Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated?

[Robert Vermaat]

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?

I don't think so. I think they changed to the spatha because battle tactics changed. Because either the enemy became different (and I suppose that the many civil wars played a part in that), or the enemey changed tactics (shield walls instead of reckless charger?). Either way, the legions changed to the spatha (because cavalry and I think auxilia already used the spatha) because they probably needed to react to that. I assume it was a question of reaching your opponent with a blade that needed to be longer. I think the stabbing motion was no longer possible, or effective.

Mind you: even Late Roman soldiers had a shorter balde (semispatha) as a secondary blade.

[rrgg]

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

If the legionary does get close then the risk of his fumbling as a secondary weapon is pulled out means that his opponent is at a severe disadvantage.

Either the spear is a major advantage before that point or it isn't.

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.

Pikemen and halberdiers were sometimes given short swords as a last ditch weapon, they weren't used anything like the way the Romans used them.

[Matthew Amt]

If the legionary does get close then the risk of his fumbling as a secondary weapon is pulled out means that his opponent is at a severe disadvantage.

Sorry, do you mean if the legionary is fumbling, or if his opponent is? Either way, if you still have a big shield in front of you, why should not having a weapon in your other hand put you in immediate mortal danger? In any case, we've always found that drawing the gladius after throwing the pilum is very quick and easy, and it would be more so (and more consistent!) for a trained man.

Either the spear is a major advantage before that point or it isn't.

Eh? Why does it have to be so black and white? And why a *major* advantage? I think part of the problem in this discussion is the assumption that weaponry development over the centuries is perceived as continuous *improvement*, rather than simply as changes. Battlefield advantages of one weapon over another would depend on any number of very subtle variables, including training, morale, exhaustion, terrain, weather, mood, etc., even before you get into actual weapon quality.

Technical historical questions like this one are not like wargames, with everything slotting neatly into armor classes and attack factors. There are a lot of unknowns and a lot of gray area, and we simply cannot give solid answers to certain situations. The generally accepted method is to look at the evidence and draw conclusions from that--and as far as the initial post is concerned, the archeological, literary, and pictoral evidence all agree that legionaries in the early Empire were pretty effective in combat with short swords and large shields. To deny that without some basis in historical evidence just seems odd to me. And I don't think medieval evidence is a lot of help, aside from a few comparisons.

Valete,

Matthew

[rrgg]

Sorry, do you mean if the legionary is fumbling, or if his opponent is? Either way, if you still have a big shield in front of you, why should not having a weapon in your other hand put you in immediate mortal danger? In any case, we've always found that drawing the gladius after throwing the pilum is very quick and easy, and it would be more so (and more consistent!) for a trained man.

I'm talking about his opponent
Legionaries throw their pilums and draw their swords while they are still 15 yards away, a spearman trying to draw his sword while the enemy is a couple of feet away has barely a split second to draw his sword, it can be done but it's tricky.

Eh? Why does it have to be so black and white? And why a *major* advantage? I think part of the problem in this discussion is the assumption that weaponry development over the centuries is perceived as continuous *improvement*, rather than simply as changes. Battlefield advantages of one weapon over another would depend on any number of very subtle variables, including training, morale, exhaustion, terrain, weather, mood, etc., even before you get into actual weapon quality.

Technical historical questions like this one are not like wargames, with everything slotting neatly into armor classes and attack factors. There are a lot of unknowns and a lot of gray area, and we simply cannot give solid answers to certain situations. The generally accepted method is to look at the evidence and draw conclusions from that--and as far as the initial post is concerned, the archeological, literary, and pictoral evidence all agree that legionaries in the early Empire were pretty effective in combat with short swords and large shields. To deny that without some basis in historical evidence just seems odd to me. And I don't think medieval evidence is a lot of help, aside from a few comparisons.

Valete,

Matthew

On the smaller scale that's true, if they have enough training, luck, or armor anyone with any weapon can beat anyone else with any other weapon. Thus period to period you tend to see people armed with a variety of different weapons that are chosen basically due to personal preference. But when you look at the big picture when the majority of soldiers are using the same weapons for hundreds of years there tends to be a reason.


