Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated?

[Kai]

Well, they certainly managed to win over the longer weapon wielders with it and create an empire that lasted for almost 2000 years.
The semi-spatha was still in use after Adrianopol, which is what I am guessing you refer to?

First of all, I would like to clarify that I don't think the Roman short sword after 'spanish' fashion was a bad weapon, quite the opposite: the effect it had on Philipp and his men is obvious testimony for its worth (Livy 31,34). Still...

I for one wrote 3rd century, meaning the defeats especially against the Persians, but the contemporary defeat at the hands of the Goths and the slaughter of Decius also fits. Again, the figures given by Christian Miks are clear: there was a massive shift in the 3rd century; at the time of Adrianople (to take that one), there are barely ANY blades shorter 700mm – to be precise: there is exactly one short blade found, which is dated into that time, opposed to 89 blades longer than 700mm, the majority of which is even longer than 800mm (49). (Miks, Studien, Abb. 2)

Evidently, of the 1500 years the Roman Empire (meaning having an Emperor), 1200 years it was defended by a long sword :? – However I really don’t see any sense in arguments like this or the “it created an Empire” argument, as if the weapon was responsible. And, if the opposition had few swords, like the Germanics, which furthermore were of Roman pattern, how would that prove the superiority of short swords over long swords? If anything it would prove the superiority of short sword over spears, but even then one rightly would point to tactics, body armour and other factors.
In short, any argument like “it was used for x years”, “it was used by successful y” or the likes means nothing at all imo.

On the contrary the adopting and discarding of certain weapons can - although it does not have to be - attributed to equally certain tactical needs. The Suda entry on the adoption of the Spanish sword would be one example, maybe even a contemporary source as the entry is probably a Polybius fragment.
It’s superiority over the Gallic long sword did lay in its versatility, for the Gallic long sword could only slash (so they say…), and once the space for slashing is denied, the thrust becomes the battle winner.
However a Roman spatha could also thrust, and if we are to trust Ammianus Marcellinus, the Roman tactics still put an emphasis on thrusts in close order, only slashing when the enemy fled (16,12,49-52). So if the short gladius was better at that, there must have been very good non-tactical reasons to discard it. I cannot think of any though.

[rrgg]

It was the primary weapon. The javalin was used to blunt the enemy attack, before going in for the kill.
It could be used as a stabbing spear when required, but usually on special instruction. i.e. GJC at Pharsalus.

Generally the spear was the primary weapon, the javelin was an evolution of the spear.

The reason for the javelin's use in combat is fairly obvious, you come to battle with a spear while your enemy comes with a 15 foot Sarissa that you have no hope of competing with so you take your spear overhand and throw it as hard as you can. The goal of a heavy javelin like the pilum is to get a one time free kill against a better armed enemy, unfortunately as with all missile weapons it can't always be relied upon to hit, which is why the Roman needs a good back-up weapon.

Other than that, the javelin suffered the problem of being a one-time use weapon, even inbetween battles the pilum suffered as bends needed to be constantly repaired.

[rrgg]

@Lupercus

Hi, I haven't been fortunate enough to do a lot of reenactment combat myself (although it looks like a lot of fun) so I have a couple of questions

1. In your opinion, is there any significant advantage to having a short sword instead of a longer sword with a similar shield?

2. Have you had much experience against opponents using spears, either two handed or with a shield?

3. About how heavy is the shield you use?

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

So what sort of formation does it take for the Roman sword to be effective? A couple of sources such as Polybius have mentioned Roman soldiers actually being spaced 3 feet apart to either side so that they could swing their swords.

I believe he actually says that there is 3 feet of space allowed for each man, meaning they are reasonably close together with only small gaps between shields, but enough elbow room to fight effectively.

Actually, Polybius does say that the Romans were spaced 3 feet apart in all directions in addition to the 3 feet occupied by a soldier. Polybius is contrasting a looser Roman formation to that of the Macedonian phalanx, where indeed only three feet of space per a soldier was maintained:

18.29.1 That when the phalanx has its characteristic virtue and strength nothing can sustain its frontal attack or withstand the charge can easily be understood for many reasons. 2 For since, when it has closed up for action, each man, with his arms, occupies a space of three feet in breadth...
18.30.6 Now in the case of the Romans also each soldier with his arms occupies a space of three feet in breadth, 7 but as in their mode of fighting each man must move separately, as he has to cover his person with his long shield, turning to meet each expected blow, and as he uses his sword both for cutting and thrusting it is obvious that a looser order is required, 8 and each man must be at a distance of at least three feet from the man next him in the same rank and those in front of and behind him, if they are to be of proper use

So, no shield wall in the Roman army that Polybius has witnessed. References supporting the "shield wall" view would be greatly appreciated.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, the whole premise of this thread title was the short sword is over rated.
you obviously have an advatage over reading Miks in German, I have to look at the pictures :wink:
But there seems to have been morethan one semi-spatha found surely? there are certainly morethan one shrt sword pictured wit hwhat appears to be later long swords.

