cut and thrust.....

[Virilis]

In my opinion manz & fulham types are not very good for slashing & cutting. The long point is very vulnerable when slashing and only the point hits the target. Also they are definitely not balanced for slashing due to their light-weight points and therefore not efficient as cutters?

It amazes me too that macedonians found the wounds romans inflicted horrifying. A kopis of macedonians must have been an effective cutter in itself. Maybe it was a roman way of making "total war" (like Blitzkrieg of the germans?) which horrified the macedonias which had degenerated / ritualized their warfare due to successor wars? I mean perhaps warfare was to them more "businesslike" at that point like with the condottiers later?

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

Agree with last posts, that's what I mean, a Mainz type gladius answers to a close formation combat, conceived to thrusting, althougt you can cut with it (it's a weapon ).

Then, if Mainz was a multi-purpose weapon like hispaniensis, how we can explain this evolution?

The pass of a longer sword (hispaniensis) to a shorter (Mainz and next) shows importance that Romans gave to a closer kind of fight and to thrusting, and his ''refuse'' to a cutting function.

The mention in sources about cutting and thrusting function (that most are from hispaniensis period, but no matter) I think that are a literary convention, but that't my point of view.

That's my opinion

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

~Thats if you are talking about swinging it overhand like a gaul and his lonsword.....the mainz is ideal for cutting though, and would open the back of a leg in an instant, with out much opening of yourself.

In a crush that opportunity would not be passed up, if you could not stab through anywhere else.

The shortening obviously was to make it easier to weild in a crush.

It is harder to keep the hispaniensis behind the scutum, mor of it will stick out past, but the mainz is better suited for the close formation fighting,and there also would bethe need to slash/ cut, not hack overhand.

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

It is harder to keep the hispaniensis behind the scutum, mor of it will stick out past, but the mainz is better suited for the close formation fighting,and there also would bethe need to slash/ cut, not hack overhand.

Good point, but I think that in a close formation it is dificult to do big movements (necessary for cutting). A thrust is a horizontal movement and you don't need too space for to do it efficiently.

[Dan Howard]

In my opinion manz & fulham types are not very good for slashing & cutting. The long point is very vulnerable when slashing and only the point hits the target. Also they are definitely not balanced for slashing due to their light-weight points and therefore not efficient as cutters?

The long point makes them equally vulnerable to thrusting. A single accidental stab at a shield or a piece of armour or one that lodges in bone will result in a broken tip. A thrusting sword has it balance moved right back near the hand. No Roman gladius has its POB back this far. A purely cutting sword has its balance moved much closer to the tip. No gladius has its POB this far forward. All Roman swords were intended for both cutting and thrusting. This is consistent with the primary sources - Polybius, Livy, Diodorus, and even Vegetius.

[M. Demetrius]

Finally I found what I was looking for (typically while I was looking for something else)...

Polybius VI.23: ...(of hastati in particular) "Beisdes the shield they also carry a sword which is worn on the right thigh and is called a Spanish sword. This has a sharp point and can deal an effective blow with either edge, as the blade is very strong and unbending."

Admittedly, this is a gladius Hispaniensis, but it does make the point that at the time described in the writing--the second Punic war--Polybius indicates that they were used for both cutting and stabbing. I submit that when the shortened version, Mainz, as we call it, became more in use, that the tactics wouldn't have changed all that much, and since even Vegetius (quite a bit later in time, and as mentioned up there somewhere in the dim recesses of this thread) says recruits were trained to cut and stab at various parts of the post, that the technique was still in use in the times in between. I guess that's conjecture, but it makes sense to me, anyway.

[A_Volpe]

Andy - George Silver cracks me up when he starts into his ranting. A long while back on Sword Forum a few of us had a thread going about with a George Silver-esque arguement about the pros and cons of swordfish and narwhales. At any rate I get the feeling, seeing as he does make a few jokes in his writing, that George Silver had a pretty good sense of humor.

