I recently read a discussion on a history forum where a participant stated that Severus officially allowed soldiers to wear swords on the left as a mark of status. I can't remember any such decree and have been rereading Dio and Herodian without luck. AFAIK swords began being worn on the left in the late 2nd C generally. Wasn't the Lyons sword found on the left hand side?
Here is the text of the discussion: Severus made several changes in the Roman Army in general. One change that would seem subtle to us but was undoubtedly a big deal at the time, was that he allowed the common miles, or private soldier, to wear his sword on the left side of his body. Originally, Roman (as well as Celtic, Punic, Germanic, etc.) soldiers had worn their swords on the right side of the body so that when they drew it in a tight formation, they wouldn't risk cutting the unshielded right arm of the man standing next to them. By the First Century BC, however, it had come to be a symbol of status - only centurions and other officers were allowed to wear their sword on the left side, allowing for a more convenient draw. In 193 AD, however, Severus ended this practice and allowed soldiers of all ranks to wear their sword on the left.
Auxiliary soldiers depicted on the Adamklissi metopes are shown wearing their swords on the left. Even earlier, Josephus, writing on the Jewish War in the AD60s talks of Roman soldiers wearing two swords, the long worn on the left. This would appear to mean that the sword was on the left and the dagger on the right.
Crispvs
I doubt if the Roman army was as monolithic as that (although I know I am opening a can of worms here). I suspect the sword worn on the left was an oriental fashion (not only shown in Adamklissi but also in Hatra, Palmyra and Dura Europos) that gradually moved into the west.
Thank you Crispus for alerting us to this evidence in Josephus.
I know that Crispvs is correct as far as what Josephus has to say about it however was Josephus taking it from his point of view of sight at what he was looking straight at, or is it indeed correct that in the pre or early Flaviian period soldiers had the sword on the left ??
I suppose the shifting of the sword would be logical the moment fighting tactics were to change. The introduction of the spatha for infantry could be a clear sight of that, could it not?
Yet there are a few grave stele showing the spatha of cavalrymen on the right.....?
I was not really refering to the length, I can draw a 1 st century spatha right as well, but in the presumed change of fighting style where cutting the fellow next to you would not be an issue. Now, I do not see how that would be done, as the shield of the person drawing the sword would shield him. And if you were that clumsy, you would have sliced your own left arm holding the shield long before you got the person on your left ..... :dizzy:
The late Roman swords/spatha are a bit longer then the first century ones, at 80 cm blade.
Yes, I am assuming too that the switch from right to left occurred as the new fighting style 'percolated' through the legions (oval shield and spatha). I doubt that such a set of kit and the fighting style became official regulation, but occurred as need arose and units were influenced by those they came into contact with.
In fact I suspect the growing use of mobile vexillations in the late 2nd and 3rd C was responsible for the spread of the new fighting style as well as what turned out to be a very 'uniform' appearance (tunics, brooches, sword and belt fittings etc).
Ha, I've never noticed that before. It's certainly not cut and dried, then.
The practise of wearing the sword on the right side is not because the sword on the left would wound the soldier next to the sword drawer, but because the sword could have got stuck into the shield when the shield is kept in front of the body all the time in close battle formation. I know that it's easier to draw the sword from the left side than from the right, but especially short swords are not difficult to draw from right side too, and that prevents effectively the sword from hitting your own shield. Semi-circular scutum covers the soldiers body very well, and when kept near the body, it becomes more difficult to draw the sword from the left than from the right.
For your information I have not read this anywhere, since I haven't found any info of why the gladius was hung on the right, instead I've come to this conclusion myself after experimenting the sword draw from both sides, and with a scutum.
Probably the placement of the scabbard changed about the same time with the shields. When soldiers didn't use semi-circular scuta anymore, there were no need of keeping the sword on the right side, and when the short gladius got replaced by longer spatha, it was easier to draw from the left. Even though it's perfectly possible to draw longer swords from right too, it becomes more and more difficult the longer the sword gets, while on the left side the swords length doesn't matter as much.
Roman officers from centuriones up used their swords on the right side, as a mark of status, and they didn't have to fight in close formations either (the centurio being an exception, since they lead soldiers into charge themselves being on the front line), so they didn't have a need to carry the sword on the right.
Which I don't know is why celts used their swords on the right side, since they had sometimes very long swords, which are quite difficult to draw from right, and they didn't use semi-circular shields and didn't fight in such close formations as Romans.
Quote:Which I don't know is why celts used their swords on the right side, since they had sometimes very long swords, which are quite difficult to draw from right, and they didn't use semi-circular shields and didn't fight in such close formations as Romans.
Potentially for display? With the sword on the right side and shield in the left hand you can see the extensively decorated scabbards. On the left the shield would hide it from view.
Also keep in mind that Celtic swords were no longer than the Hispaniensis until very late on.
I agree that a sword on the left could hinder your defensive movements when in close-order fighting because that's where you are pushing agains your scutum.
But I could add that Severus possibly also added the longer hasta to the regular weapons, because we hear of soldier complaining around that time that their spear (I presume the pilum) are not long enoug to reach their (cavalry) enemy. This meant that the soldier now had a new sidearm, which developed into the main weapon during the 3rd century. Carrying a (long) spear in your right hand all the time could also mean (I think) that a scabbard on that side would be in the way of this spear. The Pilum was throw away at some point, meanung that the gladius was the main sidearm before the 3rd (or at least 4th) century, but with the new scutum we also we the long spear as the main weapon in battle.
Speculation of course, but I think that this may also have been a reason to move the spatha to the left side.
Good points, Robert, never thought about the hasta and it's role in relation to the assumed gladius /spatha change!