Roman swords vs Greek swords

[joeandmich]

I read some where that there was a battle where the Romans devastated the Greeks because of their swords. The article mentioned that the Greeks were appalled by the hacking of limbs by these Romans. Was this because of sword design or Roman techniques,

Thanks,

Joe

[Macedon]

Most scholars use ths exact quote as a proof of the superiority of the gladius to Greek swords. To me, and this is my own personal opinion, it has nothing to do with any comparison between swords, technology or combat techniques.

Greeks were not used to seeing wounds inflicted by swords en mass, because they fought with spears (sarissae here, but there is no real difference for my argument). Spears kill but their wounds are narrow cuts from the stabbing. You certaily cannot cut off arms or heads with a spear, can you?

On the other hand, one should keep in mind, that this was also NOT the typical usage of the Roman swordsmen either. The Roman sword was also supposed to thrust and not cut. So, technique AND quality to me are not advertised here, since the Roman sword would have been made as a predominantly stabbing weapon and their technique did not usually involve cuts.

Yet, we all agree that by far the most casualties would have been made during the pursuit, where there was no reason not to cut if Romans wanted to. Why did they? There are numerous accounts about how after the battle, the victor would badly maim the enemy dead, so as to inspire fear to the foe.

This is what in my opinion this was all about. In conclusion, the Roman sword was made to thrust (although it could cut, it was not optimized to do that as for example was the falca or the kopis). The Roman combat technique relied on thrusts and shunned cuts. So, what happened was a well calculated act of terror.

[M. Caecilius]

As regards the idea that the Romans did not slash, but relied on thrusts, I wonder whether that's not a rather late idea for the period in question. It does come up with in imperial times, but Polybius (18.30.5), who had seen the Roman army of the pre-Marian reforms in action, is quite clear that the Roman soldier" uses his sword both for cutting and thrusting [so that] it is obvious that a looser order is required".

This does not say anything about the comparative effectiveness of Roman and Greek swords, just that the Greeks did not rely on them, as Macedon (and Livy, in the passage you refer to) explains. Polybius does mention the Spanish Sword in his famous passage on the Roman army (6.6), but the kopis and the falcata were likely just as effective; the Greeks simply do not seem to have relied on them very much and preferred to fight in close phalanx order.

In so far, I would venture to say that the Roman sword cut is more terrifying and demoralising than the Greek spear thrust, but you end up just as dead.

It would be interesting to analyse that quote in depth, though. It's Livy, 31.34:

First, the victims are cavalry-men (equitum). Unless they maneuvered themselves in a really tight spot, I can't see them being caught up by the infantry, so the killers likely were cavalry too, unless the unfortunates were caught in camp (but the Romans allegedly don't do night attacks) or were forced to dismount, or caught with a city wall, river, cliff or other obstacle at their back - but that's speculation. Cavalry is frequently used for pursuit, which, as Macedon suggests, would be much more wild than the cut-advance-cut routine of the infantry.

Second, these men were killed in a raid (ceciderant in expeditione). Not a regular battle, but a skirmish. I don't think the Latin allows us to say who raided whom, but the action seems to have been of rather small importance on a strategic level. Again a reason why the Romans might resort to less disciplined fighting methods than their instruction not to waste energy with blows when a thrust will do would have told them (ignoring Polybius and the possibly much later nature of such instructions).

Like Polybius, Livy does mention the gladius Hispaniensis. But as far as I am aware, there is still some confusion as to what that actually meant in the days of the First Macedonian War; so far as I know, the earliest finds tend to be later, though I would be glad to be corrected.

You could compare the gory bits of Livy's story with a skull from Maiden Castle, more than two centuries later. The skull has its face (now mssing) sheared off with a single stroke of a blade. Not a thrust, but a blow, the line passing from the top/back of the head more or less diagonally through to the chin, which must have made it an impressive and terrifying sight to anyone around to see it, but again, we don't know who killed this man (auxiliary, legionary, cavalryman...), though, without any training in forensics, it seems to me possible the blow came from above and behind and could have been carried out by a cavalryman running down fleeing enemies.

Finally, it could be, as Macedon suggests, a desecration of corpses (which could entail the enemy remained wounded in the afterlife); if so, lucky for Philip he could even recover the corpses; but unless the Romans really wanted to make a point (as they do after some sieges), it sounds a bit too much of an effort in what is essentially a minor skirmish. I personally don't think they could have foreseen Philip was going to show the corpses around and panic his own army.

So, in short, I'd go with victorious Roman cavalry chasing down routing Macedonians, with the Romans throwing aside the caution of relying on thrusts in the euphoria of victory.

