Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forensic nature of gladius wounds
#16
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>
"Feel the fire in your bones."
Reply
#17
Ave, Ambrosius!<br>
<br>
Don't worry, I didn't get online at all, yesterday. And now I'm gonna end up staying up too late...<br>
<br>
First, ignore Hollywood. Assume that they did NOT do any homework and you'll be happier! I don't think that sequence from Spartacus even holds up from a medical viewpoint, much less battlefield (or even arena!) reality. His different colored aim-points all assume a SOLID hit, for one thing. And it really seems from all that I've learned that MOST strikes in combat were not spot-on-target nor full-force. It's quite possible that you'd have to nickle-and-dime your opponent to incapacity. A nice full-force thrust to the throat might just slice his cheek or ear if he only twitches his head. A twist of the body, and your killing blow to his heart just slides across his tunic. A minor mis-estimation of the distance or your footing, and you give him a minor cut right over his left ventrical. On the other hand, a nice strong backhand to his left thigh, and you sever his femoral artery--he'll be down in a few seconds and dead in a minute or so.<br>
<br>
All the talk about wounded men causing so much potential trouble on the ground makes me wonder: why did they fall down in the first place? Seems to me that if they go down, they just aren't in much shape to cause any more trouble except by getting tripped over. And you won't see many guys "playing dead" because the rear ranks will be poking holes in anyone on the ground! A lot of the wounds we are talking about here are REALLY painful, or simply debilitating. Enough to drop a man into a curled-up moaning heap.<br>
<br>
So what you're looking for in an aim point is not necessarily the best place to kill the guy instantly, but the best place to cause the most damage with the least effort or lightest damaging hit. You want to incapacitate him--whether he croaks right now or in 2 weeks doesn't matter. So, like Vegetius says, the belly is good for that because it doesn't take much penetration to let the guy's air out and/or penetrate the digestive tract or a major artery. The throat is also good because of all the nice blood vessels very close to the surface, and even if you miss, your opponent is likely to flinch.<br>
<br>
MOST of the killing in an ancient battle happened at the END, when one side or the other broke and ran. Up to that point, there was a lot of shoving, yelling, chucking things, and some sword-and-weapon work. But not a lot of killing. If an army lost its whole first rank and part of the second, that would be pretty much "it" for the day! The Romans especially knew that if you held your formation and kept your face towards the enemy, you would most likely survive. But once a line cracks and the men start turning around and heading for home, then it's party time! Mow 'em down like wheat.<br>
<br>
The fighting stances suggested by Marcus Cassius, Mark Corby, and (sadly) Peter Connolly simply fly in the face of the evidence. There are numerous depictions of the fighting stance, and it is upright with the sword held low, edge-up (not flat). And since Vegetius recommends the belly as a target, and says to ignore bony parts, we have literary and pictoral evidence in agreement! Why make up things that disagree with what the ancients thought? And I must say that the idea of severing the spinal cord with a gladius thrust is nutty! Deliberately going THROUGH the body--and all the vital organs therein--into a strong bony structure?? Gimme a break... These are MEN we're talking about, not Terminators! (Sorry, I'm being a little harsh here, but I warned you that I'm up too late!)<br>
<br>
These guys all want to make it a lot more complicated than it needs to be. Pulling the sword out in a different direction from how it went in?? Geez, is the victim going to be suspended in mid-air while you do this? If you got the blade in THAT far, he's already toast!<br>
<br>
Waltz up to the guy, slam 15 pounds of wood and metal into him, and stick him quickly in the guts. If you can manage that, trust me, he's not going to bother you again today! To add my own personal experience to that, I once got brushed, lightly, with the rim of a shield half the size of a scutum. Went to the hospital for 6 stitches in my lip, and REALLY didn't feel like playing the rest of the day. A bit harder, and it would have busted my teeth and nose, maybe even broken my jaw. Sure, I might survive that. A tough guy might even go back into the fight in a few minutes, if he's able to stagger back out of the action at first. But if he goes down, he's in trouble, big time.<br>
<br>
Keep it simple. Stick 'em in the soft parts, in-out. Oh, and pay attention to the primary evidence, cuz it's all we got if we really want the answers.<br>
<br>
Vale,<br>
<br>
Matthew/Quintus <p></p><i></i>
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Reply
#18
Thanks, that confirms what I said above.<br>
<br>
I admit I don't do Roman enactment; the sword I use is an 11th century Norman bastard one, thus I only tried to imagine what I would do if I had only a gladius. Aim for the belly, was my idea. The victim will end up on the ground, pressing both hands to what is an extremely painful wound (ever had appendicitis?) and not be in a shape to stab at you. Moreover, the higher thrust would mean your elbow pokes out. I don't know how good the enemies of the Romans were, but <strong>I</strong> would concentrate on those elbows. A solid blow, even with the shield, and the soldier in question will drop the gladius.<br>
