Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated?

[A_Volpe]

it's a complicated thing

we don't seem to have a real good set of specific details as to what tactics and techniques were used, but we can get a couple of idea and possibilities.
So that said I tend to agree with the notion that Romans encountered a variety of attacks thrown at them, so eventually they had to be as flexible in their fight as
they could. It appears from wearing the armor and all, that for the most part, your typical Roman soldier is very well protected with shield, armor, helmet (and added bits
that show up over time like manicae and greaves) - But there does seem to be an emphasis on a "frontal" focus to both defence and offense.

I don't agree with this notion of a tighly-packed formation to the extent that shields overlapped. You need a little bit of elbow room to be effective, and that 3-foot spacing seems
to be just enough to work, as has been mentioned, plenty of room to fight in, to cover your buddy, and, to retire if needed either injured or exhausted.

Having a super-tight (shoulder-to-shoulder) formation seems to work 'best' with something like Hoplite/Phalanx fighting, since the emphasis is primarily with the spear, thrusting at the enemy face, but that the shields overlap and protect the other person and the mass of people helps to support itself. (and hope your friends wear cologne!)

But the scutum is comparatively huge, and it's encompassing at least 3/4 of the front of one's body (if you're squared up shoulder-across to someone, but I think it's more likely a Roman could turn slightly and cover more of his body very easily), so there doesn't seem to be a need to cover another's exposed side, when the shield is easy enough to move side-to-side, et cetera, to cover any gaps and be pretty flexible.

The other advantage of how the Romans seemed to have operated is by being in deep formations. If you have 80 men in a century, let's say 40-abreast, 40-deep, that's a lot of men to have at one's disposal, combine that with the "conveyer-belt" tactic of refreshing-ranks, say every 5 minutes, you have a seemingly unending supply of "fresh" troops ready to bulldozer over an enemy, but that could just as easily "spread out" in a wider formation inasmuch as staying "tight". Whereas the Phalanx, you have to stay tight and it's very tough to maneuver quickly while staying in that tight formation. It gets 'clunky' when everyone's moving around and bumping into each other, even if they're well trained.

It was also mentioned that Romans were aggressive fighters, they too were charging, or marching at a constant pace, not stopping. You have a huge shield that can act like a plow, pressing into the enemy. But you can also use the shield as a weapon. You can VERY easily smash knees of an enemy, smash faces and jawbones, do all sorts of nasty tricks with a shield with little effort. You also have the Umbo boss - smash that into a guy's face and see how he does. You can use the edges and corners of the shield to "grab" someone's arm or body, pull him around, turn him and all the while stabbing away with reckless abandon. Sounds like a horror show to me, but...um...deadly effective.

Swords and shields were in use for hundreds of years, I think that shows the "system" or "technique" has a lot of merit.