Login

Gashford · 06-17-2004, 08:38 AM

Hello all 
 
Ihave listened to a good few Roman Reenactment military talks, seen a further good number of Military documentaries and read a fewer number of books and they all seem to state the same thing. 
 
The gladius was designed for thrusting not cutting. 
 
We have had discussions on the forum about whether to cut or to thrust and the merits of both. 
 
Recently I was reading an interesting article that can be found [url=http://www.thearma.org/essays/pell/pellhistory.htm" target="top]here[/url] in some of the writing by Vegetius he extols the vitues of the thrust over the cut: 
 
Quote:<hr>In doing this, care was taken that the recruit should strike in this way in order to cause a wound, in case he partly lays himself open to a blowÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ Further, they learned to strike by stabbing, not by cutting. For the Romans not only easily conquered those who fought by cutting, but mocked them too. For the cut, even delivered with force, frequently does not kill, when the vital parts are protected by equipment and bone."<hr> 
 
Quote:<hr>He gave ground, he attacked, he assaulted and he assailed the stake with all the skill and energy required in actual fighting...Furthermore, they learned to strike, not with the edge, but with the point...ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â

06-17-2004, 09:48 AM

After thinking about this for a while, I think that it falls into the category of instruction versus real life. The ancient texts tell us that the gladius was predominately designed for the stab. but in the confussion that is battle a soldier will do anything to survive. I have experience in the army and although i thankfully never had to go into a real battle, I was an infantry soldier and the decissions you make (even in exersices) all revolve around staying alive and helping your mates. This said you would be remiss not to think about artistic licence, the sculptural representation of battles MAY fall into this category as the artifactes such as Trajens column are close up reliefs and in trying to capture the heat of battle they may have 'embossed' a little. 
 
Just my thoughts

Goffredo · 06-17-2004, 11:24 AM

Hi 
my opinions. 
 
I certainly agree that in battle anything goes. Battles are not geometric marching excercises but extremely confusing. When you are on the winning side it could be decsribed as organized confusion (oxymoron). In particular, in battle the motions an individual or team of individuals is trained to do might/must be integrated by non-orthodox ones. IN this sense I am sure the gladius was used anyway possibile. Indeed it would have been a limitation to make a short thrusting sword without a cutting edge. Similarly it would be a limitation to make a long cutting weapon without a stabbing point. 
 
But had the emphasis been on cutting rather than thrusting I think the legnth of the roman weapon would have been longer. After all the Gauls/Celts and Germans of the Republic period used long swords and there is no metallurgical technological reason I am aware of that would explain the roman stubborness in using for such a considerable length of time short swords all while their main enemies used longer ones. After all the romans always copied a good idea when they saw one (the gladius itself, scutum, chain mail armour, helmets, ....) 
 
Stabbing is the best way to make use of tight spaces as any knife fighter knows. If "I" have have a good helmet and armour and a darn good shield, then as long as "I" have the balls to close with the enemy, a short stabbing sword is the optimal weapon. But "I" must put a premium on getting close, really close! This way of fighting is agressive and not defensive. "I" take and keep the initiative from the very start: "I" am trained to begin from the very beginning of a battle to carve holes in the enemy line until it breaks. 
 
If instead "I" like keeping a distance and prefer fencing with a thrusting spear as long as "I" can and close to sword fighting when necessary, then you should not be suprised "I" prefer using a longer sword. Close stabbing distance is an extreme case in "my" way of fighting and it happens only once the enemy line is exhausted. "My" way of fighting is not as outright agressive; lets say it is opportunistic and "I" take the initiative once the enemy proves to not be too agressive or looses it. 
 
I think the romans had the winning edge because of training, and they kept that edge until the end even when they slowly evolved away from outright agressive ways of fighting to more opportunistic ones with a consequent evolution in weapon design. Boot-camp and then regular group training exists for the purpose of making some basic battle motions almost automatic. This is an investment in that its helps postpone the breakdown in the functionality of the stressed and fatigued individual/group. Training gives some degree of staying power, some flexibility (bend without breaking). No or poor training means that motions are not even semi-automatic and this makes the individual/group fragile and brittle (maybe some resistance at the start but then a sudden collapse).

06-17-2004, 12:45 PM

If the Romans were only interested in stabbing, they wouldn't have bother hardening the edges of some of their swords (ie, the 'Tiberius sword', The 'Fulham' sword, and the 'Chichester' sword). The current owners of the Guttman gladius are considering testing the edges for hardening. Will let you all know when allowed. 
 
Celer.

Gashford · 06-17-2004, 01:02 PM

I think the category of instruction versus real life probably sums it up best for me as well. From what I understand of Vegetius I suspect that he considered this instruction best because it was an old form of fighting for him and the adoption of more 'barbaric' weapons, armour and fightnig styles might have been more than he could quietly bare. 
 
Still worth revisiting these ideas though, especially when trying to get a handle on proper techniques and their consequences to build some form of cohesive doctrines to pull at ...? 
 
All the best Graham Ashford
<hr />
[url=http://www.ludus.org.uk" target="_new]Ludus Gladiatorius[/url] 
[url=http://pub156.ezboard.com/bromancombatsports" target="_new]Roman Combat Sports Forum[/url] 
[url=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk" target="_new]Roman Army Talk Forum[/url] 
[url=http://pub27.ezboard.com/bromancivtalk" target="_new]Roman Civilian Talk Forum[/url]

06-17-2004, 01:57 PM

I agree that in the heat of battle, anything goes, but I would be surprised if their doctrine (at least before the spatha replaced the gladius) didn't favor the thrust. Here are a few pieces of (admittedly scattered and anachronistic) data about the effectiveness of the thrust: 
 
1. The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line: thrusts should thus be capable of being faster, just as a jab beats a haymaker to the punch. 
 