Ya know I never saw that - I'll have to take a look again and see if I pick up on that! Too funny! narwhales... Although I do find trying to read the 'modern English' with the fascilimies I've seen quite maddening to read - and as a Printmaker, it's 'interesting' to see the characters unique to that style of writing.

In other words the Pompeii will create a stab wound that is twice as large, both linearly and volumetrically, as the Fulham. This implies to me that they really wanted to make those stab wounds count.

volumetrically? Oooh, pulling out the fancy words now? Heheh.

Seriously that is a very interesting observation and that never ocurred to me on the respective blade designs. I agree with your implication, the pompeii pattern appears to become the 'most common' style for the Gladius, so maybe they were onto something. I also think of the pompeii example that has the 'specialized tip', where it's got some very small ridges on the 'middle seam' at the very tip - Some have speculated that it's designed to break maille links ~ but I can only imagine how much more of a wound that may help to cause *shudder*

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Read this in the first page and was amused:

Vegetius

They were likewise taught not to cut but to thrust with their swords. For the Romans not only made a jest of those who fought with the edge of that weapon, but always found them an easy conquest

Ha! And they were themselves in turn conquered by spatha wielding barbarians! Not to mention they ended up adopting longer slashing swords in the long run!

I think in the heat of battle the ordinary social conventions of 'no slashing' would go out the window. You would certainly try to adhere to the group fighting style and give preference to stabbing, but I doubt a roman soldier would give up a good chance to cut off an enemy's exposed sword arm if he were to miss a swoop with his longsword.

Not to mention that by not slashing you are denying yourself use of two perfectly usable and lethal thirds of your sword. In the end, it doesn't matter how you kill, but how many and how effectively you kill.

But of course, that is just me.

[Dan Z]

Andy - George Silver cracks me up when he starts into his ranting. A long while back on Sword Forum a few of us had a thread going about with a George Silver-esque arguement about the pros and cons of swordfish and narwhales. At any rate I get the feeling, seeing as he does make a few jokes in his writing, that George Silver had a pretty good sense of humor.

Ya know I never saw that - I'll have to take a look again and see if I pick up on that! Too funny! narwhales... Although I do find trying to read the 'modern English' with the fascilimies I've seen quite maddening to read - and as a Printmaker, it's 'interesting' to see the characters unique to that style of writing.

In summary: the narwhalenated fight is imperfect because the narwhale horn is of imperfect length and therefore the swordfish, being of perfect length, is to be preferred. :lol: My favorite bit of George Silver humor is when he describes a defensive manuever he calls "Cobb's Traverse" named after a fellow who had apparently devised a perfect defense for dealing with swordsmen who were more skilled than he was: Cobb would turn around and run away as fast as he could. :lol:

In other words the Pompeii will create a stab wound that is twice as large, both linearly and volumetrically, as the Fulham. This implies to me that they really wanted to make those stab wounds count.

volumetrically? Oooh, pulling out the fancy words now? Heheh.

Right after I typed that I thought: "do I really want to use that word?" but I decided to be bold and daring. The approximate volume of the Fulham wound would roughly be about .09 cubic inches and the Pompeii wound would be roughly .18 cubic inches. On the one hand, those are small numbers but on the other hand, I imagine they seem pretty large if there is a hole in you that size leaking blood.

Seriously that is a very interesting observation and that never ocurred to me on the respective blade designs. I agree with your implication, the pompeii pattern appears to become the 'most common' style for the Gladius, so maybe they were onto something. I also think of the pompeii example that has the 'specialized tip', where it's got some very small ridges on the 'middle seam' at the very tip - Some have speculated that it's designed to break maille links ~ but I can only imagine how much more of a wound that may help to cause *shudder*

I'll second that *shudder*

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

Ha! And they were themselves in turn conquered by spatha wielding barbarians! Not to mention they ended up adopting longer slashing swords in the long run!

They confront with another kind of enemies I think. It doesn't mean better. But Roman Empire fell :lol:

I think in the heat of battle the ordinary social conventions of 'no slashing' would go out the window. You would certainly try to adhere to the group fighting style and give preference to stabbing, but I doubt a roman soldier would give up a good chance to cut off an enemy's exposed sword arm if he were to miss a swoop with his longsword.

