When was the dagger vs the pugio used

[Hibernicus]

Hmmm...

I'd use a pugio to gack someone with.. when the gladius is just too long...

I'd use a dagger to cut meat then gack the bastardus who tried to take it from me..

wait...

.. oh, never mind...

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

:lol:

[Crispvs]

Be very careful about trying to use the visible rivets in pugio handles as an indicator of how they have been constructed. Often the actual constructional rivets have been hidden, either by being covered by the outer grip plates or by being hammered so flush with the outer surface that they can be difficult to spot. As often as not the rivets you actually see are simply decorative and may not even pass right through the handle.

I concur with those who have already pointed out that both types of tang were used on pugiones. I would also add that there were also a number of variations in blade shape and (depending on how you define them) three or more different blade cross sections.

These can be built up into almost endlessly complicated typologies. For a flavour of this check out the pugio database thread on the RAT projects board.

Crispvs

[Magnus]

Hmmm...

I'd use a pugio to gack someone with.. when the gladius is just too long...

Drop your primary hand to hand weapon? That's insane...If you're pressed that close up against the enemy with your buds up close against you, how are you going to drop the gladius and draw the pugio anyway? You won't be able to move. Not to mention you're stuck with a tiny blade if combat opens up again. I don't agree with that theory. You never drop your primary weapon unless it breaks.

[Felix]

Actually, there is an account of the battle of Nicopolis in 1396, which specifically talks about men choosing to switch to daggers. The Crusaders had charged into a mass of Turkish infantry, and the press was so great that it was hard to effectively use a long horseman's sword. The knights were told to switch to daggers, which could be used in these very tight quarters, and did manage to cut through the enemy mass.

(there were more Turks after that, and the Crusaders were defeated, but the men at the time didn't know this would happen.)

[ambrosius]

Hmmm...

I'd use a pugio to gack someone with.. when the gladius is just too long...

Drop your primary hand to hand weapon? That's insane...If you're pressed that close up against the enemy with your buds up close against you, how are you going to drop the gladius and draw the pugio anyway? You won't be able to move. Not to mention you're stuck with a tiny blade if combat opens up again. I don't agree with that theory. You never drop your primary weapon unless it breaks.

I think, to be fair to Hib, he never said to 'drop' the gladius. You should
be able to resheath your gladius (from behind the cover of your scutum)
and then draw the pugio. Spartans, I think, would draw their short sword
when their spear broke. But then, in a press, how are you going to use
an eight foot spear on someone in your face? There would have to have
been moments of opportunity when a degree of flexibility would allow
for use of the sword.

My favourite Spartan proverb, from the mother to the son who
complained that his sword was too short:

"Add, to that length, one step forward!"

Ambrosius/Mike

[vilagpolgar]

I must disagree with you Ambrosius

I don't think so that soldiers had a chance to change their weapons in the middle of a combat.

[stevesarak]

I must disagree with you Ambrosius

I don't think so that soldiers had a chance to change their weapons in the middle of a combat.

What would you do?
If two lines rushed each other, and you were pressed up against the enemy with your men pressing up behind you, so tight that you could barely move, and you stood there, staring into the eyes of your enemy, who shouts back insults into your face about your cattle or farm, then starts yelling insults about your cohort, how his seven ugly, bearded sister could whip any of your men, your temper might blow and you might try withdrawing your dagger for those sweet neck shots.

[vilagpolgar]

I must disagree with you Ambrosius

I don't think so that soldiers had a chance to change their weapons in the middle of a combat.

What would you do?
If two lines rushed each other, and you were pressed up against the enemy with your men pressing up behind you, so tight that you could barely move, and you stood there, staring into the eyes of your enemy, who shouts back insults into your face about your cattle or farm, then starts yelling insults about your cohort, how his seven ugly, bearded sister could whip any of your men, your temper might blow and you might try withdrawing your dagger for those sweet neck shots.

Probably I would do what you wrote but I had to drop my sword.
But I imagine a battle in a different way. I think It's more flexible. It happens more than 2 lines rush and push each other until either of them gave up. The first lines cannot stand a fight for hours whilst people press them behind. There would be more dead in the winner's side

[stevesarak]

I must disagree with you Ambrosius

I don't think so that soldiers had a chance to change their weapons in the middle of a combat.