Generally the spear was the primary weapon, the javelin was an evolution of the spear.

We're talking about the Romans in the period of the short sword, not generally, surely?

The reason for the javelin's use in combat is fairly obvious,

Your point with these obvious statments, which don't require explaining? :?
I don't see the need to fluff up the argument here. The use of the pilum is well known to all themembers here, including myself, and also the
use of the gladius.
You still haven't convinced me the empire was created by anything other than a combination of the heavy and light pilum(Javalin not a spear)
and the short sword. It may have been maintained for the rest of its period by the changing patterns of sword use,
but still, it was built with the short sword.

A spear usually has a leaf shaped blade, and while there are some javalin types that also have a different variety of spear heas, the pilum was first and for most a javalin.

nite nite all! :mrgreen:

[rrgg]

We're talking about the Romans in the period of the short sword, not generally, surely?

Generally a spear, sometimes pikes or other polearms, occasionally you might get specialists armed with two handed axes or greatswords. Bows, slings, or javelins (considering the pilum not a pure javelin here) would be the primary weapons of support or skirmish troops.

In a list of cultures which used the short sword as their primary weapon Rome is a tad lonely.

Your point with these obvious statments, which don't require explaining? :?
I don't see the need to fluff up the argument here. The use of the pilum is well known to all themembers here, including myself, and also the use of the gladius.

Sorry, my intention was to point out why the idea of a heavy javelin replacing the spear was popular (far more reach than even the longest spear). If the Romans didn't have the pilum they would still be using hoplite spears.

You still haven't convinced me the empire was created by anything other than a combination of the heavy and light pilum(Javalin not a spear) and the short sword. It may have been maintained for the rest of its period by the changing patterns of sword use, but still, it was built with the short sword.

A spear usually has a leaf shaped blade, and while there are some javalin types that also have a different variety of spear heas, the pilum was first and for most a javalin.

nite nite all! :mrgreen:

A wider leaf blade can do more damage, but the greater surface area means less penetration. Both types of heads have been used on both javelins and spears, particularly the later polearms as armor improved.
The main reason I consider the pilum a compromise between a javelin and a spear is its length. It is true that the pilum saw a lot of variation, some were shorter, some were weighted, some were made to break on impact -these ones were probably made primarily for throwing. But without those things there isn't much reason for a javelin to be made 2 meters long (they also don't need butt-spikes, but that might just be the replicas), and if it is 2 meters long it can easily be used as an armor-piercing infantry spear.

[Matthew Amt]

Evidently, of the 1500 years the Roman Empire (meaning having an Emperor), 1200 years it was defended by a long sword :?

I won't be so crass as to suggest that for those first 300 years the Empire expanded, but after they changed to a long sword it only contracted!

All joking aside, this is probably going to end up much like the debate of why mail replaced lorica segmentata. Bottom line, we simply don't know, but we have to assume that whatever they used must have seemed adequate to them. It simply doesn't take a hundred years to figure out that something is significantly wrong with your weaponry! Sure, subtle tactical considerations were probably part of it. FASHION may have been a factor as well--never underestimate it! The entire ethnic makeup of the army was changing, along with the look of its clothing and gear.

Henry, if Romans were the only culture to use short swords so heavily, so what? Maybe it's a weapon which simply takes a lot of training and discipline to use effectively. (Which is not to be saying that the later Roman army lacked training!) We also know that the Romans were very aggressive in combat, with the men personally competing with each other to display courage and virtus. (Read Jon Lendon's "Soldiers and Ghosts" on this one, it completely changed the way I visualize a Roman army in combat!) A shorter sword encourages up-close aggression and a very in-your-face attitude which is very intimidating.