That's what I mean. I give more importance to stabbing function, but I don't refuse completly cutting fuction, but overall if you have occasion.

[le Cavalier Invisible]

So in that case there should be some Pompeii blades as well with a wasted shape due to sharpening.. Are there?

Greetz,

If such a blade was found it would be classified as a Mainz :wink:

Hm allright, seems logical to me.. :roll: :roll: :oops: :lol:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Thing is, you can cut without the hacking technique. Stab out, and slash back with the edge on the withdraw, you will get something one way or the other. like the back of the leg.

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

I've been speaking with Quesada and he has said me that, althougt Mainz type has pistiliform blade (is it correct in English?) ,typical feature of a cutting sword, there are type Mainz swords too shorts for a sensible cutting function. Her more useful function is thrusting.
There are more sources:

Polybius, 2, 33:

Upon the Gauls slashing first at the spears and making their swords unserviceable the Romans came to close quarters, having rendered the enemy helpless by depriving them of the power of raising their hands and cutting, which is the peculiar and only stroke of the Gauls, as their swords have no points. 6 The Romans, on the contrary, instead of slashing continued to thrust with their swords which did not bend, the points being very effective. Thus, striking one blow after another on the breast or face, they slew the greater part of their adversaries.


Polybius 2, 30, 7:

For, though being almost cut to pieces, they held their ground, equal to their foes in courage, and inferior only, as a force and individually, in their arms. 8 The Roman shields, it should be added, were far more serviceable for defence and their swords for attack, the Gaulish sword being only good for a cut and not for a thrust. 9 But finally, attacked from higher ground and on their flank by the Roman cavalry, which rode down the hill and charged them vigorously, the Celtic infantry were cut to pieces where they stood, their cavalry taking to flight.


Dionysus of Halicarnasus, 14, 10, 17:

Now the barbarians' manner of fighting, being in large measure that of wild beasts and frenzied, was an erratic procedure, quite lacking in military science. Thus, at one moment they would raise their swords aloft and smite after the manner of wild boars,9 throwing the whole weight of their bodies into the blow like hewers of wood or men digging with mattocks, and again they would deliver crosswise blows aimed at no target, as if they intended to cut to pieces the entire bodies of their adversaries, protective armour and all; then they would turn the edges of their swords away from the foe. 2 (18) On the other hand, the Romans' defence and counter-manoeuvring against the barbarians was steadfast10 and afforded great safety. For while their foes were still raising their swords aloft, they would duck under their arms, holding up their shields, and then, stooping and crouching low, they would render vain and useless the blows of the others, which were aimed too high, while for their own part, holding their swords straight out, they would strike their opponents in the groins, pierce their sides, and drive their blows through their breasts into their vitals. And if they saw any of them keeping these parts of their bodies protected, they would cut the tendons of their knees or ankles and topple them to the ground roaring and biting their shields and uttering cries resembling the howling of wild beasts.


Polienus, Estratagems 8,7,2:

Against the broad swords of the Gauls, with which they aimed their blows at the enemy's head, he made his men wear smooth iron helmets, by which the swords were soon blunted, and broken; and because the Roman shield, which was of wood, was not proof against the stroke, he directed them to border it round with a thin plate of brass. He also taught them the use of the long spear; with which they engaged in close fighting, and receiving the blow of the sword on their shield, made their thrust with the spear. The Gallic iron was soft and poorly beaten; the edge of the sword was soon bent by means of the brass plate, and the weapon became unserviceable. By this improvement in their weapons, the Romans obtained a cheap and easy victory; many of the Gauls were cut to pieces, and the rest saved themselves by flight.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

And if they saw any of them keeping these parts of their bodies protected, they would cut the tendons of their knees or ankles and topple them to the ground roaring and biting their shields and uttering cries resembling the howling of wild beasts.

There you go.... [/quote]

[Q. Vipsanivs Praetextatvs]

That's a retroactive blow.