Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated?

[rrgg]

As others have said, just ask the millions of people who lived in the Roman Empire, ha!

Unfortunately, their opinion seems to conflict with the millions of people who came before and after them, even later Romans.
Compared ancient and medieval armies the Romans tend to stick out like a sore thumb. No one else seems to have used the short sword and shield nearly as much as the Romans, in fact, almost no one else seems to have used swords much as all, throughout the middle ages swords in the infantry would be worn primarily as sidearms as soldiers preferred to rely on spears or polearms.

Except that with the large shields they typically carried, such a charge is not an impossible way to defeat a Roman army quickly. Roll over them like a human tidal wave! We know it worked against the Romans more than once. It was also "standard procedure" for a number of non-Roman cultures, encouraging and taking advantage of their innate aggression, size, and need to show courage. And it would be hard for such cultures to make a radical change of tactics when suddenly confronted by Romans.

Not all barbarians are going to react the same way, the fact is that most are afraid of death and will try to keep their distance from a dangerous foe. This would also be true of many Roman soldiers.

As has been noted, the Romans were charging, too! One more step would bring them right to where they wanted to be. And stopping a charging army just short of contact would have been nearly impossible. Deliberately swinging an axe at a shield may not be the safest move, since it could easily stick there long enough for the Roman to gut the wielder like a fish.

That would depend largely on the shield's construction, a solid wooden shield might split and get a weapon stuck if hit in the right way and if it's made without a rim, but such a shield was generally poor as preventing penetration from arrows and other weapons. A composite shield (like the kind generally used) on the other hand made of a thin wooden backing and covered with thick leather and rawhide probably wouldn't be cut at all, instead the impact might break just the wood leaving the shield together but sort of floppy.

In either case the shield doesn't protect everything, a roman is still at risk of being speared in the unarmored face or legs.

I believe he actually says that there is 3 feet of space allowed for each man, meaning they are reasonably close together with only small gaps between shields, but enough elbow room to fight effectively. It's also easy for a man to slip back out of line between his buddies if he is wounded or exhausted. Remember that barbarians with spears and longer swords would need just as much elbow room to fight, if not more. The advantage of the gladius is that it can still be used very effectively if the Romans get packed more tightly in combat, whereas longer weapons become much harder to use properly in a bad crush. So you aren't going to get too much of the problem of barbarians "slipping into the cracks" any more than a Roman could do the same thing.

Caesar describes the gauls as fighting in sort of a phalanx tight enough together that their shields overlapped.
Part of the issue isn't so much enemies slipping into the cracks of the formation. As it is that each Roman is going to be facing off against multiple enemies at the same time, what is he going to do if one thrusts at his face and the other at his legs?

Actually, the Imperial gladius was *shorter* than the earlier hoplite swords, and shorter than the gladius hispaniensis used by the Romans between the Punic Wars and the first century BC. (Heck, even a couple types of bronze sword are longer!) So as the army became more professional and disciplined, the blade was deliberately shortened. And it stayed that way for a good 300 years or more, while at the same time longer swords were used by Roman cavalry and barbarian infantry, so all we can conclude is that it worked for them!

I suppose that it was the earlier gladius that got compared to the swords of hoplites.
The imperial Gladius appeared to have worked, although it is also apparent that it was quickly losing favor to longer swords by 200 AD. Why it was shortened isn't completely clear, perhaps it had something to do with the Marian reforms and the switch to state provided equipment rather than weapons the soldiers supplied themselves.