Late! Gotta go. Valete,

Matthew

[Lupercus]

@Lupercus
Hi, I haven't been fortunate enough to do a lot of reenactment combat myself (although it looks like a lot of fun) so I have a couple of questions
1. In your opinion, is there any significant advantage to having a short sword instead of a longer sword with a similar shield?
2. Have you had much experience against opponents using spears, either two handed or with a shield?
3. About how heavy is the shield you use?

Greetings!
1. There really are two aspects to this.
A. Used with a tower shield the spatha or later cruciform longsword can be very effective. You gain the advantage of reach but the added 8 to 12 inches makes the weapon difficult wield when fighting in close quarters when your shield is hugging that of your opponent. The added length gives you some defensive options but makes the weapon easier to pin so one of your squad mates can go for the kill.
B. In earlier periods longer iron blades were more susceptible to damage than shorter ones, improvements in material quality and manufacturing techniques took care of these issues. I recall reading a Republican Legionary describing a Gaul trying to straighten his iron blade on a rock.

2. Against spears:
A. 2-Handed Long-spears (IE Pikes). I have experience fighting them Roman style and I teach Elizabethan Pike Drill in another group.
i. 1-on-1 the key is to get in past the spearhead so that you are out of the kill zone. Once there put your shield on the shaft and sprint till you are in range. If he's smart he'll abandon the pike once you are past the head and draw a close range weapon.
ii. In ranks the pike is most effective as a deterrent. Use archers here.
B. 2-Handers with shields (IE Phalanx). I find the shields work best with snug fore arm straps and either an exposed wrist or a notch in the shield to pivot the shaft on.
i. 1-on-1 the pike is usually discarded early in the fight and the sword drawn.
ii. In Ranks: Best strategy get them on rough ground, second best out maneuver them. Ultimately you will have to close the distance. Hunker down behind the shield and shove forward by files. If a file succeeds in getting close try to make gaps to the left and right rather than fight the file to your front.
C. 7' Spears wielded 2-handed can be used passably well in sword range if you "choke up" on the shaft and use it bayonet style, but this really is a last ditch move.
D. 5 to 6 foot thrusting spears with shields. The style is a bit unwieldy at first for a swordsman but you can get it down easily enough. The style is difficult with gauntlets but with heavy gloves or barehanded it is easy enough to wield the weapon. The style feels best suited for horsemen and fighting opponents with light armor. You can choke up close to the head for close quarters but your angles of approach are still limited to straight out and back. Fight them in the same manner as an opponent with a sword and board.
E. Guisarm/Bill/Hooked reach weapons. Most are medieval in origin so post period but they suck to try fighting. They have the reach to hook you, the leverage to pull you off balance and a spear point to impale you with. Use missile weapons or commit to a full charge.

3. It just weighed in at 16 pounds on my bathroom scale so give or take a pound or two. When I built it I put the center grip rotated slightly to the left to hold it more comfortably (a lefty has to use it upside down). I also added a hook shaped bar so I could rest the shield in the crook of my arm to help carry it when resting wile still being instantly ready. I find shield with the center grips parallel to the ground are ambidextrous but are also uncomfortable for me to fight with.

[Lupercus]

Evidently, of the 1500 years the Roman Empire (meaning having an Emperor), 1200 years it was defended by a long sword :?

Henry, if Romans were the only culture to use short swords so heavily, so what? Maybe it's a weapon which simply takes a lot of training and discipline to use effectively. (Which is not to be saying that the later Roman army lacked training!) We also know that the Romans were very aggressive in combat, with the men personally competing with each other to display courage and virtus. (Read Jon Lendon's "Soldiers and Ghosts" on this one, it completely changed the way I visualize a Roman army in combat!) A shorter sword encourages up-close aggression and a very in-your-face attitude which is very intimidating.

Matthew

Germanic troops of the Renaisance used a tactic of two-handed swordsmen to pull pikes out of the way so men with short swords could raise Cain toe to toe.

[rrgg]

If I had to guess about the chainmail I would say it was because it offered more coverage and durability for minimal loss in protection (as long as proper layers of thick cloth or leather were worn underneath). But that's a little off topic.

Metallurgical technology might have played a role in the abandonment of the gladius, it could be that until the second century longer swords were too expensive or difficult to mass produce.



