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).

[Cobra]

Slashing, for the sake of clarity, is not the same as cutting. Slashing is violent motion that typically lacirates the surface. Cutting is a decisive motion that cuts deeply or should I say, deep enough to kill. The depth of the attack is more important than anything else in order to kill, which is why thrusts are so lethal.

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. However, the thrust is far more controlled and predictable while it's easier to maintain balance and stay in place

Downward cuts are doable in tight shieldwall formation, as this best works to kill the man standing diagonally to your right in a shieldwall-to-shieldwall confrontation because both of your non-shielded sides are open (Actually, that same guy standing diagonally to your right has the same opportunity to cut or thrust through that hole). Thrusts are still better in tight places, I completely agree with you on that and its easier and more effective to reach around someone's shield with a thrust than a cut.

As far as the high-risks are concerned, if you fight with "wrong idea" of self-preservation, you'll just die. The wrong idea of self preservation is just when you do actively wait for something to hapen so as to not risk endangering yourself. If the whole army behaves this way, it is extremely passive and results only in a lose of strategic momentum. There are only three things that can happen when you encounter someone else in battle: I kill you, you kill me, we both kill each other. If you look at it, that's either 2/3 ways you can die or 2/3 ways you can win. The psychological aspect is important because I'm sorry, battles are not the waiting games Mitra seems to think them as. They are aggreesive, bloody affairs(even more so in shieldwall combat) and when you close with the enemy, there's only one way out: through the enemy ESPEICALLY if you are in the front because then you have all the guys behind you preventing you from turning around and running. Sure you can try to wait out the enemy but then you're likely just going to be killed by the guy who you can't see off to your right while you're busy thinking and focusing on the guy in front of you. If you don't believe me, simply watch this video of my group(Tuchux, all those guys in black armor with black shields) ANNIHILATE this rather passive SCA unit who tries to stroll up and set-up thier shieldline(Note: Disregard the few fighters in the beginning who charge out WAY ahead of their army, they're berzerkers who simply go to die for their king or whatever else. It was the last battle of the day and they probably just wanted to die to leave finally):
[url:3rptq5jj]http://www.jubilex.com/movies/pennsic34/field-1.mpeg[/url]

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.

I think you're talking about the "wrap cut" here. It's the only technique that I know of that can reach around and smack someone in the back or back of the head when you're looking him right in the face. HOWEVER this technique does just what I said - it smacks. It's a very poor cutting technique and it's more of a club technique than a sword technique. Having done this cut on meat (pig) before during one of the many test-cuttings I do every year, it will bounce off flesh or it will only cut some meat and bounce off the bone. It just plain bounces off of armor. Killing the man behind him with a sword? Unlikely, even if it is a spatha, you still have 1-2 guys standing in front of you that will make this virtually impossible especially if they have big shields that are all the better to push you away with. I don't think this is a very good reason to simply try to use a longer sword.

[Alexandr K]

Hi,

As far as the high-risks are concerned, if you fight with "wrong idea" of self-preservation, you'll just die. The wrong idea of self preservation is just when you do actively wait for something to hapen so as to not risk endangering yourself. If the whole army behaves this way, it is extremely passive and results only in a lose of strategic momentum. There are only three things that can happen when you encounter someone else in battle: I kill you, you kill me, we both kill each other. If you look at it, that's either 2/3 ways you can die or 2/3 ways you can win. The psychological aspect is important because I'm sorry, battles are not the waiting games Mitra seems to think them as. They are aggreesive, bloody affairs(even more so in shieldwall combat)...

There are studies and testimonies, which prove that the main concern of most soldiers in battle is to stay alive and that they do anything for it and try to avoid any "dangerous situations" (even in battle there would be more and less dangerous situations...). The idea of self-preservation definately is not wrong, it's natural. To argue with SCA fighting is misleading. There have been many discussions about this on RAT before. In SCA you do not fight for your life. If your aggressive attack fails, you will get some bruise and graze injuries, something broken is the worse alternative. No problem. Your behaviour would be very different, if the penalty for failure would be painful death. Moreover I think (I admit, I've never done SCA fighting), in SCA fight you don't really try to harm or kill your enemy. I suppose, you don't attack face for example. Do you think, in real battle your enemy would be so kind too?
Greetings
Alexandr

[tlclark]

Like I said, I'm agnostic on the whole "risk" issue, still loving the discussion. It seems to me that risk is relative. In some cases, where victory is critical, but troop strength is strong, you might be less averse to individual risk.

In other cases, if troop strength/resupply is weak or uncertain, and the battle not so compelling, you begin to act very cautiously.

I just don't know. My gut tells me that aggression and risk be damned tactics are great in the short term, but in the long term, I don't know.

And then there's the whole personal/morale/psychology thing. Personally, I think that if I wasn't 110% aggressive I would probably not get pscyhed up enough to prevent me from bolting, let alone fighting.

