The Sword vs. the Spear

[Mark Hygate]

Thanks Shaun,

Firstly I'll also note that I am just as content that a cut can be achieved on the forward stroke as well, especially if the point of the sword 'misses' for any reason.

Yes, the Roman writers use emotive words just like we do - the idea is to entertain; fighting in the battle line is not 'fun'.

Livy's description is for cavalry with longer swords, cutting and indeed slashing whilst mounted and leaning forwards and down (or back) and is a different mode of fighting (as I alluded to above).

I agree with Vegetius completely - as I interpret his 'cutting' as the arm-moving slashing style. Moving around the pell is completely reasonable when training on your own, for it is the only way to learn to maintain balance.

Polybius is the issue, and is why I question him on this and still do not believe he gives an accurate and reasonable answer (Fragment Bk 18).

And the gladiatorial element is exactly where I'm coming from! The training and fighting-style of gladiators, where the idea is absolutely intended to be flamboyant and entertain - is nothing like fighting in the battle-line.

I am sure I am not alone in this particular forum with others who watch historical (fictionalised) films and TV shows and who vociferously criticise because we know and think about such stuff. I also know that I could make things so much better if I could work with the stunt guys, extras and directors to make it 'so much better and more accurate'.

But who would want to sit through a 6 hour movie, where a lot of it is waiting and moving around to deploy into position, where the battle-lines push and shove for absolutely ages, and the Romans spend 95% of their time behind their shields with only moments of thrusting and cutting/slicing that can be barely seen; where hardly anyone dies on the battlefield initially, but are un-ceremoniously dispatched by rear-rankers as they are trampled over; that after a break-through is achieved and the enemy line is broken, most of them throw away their arms and run (with no heroic last stands); and then the cavalry are left to run around and mop up until darkness....

That's not 'exciting' - and I completely understand why people wouldn't be entertained!

Do I think there might be a middle ground, yes, but it would require a decent story and good acting and a great dialogue to pull off - and those things are often very lacking in the 'action' arena.

Writers (including the ancients) mostly write to entertain and sometimes educate (but only if they are read); battles are condensed, boring stuff is dispensed with, detail is missing.....

To give a parallel example of exactly where I'm thinking from - look no further than iai-jutsu; possibly the pinnacle of the samurai sword techniques; or even the American Wild West gun-slinger. Almost instantaneous draw and just as fast death. It's not entertaining, it's over too fast to be that - you have to embellish a whole other 'thing' around it.

Our Roman writers want to be read and they have to make it interesting to the readers.

[Dan D'Silva]

... and the Romans spend 95% of their time behind their shields with only moments of thrusting and cutting/slicing that can be barely seen; ... that after a break-through is achieved and the enemy line is broken, most of them throw away their arms and run (with no heroic last stands); and then the cavalry are left to run around and mop up until darkness....

It may not be "heroic" and get you cheering like a sporting event, but if you condensed it (and really, any movie that's not real-time is already condensed) it sounds to me like it would be very chilling. Especially the bit about attacks that can be barely seen. What was the phrase... shaken, not stirred... ?

[Mark Hygate]

... and the Romans spend 95% of their time behind their shields with only moments of thrusting and cutting/slicing that can be barely seen; ... that after a break-through is achieved and the enemy line is broken, most of them throw away their arms and run (with no heroic last stands); and then the cavalry are left to run around and mop up until darkness....

It may not be "heroic" and get you cheering like a sporting event, but if you condensed it (and really, any movie that's not real-time is already condensed) it sounds to me like it would be very chilling. Especially the bit about attacks that can be barely seen. What was the phrase... shaken, not stirred... ?

Dan,

And I would hope you would be right - handled well I think it could be, but it may be a hard sell. It would be great to see some 'realism' (or at least things we could accept more easily), but that seems not to be a concern of the entertainment industry and they seem not to ask. :|

[Bryan]

Mark wrote:

Moving around the pell is completely reasonable when training on your own, for it is the only way to learn to maintain balance.

