Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated?

[Matthew Amt]

Strictly speaking, what the auxiliaries used was the lancea, a throwing spear with an amentum (throwing loop). Still a spear, granted! Good for throwing or thrusting. I tend to think of the hasta as meant for thrusting rather than throwing (due perhaps to length or weight). But now we're into hair-splitting, of course, since the discussion is really about swords and *spears*, of whatever type.

Valete,

Matthew

[PMBardunias]

They didn't. The auxilia continued to use the hasta.

I was referring to the Hastatii and later the Princeps, because the Triarii retained the hasta for a long time. Later, auxillae would still use them as you say, and the fact that these troops did not use pila along with them probably shows the reason for the switch.

[rrgg]

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.

I'm no expert on zulu warfare but according to wikipedia they switched to the shorter spear and retained the longer ones for javelins. Although I will say that the fast, agressive tactics that Shaka used are what would be necessary to make shorter weapons effective.

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.

Skirmishers and light infantry like the velites often used very short light javelins because they needed to throw long distances and run away. However, the vast majority of the heavy infantry were armed with trusting spears like the hoplites or triarii. However, keep in mind that most spears could be easily thrown anyways (I hate to bring up Deadliest Warrior but they were able to get 8 inches of penetration into wood logs by hurling 7 foot viking infantry spears) the question was whether a warrior decided to throw his spear and hope for a free kill early on or whether he held onto his spear to keep people at bay in combat, however most tended to choose the latter since they usually couldn't guarantee good penetration. The pilum is what changed that for the Romans, the iberians and probably the celts used similar javelins (the Iberians even occasionally used all metal javelins, which would be the ideal heavy javelin if you wanted something that couldn't be used in hand to hand) although they were never really made a standard like they were with the Romans and normal spears remained popular. The Etruscans had weapons similar to the pilum although the leaf blades and thick,widening shanks are somewhat inconsistent with later Roman designs, it may have just been an attempt to reduce damage to the wooden shaft.

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.

The claim that the gauls couldn't stab with their swords is probably an fallacy, while some gallic swords were found without tips most tended to look just like the Roman swords and even the ones with rounded tips tended to stab just fine. Although he does seem to hint at the effectiveness of spears against charging infantry.

When Ceasar went to Gaul he rarely mentions the Gauls as fighting with swords and usually depicts them as fighting instead in very dense formations he refers to as phalanxes.

From his first engagement with the Helvetii

Chapter 24

Caesar, when he observes this, draws off his forces to the next hill, and sent the cavalry to sustain the attack of the enemy. He himself, meanwhile, drew up on the middle of the hill a triple line of his four veteran legions in such a manner, that he placed above him on the very summit the two legions, which he had lately levied in Hither Gaul, and all the auxiliaries; and he ordered that the whole mountain should be covered with men, and that meanwhile the baggage should be brought together into one place, and the position be protected by those who were posted in the upper line. The Helvetii having followed with all their wagons, collected their baggage into one place: they themselves, after having repulsed our cavalry and formed a phalanx, advanced up to our front line in very close order.

Chapter 25

Caesar, having removed out of sight first his own horse, then those of all, that he might make the danger of a11 equal, and do away with the hope of flight, after encouraging his men, joined battle. His soldiers hurling their javelins from the higher ground, easily broke the enemy's phalanx. That being dispersed, they made a charge on them with drawn swords. It was a great hinderance to the Gauls in fighting, that, when several of their bucklers had been by one stroke of the (Roman) javelins pierced through and pinned fast together, as the point of the iron had bent itself, they could neither pluck it out, nor, with their left hand entangled, fight with sufficient ease; so that many, after having long tossed their arm about, chose rather to cast away the buckler from their hand, and to fight with their person unprotected.

[rrgg]

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. :?

Maybe you could think of it as a socratic sort of thing. :wink:

[M. Demetrius]

while some gallic swords were found without tips most tended to look just like the Roman swords and even the ones with rounded tips tended to stab just fine

I'm not so sure about this. They were generally diamond or lensatic in cross section, and usually with rounded points, suggesting a slashing weapon rather than stabbing. They fully understood metalwork, and how to make a point when they wanted one, but it was a question of style and tactics, not ability.

Maybe you could think of it as a socratic sort of thing.

Or a study in restrained answering. :?:

[rrgg]

A couple of peculiar ones but most seem to just have a sharp point (although its sort of difficult to be certain due to the wear).

As far as rounded points go the physics are still there, as long as it's sharpened a round tip will still penetrate much farther than a slash of the blade (I'll try to find it but at least one test suggested that it even penetrated just as far as a pointed blade against unarmored targets). Why they used rounded tips I don't know, maybe they lasted longer or provided less resistance when slashing, but the whole point of a sword is to be able to cut and thrust and as a general rule just about every blade will be able to do both quite well, otherwise you might as well just use an axe or short spear.

[M. Demetrius]

Sigh. Not ALL swords are cut and thrust. I guess it would do no good to point out first-hand accounts of the Gaulish sword fighting style. Your mind is clearly made up.

Checking out here.

[rrgg]

Sigh. Not ALL swords are cut and thrust. I guess it would do no good to point out first-hand accounts of the Gaulish sword fighting style. Your mind is clearly made up.

Checking out here.

Your claim is basically that some people in the ancient world couldn't thrust their swords because they were French.

[caiusbeerquitius]

I´m locking this now.