Thanks for the insights.

[Cobra]

It's a very misunderstood concept that the SCA does not allow face shots. That rule was all been phased out in most kingdoms. There is a definite danger in SCA fighting. People are quite nasty, putting steel-ribar into hollowed spears, twisted shieldmen elbows in nasty ways, excessive force when you hit someone. I've seen a large amount of non-lethal but very serious injury in my time. It's not the kind playground you may think it as. Make no mistake, I go into combat with the mindset that they are trying to hurt me and the guys with me very badly if I do not kill them first. It is reasonable to speculate that given the Romans and other war-like cultures, they would be more inclined to be aggressive (or at least their commanders would be) because that was their whole life almost and look at the rewards and honors that would be bestowed on good warriors. If I remember right (it's been a while since I read it), in Julius Caesar's memoirs, doesn't he talk about two centurions who try to kill more people than the other? This is at least one good support for my claim, I think.

And further in arguement, if I'm not mistaken, in reenactment fighting, do you not allow face thrusts and attacks above the shoulders because you are using steel weapons?

[Robert Vermaat]

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.

I think you're talking about the "wrap cut" here. It's the only technique that I know of that can reach around and smack someone in the back or back of the head when you're looking him right in the face. HOWEVER this technique does just what I said - it smacks. It's a very poor cutting technique and it's more of a club technique than a sword technique. Having done this cut on meat (pig) before during one of the many test-cuttings I do every year, it will bounce off flesh or it will only cut some meat and bounce off the bone. It just plain bounces off of armor. Killing the man behind him with a sword? Unlikely, even if it is a spatha, you still have 1-2 guys standing in front of you that will make this virtually impossible especially if they have big shields that are all the better to push you away with. I don't think this is a very good reason to simply try to use a longer sword.

I'm aware of the limited use of that stroke. Like I said, it's a hypothesis. Mosty, the spatha will have been used for slashing, but in the think of a front line fight you may well lack the room to make a proper swing. Also, we're talking Late Roman times and not everybody may be wearing armour. A good slash across the back may be damaging enough. I understand the 'club technique', we sometimes refer to the spatha as a 'heavy crowbar'..
As to the face strike, who said anything about killing? A stab in the face may be enough to put an opponent out of action.

[tlclark]

Cobra and Alexander:

Is there a middle position in all of this?

I mean American troops do all sorts of stuff to psych themselves up and be very aggressive, but I know the training is rigorous.

Can you be cautiously agressive or agressively cautious?

I'm an Army Brat but my dad was medical so I know next to nothing about this stuff.

Anybody with any modern military experience in the forum?

How do modern armies treat the whole individual risk thing? It must come up, especially now.

Travis

[floofthegoof]

Here's an interesting Polybius fragment. Lifted from Perseus Proj.

XXII (96)
The Celtiberians excel the rest of the world in the construction of their swords; for their point is strong and serviceable, and they can deliver a cut with both edges. Wherefore the Romans abandoned their ancestral swords after the Hannibalian war and adopted those of the Iberians. They adopted, I say, the construction of the swords, but they can by no means imitate the excellence of the steel or the other points in which they are so elaborately finished.

I figure there has to be *some* cutting involved, otherwise a spear is your weapon of choice correct? I take it that the 'ancestral' swords were single edged?

[Mitra]

Two historical datas don't make possible an image of rapid lethal fighting.

1 - Lenght of historical battle: 2-4 hours.

2 - Loss rate of the winner: 1-5%.The majority of deads coming from total or partial routs.

The phrase: "in battle only few fighting" appears frequently in latin literature (Tacitus, Pharsalia, Silius Italicus)


The image of short close combat fighting phases with big lulls with skirmishing phases between these ( Goldsworthy thesis ) is accepted from Halsall (War and Society in the barbarian west) how best reconstruction possible also for early medieval and viking warfare in accordance with primary sources of period.

Caesarian episodes of centurions (+ another episode in Spain during the 45 bc, and episodes of same type from Bellum Iudaicum) demonstrate the contrary of rapid and aggressive fighting . One or two men can resiste for big time against a major number of enemies only because the enemies don't want risk a mass attack where the firsts can die. Furor of few (very few) vs prudence of the (great ) majority.Episodes of this type are recorded precisely because are extraordinaries. Paraphrasing the Wei Liao-tzu and Wu chi: "to engage to die and to search to life are different things, one man which don't fear the death can scare one thousand of men."


Sure these are warrior cultures , but is enough read the Iliad or Angelbert poem of Fontenoy for view the fear of the death also in a warrior culture.

PS: note the Euripide Phoinissai 1407-1413 for view what happen to a too violent attack vs a good adversary (for a commentary on thessalian trick view Pritchett GCAW volume IV).