Anyways, if I think about it the main question could probably be brought down to a hypothetical, let's say that on the one side is a Roman soldier armed with only a scutum and a gladius, on the other side we have the guy representing his opponent representing all the non-legionary infantry the legionary competed with (greeks, samnites, etruscans, guals, triarii etc.) armed with a 6 to 8 foot one-handed spear (assume it isn't thrown), a similar large shield, and a similar short sword. For all intents and purposes the armor and training are similar (which wouldn't have been too historically uncommon for Rome's enemies).

So, 1 on 1 or in a group who is going to win most often? Does the legionary need the pilum in order to get the upper hand, or is his opponent better off dumping the spear before the battle even begins?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Once the legionary is inside the spears reach, he will have to dump it quickly.

[M. Demetrius]

Over rated? Hard to say. But the Romans used short swords and shields for several centuries, and it seems reasonable that they had plenty of encounters with enemies equipped both with spears and with longer swords. They still had spears, and could have made longer swords. But they didn't. They must have been satisfied with their tactics, since they'd proved effective for centuries of conquest. If they needed to change the weapons, it would be for reasons other than "they didn't work".

The spatha became the sword of choice, in my view, because more emphasis was on cavalry, and less on infantry. Short swords are not the best choice for horsemen, right?

[Kai]

@ Matthew and David about long sword wielding enemies of Rome:
Only the Gallic opposition would come in mind, whose swords were not bested because they were longer, but because they could not thrust. The Germanic opposition usually had no swords, and if so, Roman ones in the Imperial period. Long swords in the east? None were carried by infantry, just cavalry – like the Romans. The Parthian, Germanic and Celtic armies were all significantly less sophisticated and usually much worse armoured so that does not seem like a real test.

Once a comparatively well organized military machine came along, the Sassanian Persians, and once the Germanic kings were able to form super-groups like the Goths, capable of dealing serious blows to the Romans like never before since Hannibal, the short sword was discarded within one or two generations. You think these contemporary events are totally unrelated?
I am not saying one can be 100% sure, but the concurrence of archaeological record confirming a massive and rapid military modernization on the one hand, and a highly dangerous military situation on the other is a quite strong argument in my book.

Admittedly fashion indeed is a reason for weaponry change, but I must reject an argument assuming that Barbarians would bring their long swords along and suddenly out of fashion (and totally unrelated to the new threats) just everyone starts wielding them - especially when the increased use of Spathae came from Rome to the Barbaricum, not the other way around.
And why should the infantry change to long swords, just because they were suited for the more numerous getting cavalry, which had long swords all the time? Fashion? Moreover, the chronology raises doubts: when Gallienus started to put an emphasis on cavalry and thus paving the way for the later Roman army we know (as Michael Speidel so well researched in his article on the army in the two volume Zeit der Soldatenkaiser, 2009, ed. By Johne, pp. 673-690), the short swords were already gone.

@ Byron,

the figure 2 (p.21) in Christian Miks Schwertbewaffnung illustrates the development of blade lengths, so you don’t need German at all
A semispatha Miks defines it, was not found at all in fourth century context, since Miks considers the semispatha a sword of 551-600mm blade length.

regards

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

As I am unable to access my Mik's i can't say.

However, the short sword is definately not to be underestimated in its effectiveness, and I am uncertain why the Gauls were unable to stab with their long sword, except through technique and fighting style, perhaps. The whole tenet of sword fighting taught to me
by a former military veteran was, keep the point pointed at the enemy, at all times.
.
How it was superceded by the long sword I won't dispute, only the assertion it was ineffective.
It certainly was effective until superceded.

I still feel it would have had a place in the line again, if their fear of going back to it was not a psychological factor. But, that is only my opinion.
In the time of M. aurelius, the Germans had adopted the Roman style of fighting, and probably the equipment too.

[richsc]

Unfortunately, their opinion seems to conflict with the millions of people who came before and after them, even later Romans.

Whose opinion? this is a non-sequitur.

Compared ancient and medieval armies the Romans tend to stick out like a sore thumb. No one else seems to have used the short sword and shield nearly as much as the Romans, in fact, almost no one else seems to have used swords much as all, throughout the middle ages swords in the infantry would be worn primarily as sidearms as soldiers preferred to rely on spears or polearms.

Germans copied the short sword in the medieval period, so you're missing something here. And remember, all these other 'armies' are mostly gaggles of untrained farm folks or more warrior ethos types, who don't take to organization or have time for professional 'boot camp' training. The only exception that comes to mind is the English requirement for yeoman archery practice, which is documented in several stained glass windows.