In numerous western codified martial arts, the use of a pell or similar device is not to learn just balance (by that I am guessing you mean foot work) but to learn "...proper striking technique, including power, energy focus, accuracy, and range. In the same way that boxers use the heavy bag and Eastern Martial Arts practitioners use striking targets to train, ancient Roman and Medieval European swordsmen used the pell."
The Pell

And the gladiatorial element is exactly where I'm coming from! The training and fighting-style of gladiators, where the idea is absolutely intended to be flamboyant and entertain - is nothing like fighting in the battle-line.

The individual sword training methods that the Romans became famous for, later generalized by Vegetius and others, were the result of a unprecedented military reform instituted by Publius Rutilius Rufus, Consul in 105 BCE, when he used gladiatorial trainers (lannista) to train his legions in advanced fighting techniques. (Val. Max., Memorable Deeds and Sayings, 2.3.2)
This same highly trained army was later chosen by Marius to be used in the Cimbric War, as it was more disciplined than any other.
(Frontinus Stratagems, 4.2.2).

The methods taught by the above-mentioned lannistas was probably a bit more complicated than:
"Okay men, in today's lessons, we will hide behind our shield 95% of time and stab around it occasionally or draw cut. Remember, when slicing or cutting it should be like you're cutting steak, not chopping a limb from a tree, which can be as quick as a stab. Good. After this, we will learn how to push and shove with our shields, for ages, ensuring we are constantly in the danger zone, within knife fighting range of our enemies, who they themselves are armed with shield and swords."

[Creon01]

This is one of the most interesting discussions I've followed on RAT.

Can anyone tell me specifically which "advanced fighting techniques" the Romans were introduced to?

[Bryan]

I've spent the last year trying to figure this out. It seems that the advanced fighting methods are either unknown or just uncertain, as in no two historians or scholars can seem to actually agree on how the Romans, or Greeks for that matter, actually fought in battle. This refers to the collective fighting styles and tactics used and at the individual level.

Some believe Romans fighting was nothing more than a Roman blocking a wild sword slash with his shield and then stabbing with his sword, killing his opponent, and then moving on to the next. Like an assembly line of death. To myself and others, this method is far too generalized and simplified for a warrior culture that were the Romans, fighting against nothing but other warrior cultures, like the Lusitanians, Celtibernians, and Gauls, who also had sword and shield fighting cultures. As people who have been trained in any real martial art designed for actual fighting knows, to be proficient takes years of practice and training (10,000 hour rule), hence the reason veteran units were esteemed. Novices only win fighting tournaments in movies like the Karate Kid. In real life, they get their butts kicked because they don't know what they're doing.

Some of the methods the Romans used to learn to master sword and shield fighting:

- Sparring: As mentioned by Livy I believe, Scipio Aemilanus' training plan called for a day spent sparring with wooden swords wrapped in leather with buttons on the points, to prevent injury. This would have been around the middle of the 2nd century BCE. Would have been one of the best ways to judge technique and build confidence in form.

- Mock Battles: Mentioned in relation to Scipio Africanus' training plan for his Spanish armies during the Punic War, as well as later periods. I doubt mock battles did much for the individual soldiers, but they would have been useful for those in leadership positions, as they would show deficiencies in commanding large groups of men in combat-like environments. Best way to learn command and control and communications outside of a real battle.

- Pela/Pell: Mentioned by Vegetius. The use of a head height stake, driven in the ground, which a man practices his sword cuts and thrusts on, as well as shield blocks and offensive hits with it. Used similarly to how a boxer uses a heavy punching bag, to develop accuracy and speed, along with stamina for the muscles involved. Builds muscle memory. A great way to learn combinations and to develop speed. The use of weighted swords and shields for this would also increase speed after going back to the lighter battle versions after completion of training. Like the use of a donut on a baseball bat before being at bat to increase swing speed. To make wound or kill with a sword, its about speed of attack, with force, and weight of the weapon. Next to bone, the most resistance encountered will be the skin. Pierce that and its smooth sailing. Attacks on the pell make technique. Sparring tests technique.

