Sword Use

[Robert Vermaat]

Just my two cents worth, but I'm finding it difficult to imagine the cut being very effective when two walls of shields are pressed against each other, or even in close combat while maintaining formation. Not only was the legionary protected by a very large scutum, but he would also need to pretty much work around it as well, which means a slash could endanger his comrade to the right.

I think shield wall is impenetrable to all , thrust and cut (ex. battle vs Ariovistus) ; only the face and head is vulnerable if on have the velocity to hit first the shield go up or the arms when the enemy make an attack.

This may not be at the heart of your discussion, but at Fectio we think this was one of the reasons for the use of the soatha for infantry instead of the gladius (the other being the rise in cavalry opposition). The infantry was confronted by shields as large as they had themselves, either because germanic armies aped the Romans, or simply because many battles were against other, similarly-equipped Romans. The need for a longer sword would be just that - the impossibility to get 'around' an opponent would make the only posibility to hurt him reaching over the shield to his back, or the man behind him.
(is what we think).