04-04-2006, 09:21 AM
Well,
I have been a lurker on Roman Army Talk for awhile but never posted before. I've found this particular thread so provocative that I had to register so that I could post.
Although I don't want to describe myself as an expert on ancient Roman martial practice I do know something about swordplay, in that I have been studying and teaching it for 35 years. I've always had a particular interest in studying ancient and Medieval forms as well as more modern ones.
Regarding the Gladius and it's use, I believe it's form was greatly influenced by the close formation tactics that were praticed by the legionaries. A shorter weapon could be wielded both in cutting and thrusting with less chance of inadvertently striking the comrades that were literally fighting at your sides and possibly also from behind you. It also encourages you to close a couple of feet nearer to your enemy once he gets to his longer effective striking range. The tactics and dynamics of efficient melee weapon use on the battlefield would have to have been greatly effected by the types of weapons used.
Looking at ranges, the pilum could be thrown some distance from formation, a bit further if the thrower could make a running throw. The heavier forms could also be thrown at need, and while not having as much range would have greater penetrative power. The light pilum makes a pretty effective battlefield melee weapon wielded one-handed in line formations. I wonder if in fact more use was sometimes made of them for melee fighting in formation than gladii (is that the correct plural form?). Certainly the gladius cannot reach as far in melee as a spear, and of course a spear or pilum would not normally be swung around, as a sword might.
The problem with larger swung weapons such as clubs, large bladed swords, axes, etc. (weapons often used by Rome's enemies) is that their use, it seems to me, tends to lend itself more to open formations of fighting men, not close packed ranks. In combat then, the Romans could often confront their foes with more Romans per front line foot than their enemies could effectively manage. And if their enemies did pack in too tightly they would often diminish the effectiveness of their own larger swung weapons.
My thoughts on the abandonment of the gladius for longer bladed swords is that perhaps their field tactics had changed to where their units more often fought in open order or in skirmish order than they typically did in the earlier period of the gladius. I'm not saying they abandoned close formations, but I expect they made as much (or more) use of the spear as the spatha when they did fight that way, and when the spatha was used in close ranks it would be primarily to thrust, not to cut.
Regarding the use of the sword, whether spatha or gladius, thrusting would be very effective. A thrusting hit could be 'quickly developed' by twisting and levering it in the wound in order to greatly increase the damage done. Cuts with the gladius or spatha would have less of a chance of immediately incapacitating an opponent. Some common forms of gladii, the Fulham and Pompeii, had rather narrow short blades, ill suited for cuts against an armored foe. The Mainz pattern, although short, was a bit wider and probably cut noticeably better as a result. The Hispaniensis pattern gladius was longer (although not typically broader) and posessed good edge geometry for slicing cuts in that it's edge smoothly arced from point of ideal percussion to tip. It should therefore have cut better.
Now with cuts there are different ways to strike with the blade. The common Hollywood style we are so used to seeing is a kind of chopping cut, almost like swinging a handaxe. It has a concussive effect somewhere around the middle of the fore-edge but doesn't make very efficient use of the edge. Hollywood uses it because it's less likely to slip off a choreographed parry unintentionally. If an enhanced penetrative effect is really what you want it might be better to swing and strike with the tip. This potentially maximizes reach and penetration and may be practiced such that it may initially look like a cut but develop as a thrust. Of course footwork and body english would have a lot to do with it, too, but that's a separate issue. A better way to cut is to swing powerfully and simultaneously slice with the edge by drawing the blade in toward you at the moment of impact. The ideal point of impact, depending on the architecture of the blade, is usually about a third of the way down from the tip. The edge from that point of percussion to the tip is what really can slice open an opponent or even lop off a limb. On shorter blades this most effective part of the edge is more limited. Also, and at least as important, the physical power of a cut is potentially MUCH greater with a longer and heavier blade. In brief, a shorter blade does not posess the potential cutting power of a longer blade of similar width and thickness. But it can be just as deadly in a thrust if it hits.
Sharp steel cutting practice on various types of targets can be very instructive in these techniques. I recommend it.
While skirmishing on foot man to man in open order I would prefer the spatha to the gladius. Those few extra inches of blade length can make a big difference in the fight dynamic; this difference being somewhat mitigated if both parties bore shields and knew how to use them in open order.
I think I would also select spatha and shield over a spear and shield if skirmishing against an opponent using a spear and shield. Of course, I've far more experience with swords than with spears. What do you fellows think?
I have been a lurker on Roman Army Talk for awhile but never posted before. I've found this particular thread so provocative that I had to register so that I could post.