It should be emphasized that these methods WERE NOT universal, as nothing the Romans did was universal. More successful and revolutionary generals, such as the Scipios, Marius, Sertorius, Pompeius, Caesar, were know for having well trained me. This is because they actually took the time to train their men, while many other generals didn't. This might seem strange to many, but taking the time to actually train soldiers is a relatively modern concept, other than a few examples from the ancient or medieval world. In most of history, generals simply used what they had available. A man showed up to fight a war with the equipment he owned and the training he already possessed. It was sink or swim, so to speak. A well trained man might prosper, a mediocre soldier might simply survive, and a poorly trained man might die, or simply be tasked to serve in the middle pack of a formation, where he can do the least harm.

The use of gladiators as trainers coincided perfectly with Marius' lifting of the enlistment ban on the Capite Censi, the landless poor, who did not grow up learning how to fight by their fathers because, other than a few occurances in Roman history, they were not allowed or expected to serve in Roman armies. For Rutilius Rufus, and later others, having an army full of these men meant bringing in people who were capable and ready to teach a standardized version of sword and shield fighting that would allow the newly levied unblooded men to succeed in combat against the Cimbric hordes, who'd destroyed 3 consular armies and were poised to destroy another 2 in the largest defeat Rome had suffered since Cannae (Arausio).

Marius took over the legions P. Rutilius Rufus had drilled after Rutilius Rufus' term as Consul was over and Marius was reelected, in 104 BC. He discharged the majority of his African army, which received land grants from the senate, and took command of Rutilius' army, as they were well disciplined (Plutarch and Frontinus). Afterwards, he had almost three additional years of military inactivity to further ready these men before they finally faced off against the Cimbri and its allies in late 102 BC, and 101.

My guess is that the techniques of training the men in individual combat, instead of assuming they knew what they were doing, as in the past, was generally accepted as necessary by future commanders after Marius. The new methods worked, Marius' success destroying first the Teutones and then the Cimbri was manifest of that. These new techniques filtered around, similar to the more increased use of cohorts as maneuvering units, as more and more generals adopted the methods.

By the time of Augustus, enlisted men served for 16-25 years straight in standing armies in garrison units. When not constantly campaigning, commanders have little choice but to spend training their men, lest discipline collapse. By this time, the training methods instituted by P. Rutilius Rufus were probably codified in numerous books which are now lost to us, but which Vegetius used in his own works.

[Creon01]

Of course this is "Roman Army Talk" not "Roman Farming Talk" so we are all interested in the military aspect of the ancient world, but we should all agree that war in the ancient world was not what most people were focused on. Having enough food to eat to continue living was concern one, and for many there was no concern two. Obviously, "Rome" was an expansionist culture, but what about the ancient Romans makes you feel they, the average every day citizen of Rome, had a "warrior" ethos. As you know gladiators were generally slaves and normally not permitted to be buried with "decent" Romans as their status in Roman society was at the level of prostitute, and for the most part they were considered more "entertainer" than "warrior." Does this not argue against the perception that Roman society valued individual martial skills?

[Bryan]

Most early gladiators were prisoners of war, ie. enemy warriors captured in war. Why go through the whole effort of providing training and such for these people, to host shows were the gladiator styles, designed early to reflect a Roman type and types of fighting by enemies, such as the Samnite, the Gaul, the Thracian, etc., if the gladiator bout was not about a glorification of individual martial prowess? Later gladiatorial combat became solely about the blood. During the Republican period, some of the gladiators would have been almost no different in style of armor than Roman legionaires.

About food. In terms of sustenance, a person in the ancient world had few options. Be a farmer yourself and grow/raise your own food, earn a wage from some other source and exchange some form of currency for food, or just take it from other people. Members of the Roman society tended to do the first and the third. While the Romans did have artesans, most of them came as slaves from other cultures. Cicero bemoans in one of his letters that men relying on wages are already slaves. It was probably a common jdea. They were farmers, soldiers, engineers. Additionally, the ancient world was a slave owning world. Every mediterraean or northern european nation or people practiced slavery. And all were also warlike. Including the Romans, especially in the Republican period.

Roman currency was created and dictated by warfare, as coinage for the Romans was created to pay soldiers. Its economy, relying on cheaply farmed slave labor plants, was the result of war. Its great architecture was the result of funds earned in war. The reason Rome could afford to build roads, which created the empire, was because of war. Its large numbers, the result of the amalgamation of multiple peoples and city states, was the result of war. Its leaders were selected not by their ability to negotiate or compromise, at least not during the hey day, but based off of their own and their family's ability to wage war. Romans were raised in a household where all healthy male members of their family had spent between 6-16 years in the army. All none family males were slaves, brought home because of war. The walls were covered in old armor from dead enemy slain in distant battles by ancestors. Seeing a pattern?

