Why wear the sword on the right?

[Crispvs]

Actually the evidence is a bit more ambiguous than some commentators would have you believe. Most depictions of first century soldiers, as well as those from the first and second centuries BC, show the sword on the right side. However, Josephus, writing in the late 1st century AD and who had seen the real thing in Judea in the AD60s, says that the Romans wore their swords on the left (actually he says that they wore two swords, a shorter one on the right [normally taken to mean a pugio] and a longer one on the left). On the Adamklissi metopes, some soldiers wear their swords on the right and some on the left. The idea that 1st century centuriones wore their swords on the left comes from the tombstone evidence of a couple of tombstones only and standard vearers show a mixture of left and right for sword positions.

The position of the sword may have varied from unit to unit or from region to region. One thing we do knowmis that the overall picture was not as simple as many people would like to think.

Crispvs

[Sardaukar]

Well...my instinct would indeed first be against wearing sword on right side because the need of turn your sword when drawing it. But it's actually quite easy to do with weapon size of gladius. With something like spatha, forget it. Spatha is quite long and would be very difficult to get out of scabbard that way.

When shieldwalls clashed, it may become quite difficult to "cross-draw" sword on left side. In worst case your sword arm would get pinned between your body and scutum.

But there are arguments in favour of either position, so I keep an open mind. 8)

[Marcus Julius]

Hoplites use the sword on left side in phalanx and successive shield wall (also roman i late empire) use the sword on the left, so the pratical problems of use the left side in compress formations was not so severe to press for the change,

I had always read, that Hoplites wouldn't go to thier sword unless the Phalanx was broken. If that is the case, then they wouldn't have had the close quarter problem supposed for the legions, as they would be out of rank and file order, and have room to swing out a cross-draw.

That being said, I'm sure fashion had a lot to do with it. Just look at the oh-so-slow-to-draw crossdraw shoulder holsters for pistols that were so fashionable in the '80s! :roll:

[Caius Fabius]

That being said, I'm sure fashion had a lot to do with it. Just look at the oh-so-slow-to-draw crossdraw shoulder holsters for pistols that were so fashionable in the '80s! :roll:

:lol: :lol:

Obviously you never saw the 'shoulder snap draw'. Much faster when wearing a tailored coat than trying to get to your pistol in a side holster, and much more concealed. The first round is fired as the gun lines on target at shoulder level, while spinning your torso to get to your second firing position if necessary. With practice, it is very smooth, and surprising. people think you are going for your wallet or ID. The second round is fired after you move, usually after a ground roll. It wasn't made for standing and shooting it out with cowboys or machine guns. I can thank that snap shoulder holster draw for many extra glasses of wine today! :wink:

It takes less daily practice than some side holsters, and we never fastened the 'safety strap / snap' on the job. If you start to lose your weapon, the coat would make you aware of it.

To each their own. I like the right side draw with the standard gladius, now that I have done it hundreds of times, but I'll have to learn all over with my next sword, which will be a bit longer.

[Goffredo]

Hi guys
I've asked this before but never got a clear answer.

When I look at videos showing right-hand gladius draw it seems to me that there a brief moment that the point of the sword is pointing towards the body. I've tried it with a gladius length stick but result was inconclusive as I have arthritis in my right shoulder and that twist is painful. Is that true the blade point does point at the body? If yes then I would think that, in the confusion of battle, even before closing with the enemy, there would have been a NON-ZERO chance of stabbing oneself (running, random bumping,...). What is your opinion? Is it a bug of the re-enactment? Is something wrong?

[Sardaukar]

Hi guys
I've asked this before but never got a clear answer.

When I look at videos showing right-hand gladius draw it seems to me that there a brief moment that the point of the sword is pointing towards the body. I've tried it with a gladius length stick but result was inconclusive as I have arthritis in my right shoulder and that twist is painful. Is that true the blade point does point at the body? If yes then I would think that, in the confusion of battle, even before closing with the enemy, there would have been a NON-ZERO chance of stabbing oneself (running, random bumping,...). What is your opinion? Is it a bug of the re-enactment? Is something wrong?

It depends on technique used. To me, "reverse right-hand" draw to side many think cannot be executed when pressed by other legionary bodies because it'd need space on side and gladius could easily be embedded into one's side by stumbling "shieldmate".

On the other hand, similar draw where sword point starts it's travel virtually from opposite direction to where the point will end is to me probable, in upward arc, always same direction as your body is facing.

I think people here who are into re-enactment can experiment. Your knuckles will always face forward during the draw and draw will always be arc up forward.
When your sword clears your scutum, you will be in position to stab downwards (with same grip you had when grasping your sword) over enemy's locked shield or can rotate your wrist and stab for eyes.

That's my idea.