As regards the original question, I don't think that it would have much to do with sword design; it's simply that the Macedonians seem to have relied rather less on chasing the enemy down after a fight; they appear to have been quite satisfied if the enemy acknowledged defeat and left it at that. After all, the phalanx of Philip V does try to surrender and expects the Romans to get the message. Which, of course, they don't get or don't want to get. So it's not the actual weapon, but the Roman readiness to use it to the extreme that frightens the Macedonians, and it's that fright, rather than the weapon itself, which contributes to the ultimate defeat at Cynoscephalae (in Livy's view, at least). The Roman ideal is closer to "no quarter asked and none given", which seems to have been a bit radical for many of their contemporaries.

[Macedon]

I actually go with Polybius' understanding of 3rd century Roman warfare, I personally completely distrust Livy on that era, I think he is too tied to his own time...

Polybius writes in his Historiae 2.33, when he compares the Gaulish swordsmanship to this of the Romans :

"The Romans, on the contrary, having excellent points to their swords, used them not to cut but to thrust: and by thus repeatedly hitting the breasts and faces of the enemy, they eventually killed the greater number of them."

Indeed he also later writes in 3.114:

"For that of the Roman can thrust with as deadly effects as it can cut, while the Gallic sword can only cut, and that requires some room."

The first quote is very straightforward, the second one not that much. The Roman sword could also cut, but according to quote 1 it was common to fight with thrusts. The comment about the room necessary for cuts, it is directly meant for the Gauls and does not imply that the Romans fought so (the Greek text is much more revealing :
"τῆς μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἔλαττον τὸ κέντημα τῆς καταφορᾶς ἴσχυε πρὸς τὸ βλάπτειν, ἡ δὲ Γαλατικὴ μάχαιρα μίαν εἶχε χρείαν τὴν ἐκ καταφορᾶς, καὶ ταύτην ἐξ ἀποστάσεως.". It does not even talk about cutting combat in general. It explicitely is directed at cutting combat as employed by the Gauls.).

All this, of course, has nothing to do with whether the gladius was an average or superior sword regarding cuts nor do I discuss densities of order etc. I am just pointing out how Polybius saw and described Roman swordsmanship in the 3rd century BC. A good objection here could be that these quotes are about an era before the adoption of the "gladius hispaniensis" (wasn't that introduced after Scipio's Iberian campaign?), but I would answer that in both instances Polybius is sure to make understood that (even if he is wrong) what he describes is contemporary swordsmanship, so he might also have been wrong about Roman swordsmanship before and during the second Punic War in his account before the introduction of the gh.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I think if you read the sources, the 'preferred' method was to stab, but if there was no open target, then the slash was used to hamstring the opponent.
The edges of a gladius were not dull.

[hoplite14gr]

Experienced fighters prefer thrusts but in combat you simply choose what is dictated by the situation at hand.

Kind regards

[Macedon]

I think if you read the sources, the 'preferred' method was to stab, but if there was no open target, then the slash was used to hamstring the opponent.
The edges of a gladius were not dull.

Of course, gladii were also made to cut according to Polybius and this was so for a reason. What do you mean by "no open target"? I guess that a hamstring slash would be directed against a fleeing opponent? I also expect slashes to be used in cavalry fights and of course, as Stefanos suggests whenever such an attempt looks like a really good idea. I expect though that really skilled opponents would also have tricks on their sleeves in order to lure an enemy into attempting a slash and thus expose himself.

In my opinion, dissuading slashes was a precautionary measure to keep maximum protection rather than inflicting more damage to the enemy, since thrusting kept the arm unexposed. It has to do with the difference between armies who thrive in keeping ranks and files and try to minimize the possibility that this order would be disturbed and those who base their tactics on personal strength and valor and therefore adopt more "maneuverable", single combat forwarding tactics. The Romans could actually do both, being very defensive when fighting in pitched battle and reverting to a more murdering style when skirmishing or pursuing. Let us not forget that a Roman legionary would be very effective also as a "skirmishing" soldier, when he would be understandably, in single combat, using slashes, thrusts, kicks and bites. The Roman legionary was an excellent all around fighter (as he is often advertized in all sources) and so his training would entail how to react and act in diverse situations. I am sure that they would be drilled both in how to act when within the line and without and that their weapon of choice should reflect that very principal.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

No, if the opponent is coverd by his shield, and not giving you a target to stab, then
you go low and cut the tendons on the back of his legs.

[Macedon]

No, if the opponent is coverd by his shield, and not giving you a target to stab, then
you go low and cut the tendons on the back of his legs.

You mean by kneeling down and then try to put your hand and sword around his leg keeping your shield above your head? Or do you keep your shield perpendicular to the ground? Sounds interesting. Isn't it dangerous? Doesn't it make you vulnerable too? I guess you have reenacted such a hit. Is something like that advocated by sources or reliefs?

