07-28-2004, 09:50 PM
Ave,<br>
<br>
On to the serious stuff (ie not Hollywood). Most<br>
of what I've gleaned is from modern historians<br>
and experimental archaeologists.<br>
<br>
Marcus Cassius is the Centurion of one of the<br>
two Leg XIIII re-enactment groups in the UK<br>
(the one in St. Albans) and he and his group<br>
also give exhibitions in the US, I believe. Anyhow,<br>
he favours an upright stance, holding the gladius<br>
grip 'overhand'. That is, with the back of the<br>
hand upwards, and the blade horizontal. He says:<br>
"Punch with the sword. Thrust up into the heart.<br>
One stab should be sufficient." Now I'm not sure<br>
how you would punch 'up' into the heart from an<br>
upright stance, as your sword (at shoulder level)<br>
would be roughly parallel to the opponent's heart.<br>
However, a good, hard punch, with the gladius<br>
blade horizontal, would probably push it between<br>
the pairs of ribs easily enough - maybe even<br>
through the sternum - and puncture either the<br>
heart or one of the lungs.<br>
<br>
Mark Corby is an authority on Roman military<br>
history and an ex-British Army officer. He also<br>
favours an upright stance, also holding the gladius<br>
grip overhand, so the blade is horizontal. He says:<br>
"Ideally, the gladius would be thrust right through<br>
the centre of the body, severing the nervous-<br>
system". Obviously, this would make the enemy<br>
drop like a stone, losing control of their legs. But<br>
if the sword cuts the spinal-chord below the level<br>
of the arms (which this would) then you are still<br>
open to a riposte from the fallen enemy, once you<br>
try to step over them. And you would require at<br>
least one further shot to finish them off, anyway.<br>
He goes on: "If, for some reason, you can't hit<br>
the centre of the body, because he's armoured,<br>
or you're not up to taking a shot straight through<br>
the centre, the secondary option would be to go<br>
for the throat or the head." This would be the<br>
better option, I believe, as severing the spinal-<br>
chord at the neck will cause paralysis (as well as<br>
death) and remove any danger of a riposte. And<br>
even if you miss the spinal-chord - by being off<br>
to one side - you'll cut one or other of the two<br>
carotid arteries, with much the same effect.<br>
<br>
John Waller is an expert archer and experimental<br>
archaeologist. As regards a Roman civil war, where<br>
both sides are armoured, he favours going for the<br>
throat or the eyes. Hitting the eyes will mean<br>
the enemy can no longer target you, even if they<br>
can still use a weapon, and a second shot to the<br>
throat would become easier.<br>
<br>
David Sim is a historian, experimental archae-<br>
ologist and blacksmith. He doesn't favour any<br>
particular aiming-point, but he suggests that you<br>
should aim to cause a wound about 4-5 inches<br>
deep, so as to penetrate to a vital organ, without<br>
getting the blade stuck. Compare this to Vegetius<br>
and his claim that a 'two inch deep' wound is<br>
generally fatal. It may well prove so (if you can<br>
wait around for them to bleed to death or die of<br>
shock or infection) but if it's not in a vital area,<br>
you're still going to have to finish them off before<br>
turning your back on them and moving on.<br>
<br>
Peter Connolly; well, he needs no introduction.<br>
He favours a crouching stance, with a 'Western-<br>
grip' (for all you Tennis lovers out there), where<br>
the gladius grip is held so that the blade is aligned<br>
vertically. He, then, would crouch down low and<br>
thrust upwards, pulling the blade upwards, as he<br>
goes. Crouching in that position, and looking-up<br>
at that angle, the tip of the gladius is going to be<br>
in an ideal place to enter just under the rib-cage<br>
and pass up into the heart. And because of the<br>
attitude of the blade, pulling up and backwards<br>
on the recovery-stroke will cause the blade to<br>
slice through the heart (or the major blood-<br>
vessels attached to it). So this technique actually<br>
combines a thrust with a cut. And the blade may<br>
probably do more damage on the way out than it<br>
did on the way in. For those who may not know,<br>
he arrived at this crouching stance because of<br>
the shape of the neck-guard on a legionary helmet.<br>
This suggested to him that the legionary would be<br>
looking upwards from a crouching position when<br>
using his sword. Some may disagree, but that's<br>
where the couching stance comes from.<br>
<br>
It's true that there is a deal of variation in all<br>
these interpretations, some favoring the heart or<br>
the throat. But most seem to acknowledge the<br>
importance of hitting a vital area for a quick kill.<br>
<br>
Vale,<br>
<br>
Ambrosius<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