Although I don't want to describe myself as an expert on ancient Roman martial practice I do know something about swordplay, in that I have been studying and teaching it for 35 years. I've always had a particular interest in studying ancient and Medieval forms as well as more modern ones.
Regarding the Gladius and it's use, I believe it's form was greatly influenced by the close formation tactics that were praticed by the legionaries. A shorter weapon could be wielded both in cutting and thrusting with less chance of inadvertently striking the comrades that were literally fighting at your sides and possibly also from behind you. It also encourages you to close a couple of feet nearer to your enemy once he gets to his longer effective striking range. The tactics and dynamics of efficient melee weapon use on the battlefield would have to have been greatly effected by the types of weapons used.
Looking at ranges, the pilum could be thrown some distance from formation, a bit further if the thrower could make a running throw. The heavier forms could also be thrown at need, and while not having as much range would have greater penetrative power. The light pilum makes a pretty effective battlefield melee weapon wielded one-handed in line formations. I wonder if in fact more use was sometimes made of them for melee fighting in formation than gladii (is that the correct plural form?). Certainly the gladius cannot reach as far in melee as a spear, and of course a spear or pilum would not normally be swung around, as a sword might.
The problem with larger swung weapons such as clubs, large bladed swords, axes, etc. (weapons often used by Rome's enemies) is that their use, it seems to me, tends to lend itself more to open formations of fighting men, not close packed ranks. In combat then, the Romans could often confront their foes with more Romans per front line foot than their enemies could effectively manage. And if their enemies did pack in too tightly they would often diminish the effectiveness of their own larger swung weapons.
My thoughts on the abandonment of the gladius for longer bladed swords is that perhaps their field tactics had changed to where their units more often fought in open order or in skirmish order than they typically did in the earlier period of the gladius. I'm not saying they abandoned close formations, but I expect they made as much (or more) use of the spear as the spatha when they did fight that way, and when the spatha was used in close ranks it would be primarily to thrust, not to cut.
Regarding the use of the sword, whether spatha or gladius, thrusting would be very effective. A thrusting hit could be 'quickly developed' by twisting and levering it in the wound in order to greatly increase the damage done. Cuts with the gladius or spatha would have less of a chance of immediately incapacitating an opponent. Some common forms of gladii, the Fulham and Pompeii, had rather narrow short blades, ill suited for cuts against an armored foe. The Mainz pattern, although short, was a bit wider and probably cut noticeably better as a result. The Hispaniensis pattern gladius was longer (although not typically broader) and posessed good edge geometry for slicing cuts in that it's edge smoothly arced from point of ideal percussion to tip. It should therefore have cut better.
Now with cuts there are different ways to strike with the blade. The common Hollywood style we are so used to seeing is a kind of chopping cut, almost like swinging a handaxe. It has a concussive effect somewhere around the middle of the fore-edge but doesn't make very efficient use of the edge. Hollywood uses it because it's less likely to slip off a choreographed parry unintentionally. If an enhanced penetrative effect is really what you want it might be better to swing and strike with the tip. This potentially maximizes reach and penetration and may be practiced such that it may initially look like a cut but develop as a thrust. Of course footwork and body english would have a lot to do with it, too, but that's a separate issue. A better way to cut is to swing powerfully and simultaneously slice with the edge by drawing the blade in toward you at the moment of impact. The ideal point of impact, depending on the architecture of the blade, is usually about a third of the way down from the tip. The edge from that point of percussion to the tip is what really can slice open an opponent or even lop off a limb. On shorter blades this most effective part of the edge is more limited. Also, and at least as important, the physical power of a cut is potentially MUCH greater with a longer and heavier blade. In brief, a shorter blade does not posess the potential cutting power of a longer blade of similar width and thickness. But it can be just as deadly in a thrust if it hits.
Sharp steel cutting practice on various types of targets can be very instructive in these techniques. I recommend it.
While skirmishing on foot man to man in open order I would prefer the spatha to the gladius. Those few extra inches of blade length can make a big difference in the fight dynamic; this difference being somewhat mitigated if both parties bore shields and knew how to use them in open order.
I think I would also select spatha and shield over a spear and shield if skirmishing against an opponent using a spear and shield. Of course, I've far more experience with swords than with spears. What do you fellows think?
David Glaeser
[size=75:1dd4unk4]"Si vis pacem, para bellum." -- Flavius Vegetius Renatus[/size]
[size=75:1dd4unk4]"Si vis pacem, para bellum." -- Flavius Vegetius Renatus[/size]