[john roberts]

It's gladiatorial rather than legionary, but on the Zliten mosaic is depicted just such a cut. The big-shield murmillo has incautiously advanced his right leg past his left and the small-shield Thracian is delivering a cut to the side or back of his right thigh, which bleeds profusely. Granted the sica was a cutting weapon but the same stroke could be delivered with a gladius.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Not sure where my previous reply went, but yes,
I have reenacted such a hit.
You are agressively engaging your opponent.
You take the shot when the opportunity arises.
Also the groin, but thats back to a stab! :twisted:
That is why you need to understand when to pull a shot and not be
enfatuated by looking realistic....Your opponent will know when he has had a lucky escape... :lol:

[M. Caecilius]

I actually go with Polybius' understanding of 3rd century Roman warfare, I personally completely distrust Livy on that era, I think he is too tied to his own time...

I agree on being careful about Livy. He does not seem to have had much first-hand experience of warfare as Polybius did, nor does he really live up to the latter's standards of research. It's a pity that it is difficult to discover what Livy's source for the ill-fated state burial of Philip's troops was, though we may perhaps assume Polybius?

What regards Polybius 2.33, it is indeed straightforward, but seems at odds with 31.34 quoted above. Unless, that is, it shows the versatility of the Roman soldier.

3.114 presents the Gauls as needing a lot of space to wield their longswords, but 31.34 also concedes that the Romans need more space than the phalanx (though probably less than the Gauls), partly because of the active use of the shield, partly because the legionaries do not appear to have been competely averse to hacking with his sword.

As 31.34 occurs in a reflection on the comparative advantages of the manipular legion and the phalanx (in the context of Cynoscephalae, but possibly with the later battles in mind), we can assume the Gladius Hispaniensis and Polybius own experience, which seems to have involved Romans using their swords for both cut and thrust. So the conclusion I'd draw is that the Romans stabbed as a rule, but could slash; the Gauls were unable to stab and the phalanx was unable to hack. As Stefanos says, thrusting is usually preferred - it's faster, less predictable, penetrates deeper, leaves the fighter less open to a counter and less unbalanced, and doesn't announce itself as a raised arm does; and as George says, it doesn't expose the arm - but unlike the Gauls and the phalanx they were not restricted to either form of combat. As George says, "the legionary was an excellent all around fighter".

I also expect slashes to be used in cavalry fights

That's really what I expect was the origin of Livy's little tale (and of the Maiden Castle skull); the same goes for the "skirmishing" role of the legionary, as Livy, provided he understood his source correctly, speaks of a minor event in the Second Macedonian War.

Sounds interesting. Isn't it dangerous? Doesn't it make you vulnerable too? I guess you have reenacted such a hit.

That's a question I'd also like to see answered.

As regards the Zliten mosaic, the Thraex seems to be rather exposed, even though he has apparently blocked the high blow from his murmillo adversary if I interpret the mosaic correctly. It'd be interesting to see this move re-enacted.

I have reenacted such a hit.
You are agressively engaging your opponent.
You take the shot when the opportunity arises.

Don't you give your opponent an opportunity to take a shot of his own? Or is that a risk you'd be willing to take in order to get your hit in and take him out of combat? Or does it actually expose you less than it sounds?

Edit 15/12/2011 at 21:18 MET: Corrected a quote which, due to wrong editing on my part, was wrongly attributed to Byron instead of George. My apologies.

[Macedon]

I agree Max. Still, I am not sure how easy it would have been to use swords during a cavalry skirmish where all horsemen would have used javelins, even though they would also of course carry swords too. For such wounds to have been inflicted I would expect either a terrible unconventionally packed melee cavalry action or the Romans hacking at fleeing Macedonians who had fallen off their horses. Infanry skirmishing action on rough ground with one side trying to keep their ground... an attack against fortifications... Now there is where I would expect to see such single combat action and probably such wounds.

My question to Byron would be : Have you reenacted that in battle order or in single combat? Do you think it would be a practical tactic to use in a battle-line where each man would be supported by the weapon and shield of his parastatae? Do you think it would be practical to use in close order (both yours and your enemy's)?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, because your comrades will (should) be keeping their opposites engaged too.
Battle is a risky business. But it is not for fool hardy bravado, it is
very acceptable, as stated in Polybius.
Keeping your opponent on the back foot, is how i envisiage the description
of the enemy keeping the face and body target covered.
'The enemy falls screaming and biting his shield....' sounds like it worked for them.

[Darth_Roach]

The Spanish sword was multi-purpose, wasn't it?