<br>
To be honest, because of my fighting style, I would look for a spatha anyway.<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply
#19
Matt is right. Smash with the shield. Blade into stomach (or throat) and back out again. Move on to the next one. Nice and quick. Practical and efficient. Typically Roman. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=danielraymondhoward>Daniel Raymond Howard</A> at: 7/29/04 2:03 pm<br></i>
Reply
#20
Here maybe some useful quotes from Tacitus Annals:<br>
<br>
Book II:<br>
<br>
"It is not," he said, "plains only which are good for the fighting of Roman soldiers, but woods and forest passes, if science be used. For the huge shields and unwieldly lances of the barbarians cannot, amid trunks of trees and brushwood that springs from the ground, be so well managed as our javelins and swords and closefitting armour. Shower your blows thickly; strike at the face with your swords' points. The German has neither cuirass nor helmet; even his shield is not strengthened with leather or steel, but is of osiers woven together or of thin and painted board."<br>
<br>
"From nine in the morning to nightfall the enemy were slaughtered, and ten miles were covered with arms and dead bodies"<br>
<br>
Agricola:<br>
Battle at Mons Graupius, he describes the attack of the Roman Auxiliary:<br>
<br>
"No sooner did the Batavians begin to close with the enemy, to strike them with their shields, to disfigure their faces, and overthrowing the force on the plain to advance their line up the hill, than the other auxiliary cohorts joined with eager rivalry in cutting down all the nearest of the foe"<br>
<br>
"Everywhere there lay scattered arms, corpses, and mangled limbs, and the earth reeked with blood."<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Although Tacitus usually isn't too accurate I think this description gives a little insight on the use of the gladius in a battle against barbarians <p></p><i></i>
RESTITVTOR LIBERTATIS ET ROMANAE RELIGIONIS

DEDITICIVS MINERVAE ET MVSARVM

[Micha F.]
Reply
#21
The face might work as a target. When you hold the gladius with your fingers upward, you can keep the arm close to your body. It is the thrusts aiming at the breast that force you to bend your elbow at an outward angle. And while fighting with a longer sword <em>is</em> different in many aspects, what my teacher said, "exposed limbs are weak spots," is a rule that goes for all fighting. Wide arched swings, he told me, might look flashy, but they aren't very pratical, not if your opponent is fast and cuts your arm off before you've completed the swing. The trick with the longer sword is to maintain a balance that will give the sword the best possible impact while keeping your arms and legs as close to the body as possible. Wooden practise swords leave nice blue marks if you do it wrong. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#22
Ave Matt,<br>
<br>
Well, personally, I'd agree with John Waller & Mark<br>
Corby in aiming for the throat or face. Certainly<br>
against a similarly armoured opponent. And I know<br>
you've previously told the list to avoid the enemy's<br>
armour; instead, recommending going for the 'soft bits'. By the way, I'd always assumed that you intended the throat or face by that (but maybe it<br>
would be better not to ask).<br>
<br>
Graham's Ludus Gladiatoria give very good displays<br>
of gladiatorial combat (affiliated to Leg II Augusta)<br>
and when a wounded gladiator is to be put to the<br>
sword, the call is for 'Jugula' (jugular) and their<br>
throat is cut. Presumably, also, wounded enemies<br>
on the battlefield were dispatched in the same way.<br>
Which makes me wonder why that would not be<br>
the target in the first place. Go for the throat, and<br>
then, only if you miss, go for it again.<br>
<br>
But I was forgetting, there is one ancient source<br>
which describes a battle-scene. This is Ammianus Marcelinus on the Battle of Strasbourg in AD 357.<br>
Whilst reading this, we ought not to forget the<br>
important effect of adrenaline on the soldier. What<br>
we might also term the 'berserker' effect. It's too<br>
easy to forget that, in the heat of a battle a man<br>
might receive many non-lethal wounds without<br>
even knowing he's been hit, and could still inflict<br>
a killing blow, himself, before his own adrenaline<br>
and endorphins have worn off:<br>
<br>
"The Cornuti and Bracchiati, veterans experienced<br>
in war, intimidated the enemy by their bearing and<br>
put all their strength into their famous war-cry.<br>
Volleys of javelins flew hissing through the air on<br>
both sides. A cloud of dust arose and obscured<br>
the field, in which arms were hurtling against arms<br>
and bodies against bodies. The hail of plumbatae<br>
and javelins and the volleys of iron-tipped arrows<br>
did not slacken, although blade was clashing on<br>
blade in hand to hand combat. Armour was pierced<br>
by sword blows and *wounded men, who still had<br>
some blood left in them, rose from the ground to attempt some further exploit*". <br>
<br>
Wow! Those cotton-pickin' pesky wounded<br>
men just don't know how to stay down! They must<br>
think they're Terminators or something.<br>
<br>
Salve <p></p><i></i>
"Feel the fire in your bones."
