Roman swords vs Greek swords

[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.