09-20-2009, 07:55 PM
Well clearly because both types of sword were double-edged, they were both suitable for slashing (probably hacking is a better word) and the long point of the Mainz and the reinforced short point of the Pompeii are both excellent for thrusting; the sheer weight of the Mainz (a proper reconstruction weighs in at around 1265g) in a short, wide blade clearly makes it a formidable hacking weapon- and the long point, still being fairly thick at the end, is obviously effective for stabbing; the Pompeii, on the other hand is rather light and narrow (a proper reconstruction is on the order of 880g), however it is nearly as thick and my research has suggested the majority, if not all, extant examples had one form of reinforced point or another, suggesting stabbing was definitely a primary function (slashing swords often have virtually no point).
The ancient writers, such as Polybius, Plutarch, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Tacitus mention both cutting and stabbing, but the latter moreso; Polybius writes "... the Romans, having excellent points to their swords, used not to cut but to thrust... for that (the sword) of the Romans can thrust with as deadly effect as it can cut" (Histories, vi, 39.) and Dionysius of Halicarnassus writes of the Gauls raising their swords aloft whereupon the Romans would hold up their shields to protect them, then stooping and holding their swords straight out, they would strike the Gauls in the groin, piercing their sides and drive blows through their breasts into their vitals (slightly condensed but accurate 'quote') (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 7.14.10, 18). Granted some of these are describing events prior to the advent of the Mainz, so would be describing the G. hispaniensis, which was a rather longer sword, but they still speak to Roman tactics. That being said, I would also point out the short length of the gladius (both types), made hacking at close-quarters quite possible and as much as the thrust was important, I would take from these writings that it was close-quarters combat that was the Roman hallmark, and the short swords specifically meant they could do whatever they wanted without being concerned about space.
I would consider the speed of use to be an issue too- a 50% reduction in mass, and size both, surely makes the Pompeii a much faster weapon and I would strongly suspect its reduction in size makes it a better thrusting weapon as well- conversely, I would wonder about its efficacy at chopping; it's still very thick to ward off bending, but I would certainly see a Pompeii bending long before a Mainz.
It's also vital to bear in mind that battles were surely very excited situations- training will certainly affect one's movements to a good extent, but I doubt there were many (any?) Legionaries who would not strike where and when they could.
One interesting fact I would throw into the mix here, is that there are a couple of examples a least of spathae that also have reinforced points like the Pompeii- they're basically elongated Pompeii blades; most would suggest a cavalry sword to be a slashing weapon, however the point would suggest otherwise. Plus, there are two spathae, one from Newstead that might be more 'well known', that are extremely narrow- on the order of just 30mm (!), that even if as thick as the gladii, would surely have a great bending problem if used to slash; the gladius is so short that it's protected from bending problems somewhat, but the spatha that is more than 30% longer is in far more danger of this rather dibilitating problem- considering on horseback one cannot just step on the blade to straighten it.
Matt's right that the waist doesn't add any siginficant amount of extra work to forging a sword, but the Mainz is twice the width of the Pompeii, that's where the type is rather harder to make. I've forged a number of each type and clearly the Pompeii is much easier. One must also consider the forging of the billet- the Mainz is much larger therefore requires more iron, which costs more, takes more time to work a 'blank' for and so on- at every level the Mainz is a much more expensive sword to produce. And the significant reduction in size of decoration of the scabbards- going from fully-encased in copper alloy to a discrete, much smaller, locket and chape with small intervening pieces, also very much reduced the cost of the Pompeii. I don't know if it's realy true that it was cost that motivated the changeover, but it is reasonable to suspect it. Whether it was overall cost, speed of production or, more likely, a combination of both and other factors, that's up for debate.
The ancient writers, such as Polybius, Plutarch, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Tacitus mention both cutting and stabbing, but the latter moreso; Polybius writes "... the Romans, having excellent points to their swords, used not to cut but to thrust... for that (the sword) of the Romans can thrust with as deadly effect as it can cut" (Histories, vi, 39.) and Dionysius of Halicarnassus writes of the Gauls raising their swords aloft whereupon the Romans would hold up their shields to protect them, then stooping and holding their swords straight out, they would strike the Gauls in the groin, piercing their sides and drive blows through their breasts into their vitals (slightly condensed but accurate 'quote') (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 7.14.10, 18). Granted some of these are describing events prior to the advent of the Mainz, so would be describing the G. hispaniensis, which was a rather longer sword, but they still speak to Roman tactics. That being said, I would also point out the short length of the gladius (both types), made hacking at close-quarters quite possible and as much as the thrust was important, I would take from these writings that it was close-quarters combat that was the Roman hallmark, and the short swords specifically meant they could do whatever they wanted without being concerned about space.
I would consider the speed of use to be an issue too- a 50% reduction in mass, and size both, surely makes the Pompeii a much faster weapon and I would strongly suspect its reduction in size makes it a better thrusting weapon as well- conversely, I would wonder about its efficacy at chopping; it's still very thick to ward off bending, but I would certainly see a Pompeii bending long before a Mainz.
It's also vital to bear in mind that battles were surely very excited situations- training will certainly affect one's movements to a good extent, but I doubt there were many (any?) Legionaries who would not strike where and when they could.
One interesting fact I would throw into the mix here, is that there are a couple of examples a least of spathae that also have reinforced points like the Pompeii- they're basically elongated Pompeii blades; most would suggest a cavalry sword to be a slashing weapon, however the point would suggest otherwise. Plus, there are two spathae, one from Newstead that might be more 'well known', that are extremely narrow- on the order of just 30mm (!), that even if as thick as the gladii, would surely have a great bending problem if used to slash; the gladius is so short that it's protected from bending problems somewhat, but the spatha that is more than 30% longer is in far more danger of this rather dibilitating problem- considering on horseback one cannot just step on the blade to straighten it.
Matt's right that the waist doesn't add any siginficant amount of extra work to forging a sword, but the Mainz is twice the width of the Pompeii, that's where the type is rather harder to make. I've forged a number of each type and clearly the Pompeii is much easier. One must also consider the forging of the billet- the Mainz is much larger therefore requires more iron, which costs more, takes more time to work a 'blank' for and so on- at every level the Mainz is a much more expensive sword to produce. And the significant reduction in size of decoration of the scabbards- going from fully-encased in copper alloy to a discrete, much smaller, locket and chape with small intervening pieces, also very much reduced the cost of the Pompeii. I don't know if it's realy true that it was cost that motivated the changeover, but it is reasonable to suspect it. Whether it was overall cost, speed of production or, more likely, a combination of both and other factors, that's up for debate.
See FABRICA ROMANORVM Recreations in the Marketplace for custom helmets, armour, swords and more!