Reply
#23
A person on thwe ground with a stomach, or throat, or groin injury is not going to be getting back up and there would be little adrenaline to draw upon. In the above example there was a significant exchange of missiles. These missiles were often non-fatal, striking in the arms and legs. One might expect a warrior to get back up from many of these injuries. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#24
I took these pictures on small exhibition about excavations on necropolis of gladiators in Museum in city of Selcuk in Turkey (2002). Sorry about my English. It is the part of Ephesus necropolis. Sorry about quality of the pics, I was the begginer in digital photography those days. There was no published material about the exhibition as far as I remember.<br>
<img src="http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2590637-lg.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
<img src="http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2590635-lg.jpg" style="border:0;"/><br>
<img src="http://gallery.photo.net/photo/2590634-lg.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#25
I found some pics which might interest you as well in M.Junkelmann's "Die Legionen des Augustus".<br>
<br>
He has some pictures of dead britons found near Maiden Castle, Dorset in there. Maybe you can find the book or someone has those pics. If not I can go to scan them for you. <p></p><i></i>
RESTITVTOR LIBERTATIS ET ROMANAE RELIGIONIS

DEDITICIVS MINERVAE ET MVSARVM

[Micha F.]
Reply
#26
I would think that it shouldn't be terribly difficult to estimate what sort of effects any possible wound inflicted by a weapon such as a Gladius might have- based on a little knowledge of anatomy and physiology (I'm a biologist and a medical lab tech, so I had to study this to an extent).<br>
<br>
I'd definitely agree that the adrenaline response could-well 'immunize' a combatant against the effects of many injuries, so I'd think it useful to first consider the most severe or rapidly fatal wounds.<br>
<br>
Quickly fatal (instant to a very few minutes):<br>
<br>
Artery (aorta, carotid, femoral, brachial, abdominal, etc.)<br>
Cervical spinal column (above C6, I think it is)<br>
Airway (e.g., crushed or severed trachaea)<br>
Cranial injury<br>
<br>
Arterial damage will allow significant blood-loss quite quickly- we have only about 5L of blood, and blood pressure rises in response to decreased blood volume, the more one loses, the quicker the rest is lost. Arteries can automatically pinch off to stem the loss, but this is only really effective if they're of small diameter (at the extremeties, for example).<br>
<br>
Damage to the spinal cord above the 6th cervical vertebra (I think it is), will compromise the autonomic control over breathing and cardiac function. Sever it there and death is more-or-less instantaneous.<br>
<br>
Without a functional airway, most of us would lose consciousness in barely 2 minutes. I'd think that any injury serious enough to compromise the airway would be significant, and would render the victim quite non-functional, with respect to combat ,for that time.<br>
<br>
Cranial injury from a sword like the Gladius seems most likely to take the form of a thrust at the face- the bone is quite thick, oddly-shaped and I would think it somewhat 'resistant' to a thrust attack- the hit would have to be powerful to kill or incapacitate instantly. I could see many strikes indeed doing a fair amount of damage to the face and eyes, but not penetrating the brain case. A slashing attack would be a different story- even the dullest blade can cause significant crush injury to the skull. Injure the brain and a quick loss-of-consciousness often results.<br>
<br>
Fatal, but not as fast (still in the timeframe of minutes):<br>
<br>
Any wound that causes continuous blood loss that will not stop (e.g., a large vein such as the inferior vena cava)<br>
<br>
<br>
So, basically, the neck is a VERY vulnerable region. Your trachaea is right in front, there are the carotid arteries and jugular veins to the sides, and the spinal column in the rear. A good swing from the side or thrust from the front would probably be enough to kill. Even the edge of a Scutum thrust out could crush the trachaea if it hit home.<br>
<br>
I'd look at the rest of the body by regions:<br>
<br>
Extremities- not too vulnerable unless the arteries are severed, and both the brachial (arms), and femoral (legs) arteries are quite deep in the tissues, on the inside of the limb. A thrusting attack would have to be fairly lucky to hit one I should think. I would put the groin in this group because there the threat would be to the iliac and femoral arteries- again deep and protected by the pelvis to some extent.<br>