<br>
On to the serious stuff (ie not Hollywood). Most<br>
of what I've gleaned is from modern historians<br>
and experimental archaeologists.<br>
<br>
Marcus Cassius is the Centurion of one of the<br>
two Leg XIIII re-enactment groups in the UK<br>
(the one in St. Albans) and he and his group<br>
also give exhibitions in the US, I believe. Anyhow,<br>
he favours an upright stance, holding the gladius<br>
grip 'overhand'. That is, with the back of the<br>
hand upwards, and the blade horizontal. He says:<br>
"Punch with the sword. Thrust up into the heart.<br>
One stab should be sufficient." Now I'm not sure<br>
how you would punch 'up' into the heart from an<br>
upright stance, as your sword (at shoulder level)<br>
would be roughly parallel to the opponent's heart.<br>
However, a good, hard punch, with the gladius<br>
blade horizontal, would probably push it between<br>
the pairs of ribs easily enough - maybe even<br>
through the sternum - and puncture either the<br>
heart or one of the lungs.<br>
<br>
Mark Corby is an authority on Roman military<br>
history and an ex-British Army officer. He also<br>
favours an upright stance, also holding the gladius<br>
grip overhand, so the blade is horizontal. He says:<br>
"Ideally, the gladius would be thrust right through<br>
the centre of the body, severing the nervous-<br>
system". Obviously, this would make the enemy<br>
drop like a stone, losing control of their legs. But<br>
if the sword cuts the spinal-chord below the level<br>
of the arms (which this would) then you are still<br>
open to a riposte from the fallen enemy, once you<br>
try to step over them. And you would require at<br>
least one further shot to finish them off, anyway.<br>
He goes on: "If, for some reason, you can't hit<br>
the centre of the body, because he's armoured,<br>
or you're not up to taking a shot straight through<br>
the centre, the secondary option would be to go<br>
for the throat or the head." This would be the<br>
better option, I believe, as severing the spinal-<br>
chord at the neck will cause paralysis (as well as<br>
death) and remove any danger of a riposte. And<br>
even if you miss the spinal-chord - by being off<br>
to one side - you'll cut one or other of the two<br>
carotid arteries, with much the same effect.<br>
<br>
John Waller is an expert archer and experimental<br>
archaeologist. As regards a Roman civil war, where<br>
both sides are armoured, he favours going for the<br>
throat or the eyes. Hitting the eyes will mean<br>
the enemy can no longer target you, even if they<br>
can still use a weapon, and a second shot to the<br>
throat would become easier.<br>
<br>
David Sim is a historian, experimental archae-<br>
ologist and blacksmith. He doesn't favour any<br>
particular aiming-point, but he suggests that you<br>
should aim to cause a wound about 4-5 inches<br>
deep, so as to penetrate to a vital organ, without<br>
getting the blade stuck. Compare this to Vegetius<br>
and his claim that a 'two inch deep' wound is<br>
generally fatal. It may well prove so (if you can<br>
wait around for them to bleed to death or die of<br>
shock or infection) but if it's not in a vital area,<br>
you're still going to have to finish them off before<br>
turning your back on them and moving on.<br>
<br>
Peter Connolly; well, he needs no introduction.<br>
He favours a crouching stance, with a 'Western-<br>
grip' (for all you Tennis lovers out there), where<br>
the gladius grip is held so that the blade is aligned<br>
vertically. He, then, would crouch down low and<br>
thrust upwards, pulling the blade upwards, as he<br>
goes. Crouching in that position, and looking-up<br>
at that angle, the tip of the gladius is going to be<br>
in an ideal place to enter just under the rib-cage<br>
and pass up into the heart. And because of the<br>
attitude of the blade, pulling up and backwards<br>
on the recovery-stroke will cause the blade to<br>
slice through the heart (or the major blood-<br>
vessels attached to it). So this technique actually<br>
combines a thrust with a cut. And the blade may<br>
probably do more damage on the way out than it<br>
did on the way in. For those who may not know,<br>
he arrived at this crouching stance because of<br>
the shape of the neck-guard on a legionary helmet.<br>
This suggested to him that the legionary would be<br>
looking upwards from a crouching position when<br>
using his sword. Some may disagree, but that's<br>
where the couching stance comes from.<br>
<br>
It's true that there is a deal of variation in all<br>
these interpretations, some favoring the heart or<br>
the throat. But most seem to acknowledge the<br>
importance of hitting a vital area for a quick kill.<br>
<br>
Vale,<br>
<br>
Ambrosius<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
"Feel the fire in your bones."