[Kate Gilliver]

I figure there has to be *some* cutting involved, otherwise a spear is your weapon of choice correct? I take it that the 'ancestral' swords were single edged?

I doubt the 'ancestral' swords were single edged - the weapon adopted (or whatever) from the Iberians was probably just better.
Polybius 6.23: 'They (hastati) also carry a sword. They wear it on the right thigh and call it the Iberian sword. This has a sharp point and can cut effectively with either cutting edge, for the blade has great strength and firmness.'
(contrast that with the famous 'bendy swords' of the Gauls described at 2.33).
So, you can cut your enemy or poke him with your gladius and Polybius does not suggest here that one or the other is used exclusively by the Romans or is more effective. In the battle against the Insubrian Gauls I mentioned in one of the early posts in this thread, the Romans adopt a tactic of stabbing because they are deliberately trying to embarrass the Gauls and cramp their natural (open, slashing) style of fighting. This is literally a very 'in your face' style of fighting and extremely intense - it says a lot about Roman attitudes to fighting.
BUT it doesn't mean that the stabbing blow is the only way Romans used their swords, otherwise why bother with the wonderful cutting edges that impresses Polybius both in 6.23 and Fragment 179 which was the extract that floofthegoof quoted.

Kate

[Tarbicus]

No offence intended at all, but SCA fighting with any manner of aggression cannot be compared to Cannae, Cremona, or any other historical battle. It's like saying a paintball game, no matter how seriously it's taken by the participants, was just like Bastogne or Hue. How many guys at an SCA battle have lost control of their bladders? Everyone knows it's a rubber sword. Stick the same guys in Cannae, and it would be a lot of differrent stories to tell, I'm sure.

For real reactions to life-threatening situations, it may be worth researching something like plane crash survivors, and what they have to say. The meekest can become absolutely so opposite to that which no SCA or LARP simulation or re-enactment could ever even dream of.

[ambrosius]

How many guys at an SCA battle have lost control of their bladders? Everyone knows it's a rubber sword.

Well quite. Though perhaps because it's a rubber sword it doesn't
matter if you do lose control of your bladders... there's no worry
about getting it rusty... :wink:

For real reactions to life-threatening situations, it may be worth researching something like plane crash survivors, and what they have to say. The meekest can become absolutely so opposite to that which no SCA or LARP simulation or re-enactment could ever even dream of.

Damn right. Mess with my helmet crest and you are soooo busted! :evil:

Ambrosius

[Alexandr K]

Hi Cobra,
the story about the two centurions in Caesar is only an interesting exception, just like Mithra already said. Everywhere you will find exceptions against rules. And so in battles there are always some men who are really aggressive. But they are in minority. There are studies from the Second World War, which show that in battle at best only 25% of men present in a gunfigh, actively participated in it, by firing at the enemy. And in these 25% men, who did not aim, but just fired in the direction of the enemy, are included. The others were present, but were concerned more with their own survival, than with trying to kill some enemies. Gunfire and combat at close quarters is, of course, very different. But the instinct of self-preservation is still the same. So if we adapt it, then even in an ancient battle, the majority of men would be hidden behind their shields, trying to expose as little to the enemy as possible and to survive. Only a minority of men would be really aggressively seeking to kill the enemy and would be willing to expose themselves more by doing it.
As for the risk and fighters attitudes in SCA fighting: you know, I’ve never done such things, so I have just one question – How many men would normally die during an average SCA battle…?
Well, our little discussion is getting off topic. If we should continue it, I suggest to create a new thread.
Greetings
Alexandr

[Kate Gilliver]

I nearly finished my last post with a comment about using modern experiences to try to inform our understanding of Roman warfare, but didn't. Will now though.
That WW2 study was of American soldiers. Any similar studies of Japanese soldiers? Any info on the percentage of 18th century British infantry in a square who fired their rifles? I know that US study's cited by loads of historians of ancient and modern war, but it's a study of soldiers in one theatre of war who have been brought up in a particular culture with particular values. It doesn't necessarily say anything about how Roman soldiers who were raised in an entirely different culture thought about killing (or actively involving themselves in an engagement) and fought.


a sceptical Kate

[Tarbicus]

Maybe I'm contradicting myself (likely) but I think the training factor is often overlooked, and they trained (I understand) in all sorts of maneouvres to respond to different situations, as and when they occured. Appian referred to the way that each veteran's experience made him his own commander.

Whilst on Appian, he also says the following:

...since they did not resort to the usual maneouvres and tactics of battles, but, coming with drawn swords, inflicting and receiving thrusts :wink: , seeking to break each other's ranks...

They also seemed to have no hesitation when it came to battle, as seen at Bonn in AD 69, and Ross Cowan has written of cornicens being threatened by the men for not giving the signal to attack. I need to consider training and group spirit and bravado a bit more, I think.