Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated?

[rrgg]

Sorry, do you mean if the legionary is fumbling, or if his opponent is? Either way, if you still have a big shield in front of you, why should not having a weapon in your other hand put you in immediate mortal danger? In any case, we've always found that drawing the gladius after throwing the pilum is very quick and easy, and it would be more so (and more consistent!) for a trained man.

I'm talking about his opponent
Legionaries throw their pilums and draw their swords while they are still 15 yards away, a spearman trying to draw his sword while the enemy is a couple of feet away has barely a split second to draw his sword, it can be done but it's tricky.

Eh? Why does it have to be so black and white? And why a *major* advantage? I think part of the problem in this discussion is the assumption that weaponry development over the centuries is perceived as continuous *improvement*, rather than simply as changes. Battlefield advantages of one weapon over another would depend on any number of very subtle variables, including training, morale, exhaustion, terrain, weather, mood, etc., even before you get into actual weapon quality.

Technical historical questions like this one are not like wargames, with everything slotting neatly into armor classes and attack factors. There are a lot of unknowns and a lot of gray area, and we simply cannot give solid answers to certain situations. The generally accepted method is to look at the evidence and draw conclusions from that--and as far as the initial post is concerned, the archeological, literary, and pictoral evidence all agree that legionaries in the early Empire were pretty effective in combat with short swords and large shields. To deny that without some basis in historical evidence just seems odd to me. And I don't think medieval evidence is a lot of help, aside from a few comparisons.

Valete,

Matthew

On the smaller scale that's true, if they have enough training, luck, or armor anyone with any weapon can beat anyone else with any other weapon. Thus period to period you tend to see people armed with a variety of different weapons that are chosen basically due to personal preference. But when you look at the big picture when the majority of soldiers are using the same weapons for hundreds of years there tends to be a reason.


Getting back to my hypothetical, warriors being equipped with spears, shields and short swords was very common in the ancient era, we can't really say that all the millions of warriors who carried spears into battle did so without realizing that they didn't help at all and that the Romans were the only ones smart enough to ditch their spears and draw their swords. Thus the best we can assume is that all other things being equal the spear will have the advantage. So, say 60% of the time the legionary is going to lose in our hypothetical battle (although I can't give anything certain), it will probably be worse if it is group vs group.
So, if they were at a weaponry disadvantage then why did the Romans fight this way? Well, there are 2 (possibly 3) main reasons they were able to get away with it. First was superior training and armor, most Guals, Greeks, etc. that the Romans fought were not nearly as well trained as the legions, thus Romans could usually thrash their enemies with ease even at a weaponry disadvantage (of course they may have suffered slightly heavier losses). Second was the use of the pilum, in the actual engagement the Romans may have been lacking slightly, but the ability to kill or cripple a good portion of the enemy despite shields and armor and before they even engaged easily made up for any deficiency and then a ton (so if the legionary gets a pilum he is now winning the hypothetical scenario probably to 75% of the time). The third possible reason, although there aren't many instances of it coming into play of my knowlege, is the versatility of the pilum, basically if the Romans ever did need to fend off cavalry or form a shield wall then the pilum would have made a perfectly good spear and the Romans could revert to traditional tactics at any time they wanted.