Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated?

[Matthew Amt]

If the legionary does get close then the risk of his fumbling as a secondary weapon is pulled out means that his opponent is at a severe disadvantage.

Sorry, do you mean if the legionary is fumbling, or if his opponent is? Either way, if you still have a big shield in front of you, why should not having a weapon in your other hand put you in immediate mortal danger? In any case, we've always found that drawing the gladius after throwing the pilum is very quick and easy, and it would be more so (and more consistent!) for a trained man.

Either the spear is a major advantage before that point or it isn't.

Eh? Why does it have to be so black and white? And why a *major* advantage? I think part of the problem in this discussion is the assumption that weaponry development over the centuries is perceived as continuous *improvement*, rather than simply as changes. Battlefield advantages of one weapon over another would depend on any number of very subtle variables, including training, morale, exhaustion, terrain, weather, mood, etc., even before you get into actual weapon quality.

Technical historical questions like this one are not like wargames, with everything slotting neatly into armor classes and attack factors. There are a lot of unknowns and a lot of gray area, and we simply cannot give solid answers to certain situations. The generally accepted method is to look at the evidence and draw conclusions from that--and as far as the initial post is concerned, the archeological, literary, and pictoral evidence all agree that legionaries in the early Empire were pretty effective in combat with short swords and large shields. To deny that without some basis in historical evidence just seems odd to me. And I don't think medieval evidence is a lot of help, aside from a few comparisons.

Valete,

Matthew