The Romans were as warlike as you can get. As a culture, they loved warfare. As individuals, sure, many would not have enjoyed campaigning, especially if it meant fighting an unsuccessful war, far away, for years at a time, with little hope of booty or slaves to be earned. Once wars stopped being fun for the regular people who generally fought them, the Roman elite found other people, the rural poor looking for social advancement and booty. Later, when those people stopped wanting to fight, the Roman elite found other war like people. The idea that the Romans were simple farmers who occasionally served in battles were they won simply because of some clever tactic or weapon is a fallacy. When Rome won wars it was because Romans were either tougher and smarter than the people they beat.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

That, and most barbarians didn't have the manpower the Romans did. If 10000 barbarians defeat 10000 Romans, the Romans can throw another army or two at the Barbarians, while the Barbarians (generally speaking) didn't have the logistics, infrastructure, or population to even replace their losses. But when it came to civilizations with that kind of logistical or organizational capability, the Romans just kept coming back.

Three wars with Macedon, Three Wars with Carthage, Three Wars with Pontus, and who knows how many with Parthia/Sassanid Persia. They were persistent little bastards.

[Mark Hygate]

Dear Bryan,

Much of what you write is entirely accurate, but I do not always agree with your conclusions from the reading - and I suspect that you and I will never agree and you may just ignore me. But that won't stop me trying.

Gladiators too had all the basic training they needed - before they became champions and indeed, just as you say, needed hours and hours of practice. Of course the sudden acceptance of the previously too poor into the ranks created a massive training gap and it is utterly logical that gladiators were used en masse to help - for there was no one else! The, oh I'm too busy farming and important landed richer folks certainly weren't - and treated the poor as effective slaves anyway.

I did realise, however, that there might be an avenue to try and show you that your overall basis is wrong - for Rome and the dear old USA have almost exactly parallel beginnings! Both former colonies, both with farmer militia groundings (the whole Constitution is based upon free peoples, free will and equality) - and both still pretty 'warlike'. But neither are Warrior Cultures like the Celts, Britons, Saxons, Danes, Alans, Huns, Franks, et al that the people who colonised the Americas left behind in the dim and distant past. Those peoples would never have understood the US Constitution - for warriors are a superior upper class who just take.

You, I am sure, were an educated, civilised, aware 'soldier' - those ancient Romans were not. Getting them to a level of drill, ability and confidence would be hard enough without expecting super-swordsmen. A flamboyant individual (like those same Romans often faced from those 'warrior cultures') would be an absolute hazard to a close-order formation - if they were a part of it. They would be trained at the pell to drill out those individual tendencies and to fight by rote.

From what you write I am sure you 'like' the graphic imagery we see in various TV & Films, let alone what RomeTW has become - with individual fights all over the place; and I therefore I assume you decry the fight scenes that people like Bernard Cornwell and Simon Scarrow write (recent re-reads for me), but which I agree with wholeheartedly. I just simply know that my basic-trained, but to a high level, well drilled chaps will walk all over your 'gladiators' - but we'll never prove that. And therefore we'll probably never agree. :|

[Bryan]

Mark,

Actually I can't stand most movies or TV shows about wars, ancient, medieval and especially modern. As for the ancient or medieval themed ones, either they show a battle of completely unorganized melee of mobs of men, like in Braveheart, or the good guys are some methodical killing machines mowing down the wild crazy eyed barbarians. No movie or TV show, other than about 30 seconds of the movie 300, have ever shown what I think are accurate representations of battles. Same goes for most fiction.

