12-02-2010, 03:19 PM
Ave!
Other folks have made good points here, I'll just toss in a few more bits. One thing to remember is that we really can NOT be sure what happened on a man-to-man level when 2 ancient armies met. I think we *can* be pretty sure that (wait for it!)---it varied!! There are SO many subtleties of formation, equipment, training, terrain, morale, etc., that almost anything *might* have happened at some point or other. However, ancient sources can give a lot of clues. And we have to be careful of impressions gained from movies or wargames!
As others have said, just ask the millions of people who lived in the Roman Empire, ha!
Except that with the large shields they typically carried, such a charge is not an impossible way to defeat a Roman army quickly. Roll over them like a human tidal wave! We know it worked against the Romans more than once. It was also "standard procedure" for a number of non-Roman cultures, encouraging and taking advantage of their innate aggression, size, and need to show courage. And it would be hard for such cultures to make a radical change of tactics when suddenly confronted by Romans.
As has been noted, the Romans were charging, too! One more step would bring them right to where they wanted to be. And stopping a charging army just short of contact would have been nearly impossible. Deliberately swinging an axe at a shield may not be the safest move, since it could easily stick there long enough for the Roman to gut the wielder like a fish.
I believe he actually says that there is 3 feet of space allowed for each man, meaning they are reasonably close together with only small gaps between shields, but enough elbow room to fight effectively. It's also easy for a man to slip back out of line between his buddies if he is wounded or exhausted. Remember that barbarians with spears and longer swords would need just as much elbow room to fight, if not more. The advantage of the gladius is that it can still be used very effectively if the Romans get packed more tightly in combat, whereas longer weapons become much harder to use properly in a bad crush. So you aren't going to get too much of the problem of barbarians "slipping into the cracks" any more than a Roman could do the same thing.
Actually, the Imperial gladius was *shorter* than the earlier hoplite swords, and shorter than the gladius hispaniensis used by the Romans between the Punic Wars and the first century BC. (Heck, even a couple types of bronze sword are longer!) So as the army became more professional and disciplined, the blade was deliberately shortened. And it stayed that way for a good 300 years or more, while at the same time longer swords were used by Roman cavalry and barbarian infantry, so all we can conclude is that it worked for them!
Oh, that happens all the time! But usually a close look at the literature, art, and archeology will point us in the right general direction at least. And we need to keep in mind that our modern ideas of "practical" and "logical" may not be the same as those of the Romans! They had very different needs and outlooks.
Does that help? Vale,
Matthew
Other folks have made good points here, I'll just toss in a few more bits. One thing to remember is that we really can NOT be sure what happened on a man-to-man level when 2 ancient armies met. I think we *can* be pretty sure that (wait for it!)---it varied!! There are SO many subtleties of formation, equipment, training, terrain, morale, etc., that almost anything *might* have happened at some point or other. However, ancient sources can give a lot of clues. And we have to be careful of impressions gained from movies or wargames!
Quote:Unfortunately I'm not quite sold on its effectiveness.
As others have said, just ask the millions of people who lived in the Roman Empire, ha!
Quote:Most Barbarian warriors were not suicidal and would not have been dumb enough to body-slam themselves into a wall of metal swords.
Except that with the large shields they typically carried, such a charge is not an impossible way to defeat a Roman army quickly. Roll over them like a human tidal wave! We know it worked against the Romans more than once. It was also "standard procedure" for a number of non-Roman cultures, encouraging and taking advantage of their innate aggression, size, and need to show courage. And it would be hard for such cultures to make a radical change of tactics when suddenly confronted by Romans.
Quote: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.
As has been noted, the Romans were charging, too! One more step would bring them right to where they wanted to be. And stopping a charging army just short of contact would have been nearly impossible. Deliberately swinging an axe at a shield may not be the safest move, since it could easily stick there long enough for the Roman to gut the wielder like a fish.
Quote: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.
I believe he actually says that there is 3 feet of space allowed for each man, meaning they are reasonably close together with only small gaps between shields, but enough elbow room to fight effectively. It's also easy for a man to slip back out of line between his buddies if he is wounded or exhausted. Remember that barbarians with spears and longer swords would need just as much elbow room to fight, if not more. The advantage of the gladius is that it can still be used very effectively if the Romans get packed more tightly in combat, whereas longer weapons become much harder to use properly in a bad crush. So you aren't going to get too much of the problem of barbarians "slipping into the cracks" any more than a Roman could do the same thing.
Quote: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.
Actually, the Imperial gladius was *shorter* than the earlier hoplite swords, and shorter than the gladius hispaniensis used by the Romans between the Punic Wars and the first century BC. (Heck, even a couple types of bronze sword are longer!) So as the army became more professional and disciplined, the blade was deliberately shortened. And it stayed that way for a good 300 years or more, while at the same time longer swords were used by Roman cavalry and barbarian infantry, so all we can conclude is that it worked for them!
Quote: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.
Oh, that happens all the time! But usually a close look at the literature, art, and archeology will point us in the right general direction at least. And we need to keep in mind that our modern ideas of "practical" and "logical" may not be the same as those of the Romans! They had very different needs and outlooks.
Does that help? Vale,
Matthew
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