<br>
Thorax (chest, throat to diaphragm)- MANY vulnerable targets. Lungs- I'd think both would have to be punctured to constitute a fatal situation, as a person can survive with only one. Injury to the heart or any of the cardiac arteries or veins would obviously be quickly fatal. The liver is also here, and being so highly vascularized, a significant wound here will be fatal, but on a longer timescale. Damage to the diaphragm would indeed significantly affect breathing, and I'd expect that an upward thrust to perforate both it and one of the lungs. This would significantly affect breathing.<br>
<br>
Abdomen- the least vulnerable as far as rapid death goes. A thrust right to the midline could hit either the thoracic artery or inferior vena cava, both of which run down the line of the spine, and that kind of wound I would consider to be the only quickly fatal abdominal wound. The spleen is a very small organ to the side of the stomach, and indeed if it was struck, death by blood loss could occur in the short-term, but, like the liver, on a longer timescale.<br>
<br>
Most of the injuries I've described as being very quickly fatal would, however, probably be quickly incapacitating. Blood-loss would cause the injured man to slow and tire quickly as would any injury that affected breathing. Thoracic injuries would probably be concurrent with a hemothorax- the chest cavity filling with blood- which makes breathing and cardiac activity more and more difficult. A punctured lung can be accompanied by a pneomothorax- the chest filling with air- which has the same effect as a hemothorax. The modern treatment for both of these, as people who watch ER know (ha), is to insert a tube to remove the blood or air. If this isn't done, the injuried party will die from asphyxiation or cardiac distress.<br>
<br>
So, Gaius, I would think that for the purposes of a story, you can take the immediately fatal type of wound as such, and any of the longer timescale ones as fairly immediately incapacitating. Anything else you can use at your discretion- indeed some seemingly serious wounds not involving any of the vital organs can be quite deadly or amazingly survivable. I too have seen archaeological specimens such as skulls with obvious healing of what seemed to be very serious wounds.<br>
<br>
Matt <p></p><i></i>
See FABRICA ROMANORVM Recreations in the Marketplace for custom helmets, armour, swords and more!
Reply
#27
Arahne<br>
<br>
Nic epictures .... any chance of a translation of what wassaid on the posters ?<br>
<br>
Conal <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#28
Arahne:<br>
Could you post those pictures on our sister site Roman Combat Sports? They are sure to spark some serious discussion. There's a link at the top of the home page here. <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#29
I have had the opportunity to use a gladius on a dead deer. The blade punctures the stomach very easily even with a gladius that is not sharpened although it does come to a point. A blow aimed at the ribs is a waste of time if the blade is vertical it will not get through the ribs and if it is held horizontal you have a 50% chance of getting through the ribs (if you hit a gap). I was apply a reasonable amount of force and the point didn't cut through the ribs.<br>
From my experience in practice fighting a high blow is more difficult to achieve than a blow at waist hight. It is difficult to get past a shield; your own shield gets in the way almost as much as the opponents does. I tend to strike at the opponent to the right of me as he is generally busy looking at the person in front of him. If you are fighting with a Hasta you can go for a person two people down the line because of the extra reach.<br>
It is my opinion that the Legionary would strike at either the stomach or the neck<br>
AUlus Cladius Maximus <p></p><i></i>
Bernard Jacobs
Any opinion stated is genally not the opinion of My group or Centurian
Reply
#30
Note the anatomical illustration above. The circles mark wounds found in gladiator's skeletons. Notice the cluster acrodd the upper chest area. These are probably from the over-the-shield-and-downward thrust seen often in gladiatorial art. Gladiators often fought with large shields and very small swords, but the techniques would be applicable to legionary combat. Few gladiators wore body armor, but Rome's enemies often didn't either. <p></p><i></i>
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Sharpening the gladius/Flesh wounds ParthianBow 20 4,688 04-28-2009, 09:56 PM
Last Post: Gregg

Forum Jump: