Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated?

[Matthew Amt]

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.

Ah, gotcha! Yes, I would agree that having to ditch your spear and go for your sword because your opponent is already inside your guard would be very bad! But it is possible to fight in very close contact with a spear. You might also be able to bring it down and hold it vertically to help parry, and try to push your shield forward away from your body to keep the enemy at bay. Defensive moves, to be sure, but surviving is usually worth it!

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.

Weeeeeeellllll, I would say the spear had an advantage *for that army*. It's possible the Romans emphasized the use of the sword to encourage aggression. Knowing that legionaries would get right in your face to shove steel in your guts (and enjoy it!) would be something to think about for tribesmen more used to standing off a pace or two and prodding with spears.

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).

Except that we know that a victorious army generally had very light casualties, while the losers had very heavy losses. As far as we can tell, most casualties occurred when one side broke formation and fled, and got slaughtered as they ran.

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).

Except that we also know that the pilum was basically a charge-breaker and area-denial weapon. It was actually more for disruption than outright casualties.

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.

The pilum certainly was used as a spear at times, but it is not optimal in that role. Not only is it much more likely to bend than a spear, but the pyramidal point means that a graze causes no injury, whereas a spearblade can lay a man open even as it slides past.

Let's say effective enough for the Imperial era against the meager opposition faced until the 3rd century, and I agree.

"Meager"?!?! Whoa! Which Gauls, Germans, Britons, Jews, Parthians, Pannonians, or Dacians would those be?

You know there are people thinking the short sword was superior to the long spathae, and that the Romans changed only because Barbarians dominated the army, who were not discliplined enough for the old gladius. Sure this is nonsense, but it is a perfect example for overrating a weapon.

I agree that it is not a valid conclusion, but neither is the opposite, that a long sword is SO much better and all a shortsword would do is cause more Romans to be killed! Or that it's only good if you don't have much serious work to do... I would never say that the Later Roman army was not disciplined! But we know from Roman literature that first century legionaries were contemptuous of opponents who swung long swords at them, prefering their shorter blades. A couple centuries later, there was clearly a different school of thought at work, and they preferred spears and longer swords. It worked for them.

Why do we have to go beyond that and pin the blame on someone or something? Or prove that one or the other was "better" in some way by .02 degrees of danger?

Matthew