Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated?

[fiatjustitia]

The "opposition" in late antiquity were for the most part, other Imperial troops. Any objectve student of this epoch can only conclude that "barbarians" were considered less seriously by an emperor than other pretenders to the throne. Hence, the argument that barbarians forced the adoption of different weapons really doesnt make much sense.

[Kai]

hello Vincent,

that Roman emperors prioritized fighting against other pretenders is not restricted on Late Antiquity anyway, neither were ‘civil wars’ (for the lack of a better word) exclusive to this period. A crucial difference to the earlier imperial era however is that the Roman army was opposed by much better or even equal foreign enemies, especially the Sassanid Persians – whose presence cannot be omitted by “any objective student of this epoch” :wink: . The additional Barbarian (again for the lack of a better word) pressure – among other including the slaughter of an Emperor with his army, overrunning and dissecting a rich and highly urbanized province from the Empire forever, breaking through to the Hellespont and raiding the Mediterranean Sea – should be taken into account as well, imho.

Simply disconnecting this shift in military balance between Roman and foreign armies, especially the Persians, and the concurring abandoning of the short swords, would need some explanation at least. Well maybe I am the only one and I am wrong, in which case I would like to understand an explanation all the more. : -)

[rrgg]

I don't think spears are clumsy at all. They can be very effective.

Like any other weapon, it takes training to know how to use it for attack and defense, but spears are not just dumb weapons that can't do much. Tactics change for all sorts of reasons, and sometimes they may not be so clearly definable thousands of years later.

Spears are superb weapons, that's why most warriors of the time preferred to carry them around and use them in combat rather than ditching them for swords.

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.

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.

A Roman soldier's armor and shield don't cover everything. If he's very aggressive and very skilled he can drive into the enemy and hack up a whole bunch of them, but being that close to the enemy he's still at a high risk of being killed. A well trained and armored Roman force using only short swords can drive off an enemy but they would probably lose more men than they would lose if they were trained and armed with spears.

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 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.

Well, nothing is better for disrupting formations than killing a ton of enemy troops. A number of sources seem to suggest that the pila volley has no problem scattering entire formations.

Against unarmored targets you can slash or cut with a wide spear blade, although for the most part stabbing works just fine.

[richsc]

against unarmored targets you can slash or cut with a wide spear blade, although for the most part stabbing works just fine.

Again, purely speculative.

[M. Demetrius]

A Roman soldier's armor and shield don't cover everything. If he's very aggressive and very skilled he can drive into the enemy and hack up a whole bunch of them,

But that's not how the Roman military behaved. There were isolated instances, and these soldiers ended up dead. (some were executed after the battle for breaking ranks, some [Centurio Gracchus, e.g.] at the time of their deed.) Just didn't work well, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that they did charge into the enemy ranks from the battle line. Do you have any evidence or historical sources to support your suggestion?


A wise old cowboy once said, "The problem with some people who know everything about something is that they can't learn nuthin' about anything." Made sense when he said it.

[caiusbeerquitius]

This thread needs more evidence and less speculation. So, please support what you are saying.

[rrgg]

But that's not how the Roman military behaved. There were isolated instances, and these soldiers ended up dead. (some were executed after the battle for breaking ranks, some [Centurio Gracchus, e.g.] at the time of their deed.) Just didn't work well, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that they did charge into the enemy ranks from the battle line. Do you have any evidence or historical sources to support your suggestion?

Well, I can't exactly go through every single battle in Roman history although I can point out that the vast majority of those recorded tend to suggest very aggressive and offensive action by the Romans when using their short swords. I've also pointed out the accounts of Polybius which suggest that the Roman fought in a fairly loose formation. Additionally at the start of the thread I pointed out the reason being aggressive would be very important for fighting with a short sword, the Romans must get very close to their opponents or the short swords will be unable to do any damage.

A wise old cowboy once said, "The problem with some people who know everything about something is that they can't learn nuthin' about anything." Made sense when he said it.

Sounds about right, does someone here know everything?

[M. Demetrius]

Nope. Most days I struggle just to know ONE thing well.

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

I don't think spears are clumsy at all. They can be very effective.