2. In 1905, the British Army did what was considered the first truly scientific series of tests to develop the ultimate cavalry sabre, and decided, much to the surprise of most, that the optimum sword was a thrusting sword, and hence developed a new "high-tech" thrusting sword. (Patton, incidently developed a similar sword that was adopted by the US Army in... I think it was 1912... Darn, I wish I had my sword book here at the office with me.) 
 
3. My Uncle Sam (yes, I really do have an uncle named Sam), an accomplished fencer and one-time fencing instructor at the Naval Academy once told me that even when he was fencing with the sabre, he got more success with the point than with the edge, even expressing a touch of derision for "sabre-slashers" who didn't know how to use the point (and defend against). 
 
4. When their opponents were armored, it was usually mail, which is easier to defeat with a thrust, and doubly so when your sword is a short one. 
 
Aaron

06-17-2004, 03:17 PM

We now know that, contrary to earlier belief, the true gladius hispaniensis was significantly longer than later designs: 25"-27" as opposed to 19"-22" for the later desigs. Around the same time the tall, oval scutum was shortened. I suspect that arms instructers decided that men were too often hovering behind their big shields and slashing or at least poking at the greatest possible distance with their swords. Hence the shortening of both sword and shield, to encourage a more aggressive, in-your-face style of fighting. But I agree that when the opportunity presented itself for an effective cut when a thrust wouldn't do, the soldier would cut. My gladius cuts viciously, you just have to get close. 
And, yes, Vegetius was looking back romantically. Macchiavelli said almost the same things a thousand years later (he'd probably been reading Vegetius.)

06-17-2004, 05:34 PM

I remember I read some time ago an article on the excellencies of the slashing sabre designed by Le Marchand for the British cavalry against the thrusting sword used by the French cavalry, according to the writer that weapon only gave a "cavalry superiority" to the British in the Peninsula camapign. I guess you can get always some expert to tel, you one thing and the opposite, I am myself very sceptic about the advantages of weapons prior to the industrial revolution, I would say the important thing is how well are they used.

Mithras · 06-17-2004, 08:36 PM

On this subject - where does the spatha, adopted by auxiliaries and then legionaries in the later 2nd C come into this? 
 
These are slashing weapons aren't they? Did this mean that a 3rd C soldier was still a swordsman? Or did he (as many think) become a 'hoplite spearman' and abandon the sword-fighting art?

06-17-2004, 10:40 PM

Well, the spatha still does have a point; the thing is, I suspect that the balance of a spatha is likely not as good as that of the gladius for thusting. I would think that for a thrusting sword you'd want the balance closer to the hilt and for a slashing weapon you'd want the balance closer to the tip, to put more power in the cut. 
 
Incidently the spearman-with-a-slashing sword is an interesting theory (I'd never thought of that before) but there is at least one exception to it: late in the period of hoplite warfare a much shorter (and probably optimised for thrusting) sword became more popular. I've seen pictures of it in the Osprey elite series book, The Ancient Greeks by Nick Sekunda. I don't remember hearing about it in any other source, but I think I recall Sekunda putting forward the belief that it had been popularized by the Spartans. (If it was a Spartan innovation, than it may be something of an exception that proves the rule, since if any group possessed the confidence and elan for close-quarter fighting in that period, it was the Spartans.) 
 
Aaron

Goffredo · 06-18-2004, 07:36 AM

The short hoplite sword was a last resort weapon. A long sword would have been useless because the hoplite's main weapon was the thrusting spear. The heavy shield, helmet and armour reflects the "fact" that he was designed to fight in a very tight phalangitic formation. Out of that formation in a broken formation he practically had no chance to fight it out with a sword.

06-21-2004, 01:26 AM

Those of you who practice martial arts, whether it's European or Asian, might be able to relate to this discussion. The question of whether a Roman legionary only thrusts with his gladius is a matter of training. His body needs to learn the principles involved with his training. This of course only occurs after drilling a technique perhaps a thousand times. 
 
The idea that all of your training goes out the window once you enter a real combat situation (I'm not implying everyone here is saying this but I just wanted to state that to build on my thesis) is entirely dependent upon the amount of training you've done. Obviously a beginner will not utilize any of his training in combat unless of course we're talking about gimmick techniques. A well trained combatant who has absorbed the martial principles he was taught will use them when the time comes. 
 
As far as we know from literary evidence, the legionaries thrusted with their gladii. So if the thrust was the basis of every technique a legionary learned, then it is unlikely that this method would have been lost during combat. What I'm trying to say is that the thrust is not a complicated technique, but the premise of every legionary technique. Try imagining a boxer throwing a punch incorrectly. 
 
If I'm fencing with a friend or in a real fist-fight, what I trained for well comes out when I need it. What I didn't practice that much doesn't come out at all. Of course, real combat isn't a cookie cutter representation of training but when we're talking about a legionary thrusting his sword I think his training adequately prepared him, in this respect, for the upcoming battles he would endure. 
 
I didn't quite get this out the way I wanted to, so pick it apart and I'll try to explain myself better. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=casmin>Casmin</A> at: 6/21/04 3:36 am

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	cut and thrust.....	madoc	68	14,475	08-31-2008, 11:38 PM Last Post: MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS
	Gladius thrust?	Vitapondera	17	4,944	11-25-2006, 06:46 PM Last Post: Caius Fabius