Probably I would do what you wrote but I had to drop my sword.
But I imagine a battle in a different way. I think It's more flexible. It happens more than 2 lines rush and push each other until either of them gave up. The first lines cannot stand a fight for hours whilst people press them behind. There would be more dead in the winner's side

I’m sure there were time that legions, especially during the Republic times, when so many men were called up for only a particular battle, and didn’t have the training nor discipline, that they sometimes experienced what I like to call “the caterpillar effect.â€

[vilagpolgar]

All in all I agree with you.

Just to react:

During one of those time, you might find yourself pressed up against your shield, unable to use your sword, you might be able to looked down to the scabbard, hanging up against your side and slid your sword into it, then while still unable to move your arms much, use the pugio.

Yes, you're right. I could slide my sword into scabbard IF I had enough space.

I’m sure there were rare times that they found themselves without a sword or even with a broken one, you thrust into the enemy, and the soldier next to him, swings at your sword, hitting it on the flat side, the weak side, and snaps it in two.

This situation has happened one of my group members. :wink:

[Tarbicus]

Steve Sarak\\n[quote]especially during the Republic times, when so many men were called up for only a particular battle, and didn’t have the training nor discipline, that they sometimes experienced what I like to call “the caterpillar effect.â€

[stevesarak]

Tarbicus\\n[quote]Steve Sarak\\n[quote]especially during the Republic times, when so many men were called up for only a particular battle, and didn’t have the training nor discipline, that they sometimes experienced what I like to call “the caterpillar effect.â€

[stevesarak]

Steve Sarak\\n[quote]Tarbicus\\n[quote]Steve Sarak\\n[quote]especially during the Republic times, when so many men were called up for only a particular battle, and didn’t have the training nor discipline, that they sometimes experienced what I like to call “the caterpillar effect.â€

[Tarbicus]

Steve, the whole subject of how the legion merged with the enemy is a matter of debate even now, with plenty of theories. There's just as much reason to believe the caterpillar effect was normal - two opposing lines remaining at a safe distance, contact happening when someone or a small group decided to have a go and the rest followed. By no means is it restricted to the Republican army. The whole idea of a solid mass in perfect line smashing into another is a popular one, but questionable for the simple reason a battle line on the charge can't be maintained in good order anyway. Easier with the smaller groups, but as whole the entire army's front line, which could be made up of two or three legions, would be a very broken affair overall. The two sides would fight for a bit then withdraw, almost mutually agreed, is another theory, to regain their breath and rotate troops. There was actually a lot of formality in battle and recognised codes of conduct. The fact that a formal challenge of single combat could be made, and two men would fight to the death between the opposing armies, is an indication of this. Once they were finished it seems nobody from the losing side would interfere with the ritual mutilation and taking of spolia by the victor. There is even a reference in the primary sources to a 'civilised' way of doing battle.

The Republic did have periods without campaigns, but these were the exception not the rule AFAIK.

Sure, the optio was present to keep discipline, but the likelihood is that was as much to stop the ranks chattering (I've seen cited as a policy in battle) as much as to stop them retreating. When the men got their blood up and wanted to get stuck in even Caesar couldn't stop them at times.

As for training as a community, it's believed that the Romans took great pride in their fairly unique skills as swordsmen, where their usual enemies used the spear and such like. I don't see any reason why their duty to provide their own arms would be a case of suddenly rushing out to buy them because campaign season approaches and only then practicing, but they would have acquired them at a certain age and regularly practiced and maintained their skills. A bit like militia and target practice - they had a gun from an early age and they practiced to shoot. Mostly marksmanship for hunting I'm sure, but given the importance and prestige associated with the compulsory military service in the Roman Republic it would be a complete idiot who didn't practice so they could win in battle, and survive to return after the campaign to tend their farms and stock.

The Republic was a seriously martial state, where there was no advancement in public life without at least a bunch of scars to prove you'd risked everything for the state. There were even laws forbidding the removal of spolia from a house's walls, even if the property exchanged hands.

BTW, IIRC swimming as part of training I believe was a later addition.