speculative arguments. You present too many points to even go through and cover that can effectively be argued with evidence to the contrary.Maybe you could think of it as a socratic sort of thing. :wink: Re: Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated? - M. Demetrius - 12-11-2010 Quote:while some gallic swords were found without tips most tended to look just like the Roman swords and even the ones with rounded tips tended to stab just fineI'm not so sure about this. They were generally diamond or lensatic in cross section, and usually with rounded points, suggesting a slashing weapon rather than stabbing. They fully understood metalwork, and how to make a point when they wanted one, but it was a question of style and tactics, not ability. Quote:Maybe you could think of it as a socratic sort of thing.Or a study in restrained answering. :?: Re: Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated? - rrgg - 12-11-2010 A couple of peculiar ones but most seem to just have a sharp point (although its sort of difficult to be certain due to the wear). As far as rounded points go the physics are still there, as long as it's sharpened a round tip will still penetrate much farther than a slash of the blade (I'll try to find it but at least one test suggested that it even penetrated just as far as a pointed blade against unarmored targets). Why they used rounded tips I don't know, maybe they lasted longer or provided less resistance when slashing, but the whole point of a sword is to be able to cut and thrust and as a general rule just about every blade will be able to do both quite well, otherwise you might as well just use an axe or short spear. Re: Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated? - M. Demetrius - 12-11-2010 Sigh. Not ALL swords are cut and thrust. I guess it would do no good to point out first-hand accounts of the Gaulish sword fighting style. Your mind is clearly made up. Checking out here. Re: Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated? - rrgg - 12-11-2010 Quote:Sigh. Not ALL swords are cut and thrust. I guess it would do no good to point out first-hand accounts of the Gaulish sword fighting style. Your mind is clearly made up.Your claim is basically that some people in the ancient world couldn't thrust their swords because they were French. Re: Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated? - caiusbeerquitius - 12-11-2010 I´m locking this now. |