Mainz and Pompeii swords

[Jona Lendering]

I know next to nothing about military equipment, but for some of you, this question must be a piece of cake: are the following statements correct?

- The Mainz sword was the dominant type during the early Principate
- The Pompeii swords replaced the Mainz sword
- Mainz swords were used to thrust with the point
- Pompeii swords have parallel edged blades and a short point

If so, can I deduce that

- Mainz swords have no parallel edged blades and a long point?
- Pompeii swords were used for slashing with the edge?

[Doc]

I agree with all your four points but the second deduction, in my opinion, should be reevaluated some. Mind you that this is my opinion but if one takes a good look at the two swords then what I am going to say may make some sense. I think that the Mainz would be better both for slashing and thrusting while the Pompeii would be better for thrusting.

The Pompeii blade is not really that robust. As a matter of fact, it is quite smaller in all its dimensions realtive to the Mainz.

[jvrjenivs]

As both types are still relatively short I wouldn't say that a pompeii is more good for slashing. Both, in my opinion, are thrusting weapons. Note that we get an cavalry spatha developed simultaneously with the pompeii, combining the parallel edges of the pompeii with the longer slashing blades of celtic/germanic swords (most probably la Tene III types), I'm aware that you simply need a longer sword to use from horseback, but I would say this also shows some different tactictal uses. We still associate the long La Tene blades both with cavalry as well as infantry.

[Celer]

Salve,

I think the most important point is that the Pompeii-type was easier to manufacture, and the scabbards were also more basic. I would guess that the shift in use was more cost-related.

Vale,

Celer.

[Jona Lendering]

As I could have expected, I received expert advise within a couple of hours. The possibilities of the www continue to impress me.

I think that the Mainz would be better both for slashing and thrusting while the Pompeii would be better for thrusting.

In any case, it may have something to do with a change in tactics; that's already quite something.

Note that we get an cavalry spatha developed simultaneously with the pompeii

This is very interesting; is this "common knowledge" or Jurjen's own observation?

I think the most important point is that the Pompeii-type was easier to manufacture, and the scabbards were also more basic. I would guess that the shift in use was more cost-related.

This is indeed relevant; yet, it may be the other way round. Someone (Claudius?) decided that legionary tactics had to change, so new swords had to be mass-produced, so the quality declined.

[Matthew Amt]

My own humble illustration of blade outlines may help:

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/blades.gif

I would not be too quick to conclude that either is inherently better at slashing or thrusting. Sure, the Mainz tends to be a little heavier because of its width (and often greater length), but the narrow point is not an advantage for slashing. The shorter point of the Pompeii is actually better for a slash than the Mainz point. Neither of these blades is really designed to cut heads in half, of course, but it really doesn't take all that much force to sever the tendons across the back of a man's hand, for instance, or to cut through a jugular vein. Both are perfectly adequate for that.

I'm also a little leery about ascribing the change to some sudden need to cut costs. The Pompeii sword seems to show up after the army had shrunk down from the huge numbers of the Civil Wars. So there wouldn't be much need for huge numbers of cheap weapons. Helmets are actually getting fancier than the plain Coolus and Montefortino types, and Pompeii scabbards are still plenty ornate.

A change in tactics also doesn't seem likely to me, at least something so significant as to cause a re-equipping of the whole army. Mainz and Pompeii swords were used right alongside each other for many years, after all. Basically legionaries are still standing in lines, smashing their shields into their opponents and then thrusting--or cutting, if the situation called for it--with their swords. That could be done just as well with a Mainz or a Pompeii sword, or, for that matter, with a bronze leaf blade or a late medieval cinqueda dagger! If anyone had consciously decided that there should be a significant change in tactics beyond that, especially an emperor, I think there'd be more evidence for it.

My gut reaction is that things changed mostly because things change. Not much of a premise to build a thesis on, sorry....

Valete,

Matthew

[Jona Lendering]

Thanks Matthew.

[Doc]

Matt,

How can something with a short point be better at slashing? Not to mention Pompeii blades have the tip of their point shaped into a Philips head screwdriver. This would seem to me a point reinforcment for thrusting. The longer should be better for slashing because of its extra "reach". In the case of the Mainz, longer, and heaver can cause more damage than short and light.

[Matthew Amt]

Matt,

How can something with a short point be better at slashing? Not to mention Pompeii blades have the tip of their point shaped into a Philips head screwdriver. This would seem to me a point reinforcment for thrusting. The longer should be better for slashing because of its extra "reach". In the case of the Mainz, longer, and heaver can cause more damage than short and light.

Well, I'm thinking of a slash with more of the tip rather than a cut or chop with the edge. In this case, the more acute angle of the Pompeii blade will allow it to slash across the target, whereas it seems to me the longer point of the Mainz would be more inclined to "snag", especially if the blade isn't at just the right angle. Might even make it bend. Note that spatha points are short like a Pompeii!