As for what I think happened, I'm far from original. 95% of what I profess in this forum are just things I've read. In terms of outlook on battle, I guess I am of the Goldsworthy or Cowen school, or however you'd describe it.
Frequent losses in battle vs. invincible Roman "war machine." Armies with no real standardization. Leaders of all types based off nepotism, favoritism, patronage, ancestry. Short fights, disorder, chaos, screaming, terror, limited visibility, fog of war, nothing at all working correctly, everything that can go wrong will go wrong, etc. Single combat and the love of war by people form a society that are completely different from ours in outlook and culture. Gritty and visceral, not clean like a parade ground. Virtus tempered by disciplina.
Again, just read Lendon's Soldiers and Ghosts if you want to kind of understand where I am coming from.

You brought up Bernard Cornwell's books, which I love. Please, reread Sharpe's Eagle and compare and contrast the protagonist, Richard Sharpe, who embraces the chaos of battle and enjoys the fight, and the antagonist, Sir Henry Simmerson, the martinet who tries to establish order where there will never be any. Which one are you?

I don't think you and I will agree on much because I think both of our outlooks on the military in general are completely different. I've never and never will buy into the "soldier vs. warrior" debate. I think its sophistry, a way that people in "civilized" societies can clap themselves on the shoulder and explain away their "greatness." I've been in war and I've seen far too many good men that would have fit both descriptions and more.

Long story short, agree to disagree.

[Mark Hygate]

................
You brought up Bernard Cornwell's books, which I love. Please, reread Sharpe's Eagle and compare and contrast the protagonist, Richard Sharpe, who embraces the chaos of battle and enjoys the fight, and the antagonist, Sir Henry Simmerson, the martinet who tries to establish order where there will never be any. Which one are you? .....................

Easy to answer, for on that aspect I think you misinterpret the basic character of Sir Henry (and I have met people like him), for his ideas of chocolate-box soldiers trained in the strict Prussian methods; for his actual flaw is that he sees soldiers as animals and not people.

Sharpe, however and of course, knows that soldiers are people because he was one; but he also knows that soldiers are basically simple and I therefore commend his overall approach to his soldiers as the way you should treat them - with Sharpe's Three Rules. Nothing more complicated than that.

I believe the parallel with the Napoleonic period is a good one, for the education and average intelligence of the basic soldier (for the first time recruited and available in such numbers once more) was essentially the same as it was in Roman times; let alone noticing things like - the standard French Corps organisation is almost identical to a Consular Army from 2000 years before!

And yes, we might continue to disagree, and that just leads to good criticism. I too have been to war, but from a different angle than yourself. I have also trained soldiers and, perhaps more apropos, have taught drill to teenagers - all much more intelligent than your average Roman, and whom I certainly wasn't allowed to 'encourage' wtih my vine cane...... :wink:

[Robert]

Having drifted off topic a long way, perhaps I may steer it back to the original question by not agreeing to the posed assumption spears were only for sticking. Basicly, an average spear is a dagger on a stick. Apart from the just a point it has wide cutting edges, allowing the spear to be used to slash, jab and make cutting sweeps. The buttspike is not just for resting the spear on the ground, it is a re-enforced sharp cone of metal acting as a counterweight. It can do damage and deflect strikes in it's own right. To use a spear in that manner does require training, as can be seen in Asian martial arts using the spear, but with it's long reach and momentum, can be used to very good effect agains someone brandeshing a sword IMHO.

[Bryan]

Robert,

Thank you for getting this thread back on track.

I've seen videos of elaborate spear usage among Asian marial artists, but did the European users of spears in the ancient world have any similar two handed sweeping techniques?

Can a spear used with one hand be used to slash? And did the Europeans even really train on the spear, for speed, accuracy, and such? I've read of instructors in places like Athens that trained hoplites in battle, but didn't Socrates insult these people for lack of experience? The Theban Band were said to have been a great hoplite force because of their wrestling abilities. The Spartans had lots of training on warfare, I've heard of the pyrrhic dances and such, but did they perform anything similar to the use of the pell?

[Mark Hygate]

The main reason for the spear, especially when described as a dagger on a stick, is its reach; either for reaching places shorter weapons cannot and also for keeping the enemy away at well over 'arms length'.

In economic terms the spear is also the simple weapon of choice, especially if you are arming farmers, reluctant militia or even just new recruits. Even just held firmly and in numbers it is an effective deterrent. In terms of minimising metal usage per weapon/effect, the spear is the way to go. Even more so if you go as cheap as the fire-hardened tip.