01-19-2014, 05:34 AM
Fernando Quesada Sanz has a very good article, in which he notes that the distinctive Roman way of fighting was perhaps quite common in the Western Mediterranean; in particular Iberians in Spain are using the basic combo of javelins, swords and large shields. The paper is available on Academia.edu
https://www.academia.edu/727113/_Not_so_...an_armies_
The emphasis on the Roman sword has also been challenged, most notably by Alexander Zhmodikov "Roman Republican Infantry in Battle", which is available on JSTOR, although I think the response by Everett Wheeler makes some good critiques, mainly that it is hard to see javelins as the primary weapon when everyone only gets two 'bullets' ("Firepower," Missile Weapons and the "Face of Battle" Electrum 5, not always easy to find).
That being said, there does seem to be something moderately unique about Rome's emphasis on swordplay; Greeks and Macedonians treat the short sword as a weapon of last resort, where as for the Roman it is the primary offensive weapon, at least once the very limited supply of ammunition (pila) have been used up. (Yes, enemy javelins could be re-thrown in some cases, but this will only extend things so far).
At least some of the answers you suggest can probably be dismissed. Swords aren't particularly cost effective, because it takes more iron to make one sword as any number of spearheads. This is while early iron age hoards from Scandinavia show about on sword for every five or so spears. Italy as some iron, especially Etruria, but isn't swimming in it the way, say, Spain and Gaul are (both places with sword culture!). Also the Roman swords from the Smihil hoard, when subjected to metallurgical analysis, were in fact quite poorly made. These admittedly may not the representative, but if they are, they suggest Roman swords were not nearly as high quality as say Polybius suggests they are (similarly, underwater archaeology at the Egadi islands is revealing that Roman warships were not nearly as big as Polybius says they are).
Having the sword as a primary weapons does give a Roman soldier one edge: when the enemy is in retreat, it makes him much more effective at chasing down and massacring the survivors. (Its hard to chase down fleeing enemy when you still have to haul around your massive sarissa). They may explain why the Romans do seem to inflict such catastrophic casualties on defeated enemies.
https://www.academia.edu/727113/_Not_so_...an_armies_
The emphasis on the Roman sword has also been challenged, most notably by Alexander Zhmodikov "Roman Republican Infantry in Battle", which is available on JSTOR, although I think the response by Everett Wheeler makes some good critiques, mainly that it is hard to see javelins as the primary weapon when everyone only gets two 'bullets' ("Firepower," Missile Weapons and the "Face of Battle" Electrum 5, not always easy to find).
That being said, there does seem to be something moderately unique about Rome's emphasis on swordplay; Greeks and Macedonians treat the short sword as a weapon of last resort, where as for the Roman it is the primary offensive weapon, at least once the very limited supply of ammunition (pila) have been used up. (Yes, enemy javelins could be re-thrown in some cases, but this will only extend things so far).
At least some of the answers you suggest can probably be dismissed. Swords aren't particularly cost effective, because it takes more iron to make one sword as any number of spearheads. This is while early iron age hoards from Scandinavia show about on sword for every five or so spears. Italy as some iron, especially Etruria, but isn't swimming in it the way, say, Spain and Gaul are (both places with sword culture!). Also the Roman swords from the Smihil hoard, when subjected to metallurgical analysis, were in fact quite poorly made. These admittedly may not the representative, but if they are, they suggest Roman swords were not nearly as high quality as say Polybius suggests they are (similarly, underwater archaeology at the Egadi islands is revealing that Roman warships were not nearly as big as Polybius says they are).
Having the sword as a primary weapons does give a Roman soldier one edge: when the enemy is in retreat, it makes him much more effective at chasing down and massacring the survivors. (Its hard to chase down fleeing enemy when you still have to haul around your massive sarissa). They may explain why the Romans do seem to inflict such catastrophic casualties on defeated enemies.