Like any other weapon, it takes training to know how to use it for attack and defense, but spears are not just dumb weapons that can't do much. Tactics change for all sorts of reasons, and sometimes they may not be so clearly definable thousands of years later.

Spears are superb weapons, that's why most warriors of the time preferred to carry them around and use them in combat rather than ditching them for swords.

No, the reason why most warriors carried them is because it's loads cheaper than a sword. Making a spear point is many times easier and quicker than making a sword. If the spear was a superb weapon, than why did the lower class celtic warriors carry spears, while the nobility used swords?

[M. Demetrius]

why did the lower class celtic warriors carry spears, while the nobility used swords?

Because they hadn't read this thread, obviously. wink:

[rrgg]

No, the reason why most warriors carried them is because it's loads cheaper than a sword. Making a spear point is many times easier and quicker than making a sword. If the spear was a superb weapon, than why did the lower class celtic warriors carry spears, while the nobility used swords?

Those that could only afford spears used only spears, those who could afford swords and armor would carry swords as a secondary weapon yet still almost always grabbed a sturdy spear before going into battle.

[Magnus]

What a silly thread. Henry, part of the issue is while you're asking "why", it appears you've already formulated the answer in your mind. As such, you're close minded to everything that is presented to you. Instead of considering what others have written, you counter it constantly with speculative arguments. You present too many points to even go through and cover that can effectively be argued with evidence to the contrary.

Of course, it is equally as mind boggling why the other participants are still posting here as well. :?

[Muizer]

I thought the theory was that the roman tightly packed ranks would push the loose barbarian ranks on top of one another, thereby creating the conditions in which the short thrusting sword is superior. If you think about it, it's almost impossible for a loose formation to prevent this from happening. It would have to retreat all the time (which is dangerous in itself) to creat space to swing a blade, axe or what not, and the rear ranks would have to respond as quickly as the front ranks (which they wouldn't).

[PMBardunias]

By way of analogy, Zulus appear to have had some success with a reduced length, stabbing weapon, the iklwa, against foes armed with longer spears.

Romans ditched their hasta for a good reason, holding a full sized hasta limited the number of pila you could bring to battle. If not primarily, roman battles were extensively missile duels during the period of the switch. Far from being surrounded by armies of heavy battle-spear armed men, their primary foes were armed with throwable spears and swords in a similar fashion: Samnites, Iberians, Thracians, Greek thureophoroi, etc. When hasta were called for, there was always the Triarii.

This passage in Polybius was alluded to earlier. It illustrates not only the shortcomings of longer slashing swords, but also shows quite clearly that Pila were not Hasta and could not do the same job. The triarii had to hand forward their hasta when battle-spears were needed. It also shows that Romans, like Spartans, simply added a stride forward to the length of their blades.

Polybius 2:30 The Roman shields, it should be added, were far more serviceable for defence and their swords for attack, the Gaulish sword being only good for a cut and not for a thrus…33 The Romans are thought to have managed matters very skilfully in this battle, their tribunes having instructed them how they should fight, both as individuals and collectively. 2 For they had observed from former battles that Gauls in general are most formidable and spirited in their first onslaught, 3 while still fresh, and that, from the way their swords are made, as has been already explained, only the first cut takes effect; after this they at once assume the shape of a strigil, being so much bent both length-wise and side-wise that unless the men are given leisure to rest them on the ground and set them straight with the foot, the second blow is quite ineffectual.4 The tribunes therefore distributed among the front lines the spears of the triarii who were stationed behind them, ordering them to use their swords instead only after the spears were done with. 5 They then drew up opposite the Celts in order of battle and engaged. Upon the Gauls slashing first at the spears and making their swords unserviceable the Romans came to close quarters, having rendered the enemy helpless by depriving them of the power of raising their hands and cutting, which is the peculiar and only stroke of the Gauls, as their swords have no points. 6 The Romans, on the contrary, instead of slashing continued to thrust with their swords which did not bend, the points being very effective. Thus, striking one blow after another on the breast or face, they slew the greater part of their adversaries.

[Robert Vermaat]

Romans ditched their hasta for a good reason, holding a full sized hasta limited the number of pila you could bring to battle.

They didn't. The auxilia continued to use the hasta. Legionaries did, but that's only part of the whole story.