12-02-2010, 09:17 AM
Disclaimer: Not an expert, just leaving my ideas here for discussion
The common perception of the roman army these days tends to be a linear formation of tightly packed legionaries creating a wall with their shields and stabbing through the cracks as they roll over waves of unarmored barbarians. Unfortunately I'm not quite sold on its effectiveness.
The first problem I have is the idea of Romans forming up shield to shield and fighting 'like modern riot police'. Most Barbarian warriors were not suicidal and would not have been dumb enough to body-slam themselves into a wall of metal swords. If the Romans ever did try to fight with a riot police-like shield wall using only their short swords, the enemy would have charged up to within a few feet and then stopped to smash the Roman shields with war axes and stab around them with spears leaving the two foot roman swords completely useless. A shield wall like that will generally only work properly if you have spears of your own to keep the enemy away.
So what sort of formation does it take for the Roman sword to be effective? A couple of sources such as Polybius have mentioned Roman soldiers actually being spaced 3 feet apart to either side so that they could swing their swords. This formation would probably be more effective however it would have to remain very aggressive and fluid, if it slowed down and enemy warriors were able to get into the cracks it could prove very problematic, so using it defensively is out of the question. Not to mention that the enemy formation would have to be disrupted in order to make any headway in the first place. (Note: an being unable to create a defensive line would mean that the Roman army was inefficient an inflexible)
I think part of the issue might be the idea that the gladius was somehow the epitome of sword design, as near as I can tell the exact opposite was true. The gladius was more of a transitional sword, it came into prominence because it was much more devastating than the even shorter bronze swords that came before it, and likewise it was eventually replaced by longer swords such as the spatha.
To be clear, I don't think that the Romans or the Roman army was stupid, but rather that the way we think of them might be somewhat flawed. I'm guessing that the pilum or other spears played a far bigger role among the legions than they tend to get credit for, even in close combat.
The common perception of the roman army these days tends to be a linear formation of tightly packed legionaries creating a wall with their shields and stabbing through the cracks as they roll over waves of unarmored barbarians. Unfortunately I'm not quite sold on its effectiveness.
The first problem I have is the idea of Romans forming up shield to shield and fighting 'like modern riot police'. Most Barbarian warriors were not suicidal and would not have been dumb enough to body-slam themselves into a wall of metal swords. If the Romans ever did try to fight with a riot police-like shield wall using only their short swords, the enemy would have charged up to within a few feet and then stopped to smash the Roman shields with war axes and stab around them with spears leaving the two foot roman swords completely useless. A shield wall like that will generally only work properly if you have spears of your own to keep the enemy away.
So what sort of formation does it take for the Roman sword to be effective? A couple of sources such as Polybius have mentioned Roman soldiers actually being spaced 3 feet apart to either side so that they could swing their swords. This formation would probably be more effective however it would have to remain very aggressive and fluid, if it slowed down and enemy warriors were able to get into the cracks it could prove very problematic, so using it defensively is out of the question. Not to mention that the enemy formation would have to be disrupted in order to make any headway in the first place. (Note: an being unable to create a defensive line would mean that the Roman army was inefficient an inflexible)
I think part of the issue might be the idea that the gladius was somehow the epitome of sword design, as near as I can tell the exact opposite was true. The gladius was more of a transitional sword, it came into prominence because it was much more devastating than the even shorter bronze swords that came before it, and likewise it was eventually replaced by longer swords such as the spatha.
To be clear, I don't think that the Romans or the Roman army was stupid, but rather that the way we think of them might be somewhat flawed. I'm guessing that the pilum or other spears played a far bigger role among the legions than they tend to get credit for, even in close combat.
Henry O.