True, that reinforced style of point doesn't really back this up, but I still think both these styles were both mainly designed for thrusting. So I agree with you on that score. On average the Mainz is longer and heavier, but because of that the Pompeii is just a tad faster! Probably it evens out, or allows for some personal preference. Gaius likes to get in and out fast, leaving his bleeding opponent curious as to where the blow came from. Brutus wants to take off body parts, and leave his opponent in no doubt at all!

Vale,

Matthew

[PhilusEstilius]

I would be inclined to say that all swords that have a double sharp cutting edge can be used as slashing type weapons, however I think most would be aware that a gladius of any type is a short stabbing weapon as per the standard Roman fighting method.
I must agree with Matt that a quick slash here and there at a tendon would have been done, and the general opinion appears to be that the Pompeii does follow the Mainz.
I must also agree with Celer on his opinion about the economics and easier production aspects of the Pompeii types.

Then where Jerjen mentions the cavalry Spartha the link to a drawing I've made shows how the tang would have been on this weapon, as opposed to the right angle style tang of the Gladius. This particular drawing is verified from an actual strickerplate that I have of a Spartha where the underside of the plate is 45mm wide at it's gap and the upper side is only 35mm, indicating that the tang of the Spartha came down in a curve to the edge of the blade or indeed at an angle.

It is made this way for the shock point of impact is felt at the handgrip area of any sword, therefore I think that the Gladius would not take too many such blows before it would face damage at this point due to it's almost right angle tang.
Indeed as Matt says a gentle slash at a tendon puts you down but in general all Gladius are for stabbing.

These 2 links show the aspects of the Sartha tang.

http://www.northumberland-computers.com/sextima/bld.jpg

http://www.northumberland-computers.com/sextima/sw2.jpg

[Sean Manning]

I would be inclined to say that all swords that have a double sharp cutting edge can be used as slashing type weapons, however I think most would be aware that a gladius of any type is a short stabbing weapon as per the standard Roman fighting method.

Do we know that there was a standard Roman fighting method based on thrusts though? On one hand you have Vegetius, but on the other you have Tacitus' description of Batavians fighting and Plutarch's comments about the Greeks being horrified when they saw their dead cut to pieces by the swords of Roman velites. On the gripping hand, the standard Roman fighting stance, with the sword-side fist low and back and the sword-side forearm vertical, does seem more suited for thrusts and light cuts than powerful cuts.

I agree with you and Matthew that Roman soldiers were probably practical about using both cuts and thrusts as needed.

[PhilusEstilius]

I do think that there is the situation of the shield wall which is created right after the Pilum thro' of two ranks that are staggered by two meter gaps, this way the two ranks thro' at the same time giving 160 Pilum going at the enemy all at the same time in the correct Manipular fashion.

The rear rank steps forward by one miles pasus linking shields with their partner Century of the Maniple with swords drawn alongside their shields stabbing at anyone that comes up against the wall, if the wall should be forced apart for any reason there might just be a little bit of sword swinging and slashing.
It is not very likely that this would happen for the Roman system was that the wall could move forward or back without the enemy even seeing that this was happening, for the ranks behind are there to strengthen it and of course rotate so there is always a strong front line.

I think yes the Gladius was mainly a stabbing weapon and the system only changes when we go through the later periods where armour is not worn so much and the long Spartha keeps everyone at a six foot distance instead of shoulder to shoulder fighting anymore.

[M. Demetrius]

one miles pasus

Surely you mean "one pasus", one pace, not k"a thousand paces" (a mile), right?

Many people would disagree with the shield to shield positioning, but I'm sure there were times when that might happen. The staggered lines with 6 foot lateral spacing is not too wide for a solid formation. Two men standing side by side with arms extended, fingertips touching is about that wide. There's plenty of room for sword fighting, and with a second line standing behind, there's not danger of enemies coming between the front line.

Anyway, until we have one or three hundred men to test things out, it will be difficult to know how well it works, one way or the other. I do know that in Gallic Wars, Caesar at least once went to the troops and forced them to spread out, to give themselves room to fight. So tight ranks were not what he wanted at that time. Then he picked up a scutum and joined them in the battle. INteresting?

[marcos]

up to my opinion, the pompei was for sure not a slashing sword, but just thrusting.
A lot of specimens of that kind have blade with weight around 3-400 gr. and really narrow (3.5-4.0 cm.); absolutely hard to kill a man with those slashing.
Previous types specimens (hispanienis, fulham,mainz) are normally heavier but often short, thus equally improper to slash.

Anyhow I do agree that the shift from the latter types to pompei was cost-related.

[Matthew Amt]

But if they were worried about costs, why did the scabbards continue to be decorated? Why was there so much useless decorative brasswork on the armor? Why did helmets actually get fancier? The cost difference between a Mainz blade and a Pompeii just wouldn't be that much. Experienced blade-makers have said that forging a waisted blade is really not significantly harder than a parallel-edged one. (It seems like more work to us because we so often start with straight-sided steel stock!) So I'm just not seeing that as a major factor.

Valete,

Matthew