[Crispvs]

I don't know whether my sword points towards my body as I draw it or not. The fact is that I can draw it and bring it to a horizontal position at waist level in less than a second. My hand already knows where the handle is and so I grip it without looking and draw, which means that I am not looking at where the the blade is as I draw. In any case there is no chance of the sword going into my side because when I draw it I am already wearing armour. Incidentally, when I grip the handle I do so with my hand inverted so therefore my knuckles face backwards.

Crispvs

[Caius Fabius]

When I draw, the knuckles of my right hand are facing my torso. After the sword clears the scabbard and my body I give my hand a 1/2 twist, which brings the point of the Gladius forward, along the right side of my scutum, and the point is ready for thrusting. It is not a natural movement the first few times, but you get used to it. I am most worried about my new, longer Gladius Hispanius which will be different. I'll be wearing mail when I practice with it. (Mark Morrow's blades are sharp!) ((Or maybe that would be a good way to lose weight and get on youtube if I don't wear my hamata....)) :lol:

[Crispvs]

Actually Charles,

The method you describe sounds pretty much the same as what I do. Looking at myself just now I agree that my knuckles probably face my torso when drawing. Incidentally I have used the same draw with a somewhat longer spatha and found no problems. My draw was slower with the spatha but I think that with practice it would be just as fast. I can draw my sword easily in close formation too by the way. This of course refers to drawing from a scabbard on my right side. I have yet to try drawing a sword from a scabbard on my left side, although some of our auxiliaries wear their swords on the left and could comment. Perhaps if they are reading this, Peronis or Caballo could comment (although Iustus, the auxiliary who most consistently wears his sword on the left, unfortunately does not post on RAT).

Crispvs

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

How about the possibility you might slice your left hand off as you draw it in a tight formation? (if worn on the left)

[Tarbicus]

How about the possibility you might slice your left hand off as you draw it in a tight formation? (if worn on the left)

Good point!! With the scutum draw in tight it's not like wearing the scutum on your arm Greek style, with the arm up out of the way.

[Mark Headlee]

Ave Fraters,

This is a "just wondering" point, but I wonder to what extent the Roman Gladius's blade was sharpened. I know...I know...this can't be said any other way without sounding a tad "tarded" but since the gladius was really a stabbing weapon, was the sharp blade really necessary. And without a sharpened blade, the risk of cutting the man to your left/right when drawing from the scabbard would be a moot point. Has anyone been able to verify from a surviving gladius that the blade was razor sharp? (taking into mind most remaining gladius's are in very, very poor shape....)

What comes to mind as a comparison weapon is the triangle bayonet used much later. This was designed from the beginning as a stabbing weapon with no cutting ability.

Again sorry for the "stupid" reasoning, but this may factor into how or where the gladius was worn...

[Aetius Helvius Merula]

I see your reasoning Mark, and it's a good point (get it...point? ) They did use cuts when they could get away with it, according to Polybius. Haven't read the man's works firsthand yet, but I've come across references by Goldsworthy and in Osprey's book on legionaries, who use him as a source. They mention Roman recruits being taught the regulation cuts, thrusts and parries. Can anyone who has info on what those were PM it to me?

I've also seen a reference quoted several times about limbs and heads cut apart by the Spanish sword, in the words of an observer of a Roman battle (can't recall who). So I think it's more accurate to say it was primarily a stabbing sword, but not exclusively.

As to how this affects the wearing of the gladius, and its drawing? Not sure, aside from what's already been mentioned. I think, there being a wrong way and an army way of doing things, recruits would have been taught a proper way of wearing and drawing it, so they didn't slice the guy next to them. Maybe that's another reason for the space (ideally) that each man in the line had to his sides.

[Peroni]

Has anyone been able to verify from a surviving gladius that the blade was razor sharp?

Metallurgical analysis has been carried out on gladius blades and some have case-hardened edges, suggesting that they would have been sharpened and would hold a good sharp edge.

[M. Demetrius]

They mention Roman recruits being taught the regulation cuts, thrusts and parries. Can anyone who has info on what those were PM it to me

I don't have references, but I've read that drawing cuts on the back of the enemy's knee were common, and would be relatively easy to do.

I frankly can't imagine not sharpening the edge of a sword. Anything that injured the enemy would be advantageous, and a drawing cut or hack at the side of the neck could easily be lethal if the blade were sharpened. And there is that tried and true "block sword attack with the shield, slash/hack at the wrist of the exposed arm" maneuver that's fast as can be, and dreadfully effective.

They didn't just change the sword to the other hand and hold their arm behind them like some of our pretend combatants do...in a few minutes, without some kind of first aid, they'd become very weak from loss of blood, and be easily dispatchable by whomever came along next.