Getting back to my hypothetical, warriors being equipped with spears, shields and short swords was very common in the ancient era, we can't really say that all the millions of warriors who carried spears into battle did so without realizing that they didn't help at all and that the Romans were the only ones smart enough to ditch their spears and draw their swords. Thus the best we can assume is that all other things being equal the spear will have the advantage. So, say 60% of the time the legionary is going to lose in our hypothetical battle (although I can't give anything certain), it will probably be worse if it is group vs group.
So, if they were at a weaponry disadvantage then why did the Romans fight this way? Well, there are 2 (possibly 3) main reasons they were able to get away with it. First was superior training and armor, most Guals, Greeks, etc. that the Romans fought were not nearly as well trained as the legions, thus Romans could usually thrash their enemies with ease even at a weaponry disadvantage (of course they may have suffered slightly heavier losses). Second was the use of the pilum, in the actual engagement the Romans may have been lacking slightly, but the ability to kill or cripple a good portion of the enemy despite shields and armor and before they even engaged easily made up for any deficiency and then a ton (so if the legionary gets a pilum he is now winning the hypothetical scenario probably to 75% of the time). The third possible reason, although there aren't many instances of it coming into play of my knowlege, is the versatility of the pilum, basically if the Romans ever did need to fend off cavalry or form a shield wall then the pilum would have made a perfectly good spear and the Romans could revert to traditional tactics at any time they wanted.

[Dan Howard]

The Romans lost as many battles as they won, and against plenty of opponents who's primary weapon was the spear, not the sword. Rome's main advantage was its ability to constantly come up with more troops to attack again and again. Rome outlasts its opponents. The Roman psyche was incredibly stubborn. They would continue to fight when more sensible people would give up and go away (if attacking) or surrender (if defending).

[M. Demetrius]

If you say it's inferior, then it must be so, Henry. I guess that ends the argument. The problem with listing a finite number of "possibilities" is that there are always more possibilities.

[rrgg]

If you say it's inferior, then it must be so, Henry. I guess that ends the argument. The problem with listing a finite number of "possibilities" is that there are always more possibilities.

There are more possibilities yes, I'm just trying to find the one that makes the most sense. More sense than 'the Romans were better because no one else figured out how to use short swords instead of spears' or 'the Romans switched to the sword for no real reason whatsoever'.

[M. Demetrius]

Pretty much everyone else knew how to use a short sword, whether a single edged seax, or a falcata, or a kopis, or a bunch of other double edged swords. The spear needed less metal, and less skill to produce, and made it possible to injure an enemy further away. They were cheaper. And the Romans used them, too. That's what the hastati carried, of course, along with their short swords. Also the Triarii. Spear AND short sword.

[rrgg]

As were many if not most warriors during that time period, and a good number were well trained and armored like the Triarii.
Hence the hypothetical, why would they drag some clumsy peasant weapon into battle with them unless it gave them some sort of advantage over other swordsmen?

[M. Demetrius]

I don't think spears are clumsy at all. They can be very effective.

Like any other weapon, it takes training to know how to use it for attack and defense, but spears are not just dumb weapons that can't do much. Tactics change for all sorts of reasons, and sometimes they may not be so clearly definable thousands of years later.

[Kai]

How it was superceded by the long sword I won't dispute, only the assertion it was ineffective.
It certainly was effective until superceded.

Let's say effective enough for the Imperial era against the meager opposition faced until the 3rd century, and I agree. I also guess it was a great tool when battling Hellenistic armies in the Republican era, but that is not my field, so it is really a guess only. Nevertheless I would never say overrated means ineffective.

You know there are people thinking the short sword was superior to the long spathae, and that the Romans changed only because Barbarians dominated the army, who were not discliplined enough for the old gladius. Sure this is nonsense, but it is a perfect example for overrating a weapon.

PS:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, it was an effective tool in it's time. The metalurgical techniques obviously improved enough too to allow the longer spatha the be produced in reliably consistent numbers for the legions too. Earlier Spatha, if only used by the mounted troops, would probably have had an elite statues too.
I am guessing your chart has something to do with clinging t-shirts? :o o Or is it the number of finds of blade lengths of certain sizes over the centuries stated?

[Kai]

Your second thought is the correct one If you need help in understanding the chart, I can translate the captions.
I am not sure if metallurgy affected the weapon's choice so much but I understand absolutely nothing about that... :oops:

[Matthew Amt]

Legionaries throw their pilums and draw their swords while they are still 15 yards away, a spearman trying to draw his sword while the enemy is a couple of feet away has barely a split second to draw his sword, it can be done but it's tricky.

Ah, gotcha! Yes, I would agree that having to ditch your spear and go for your sword because your opponent is already inside your guard would be very bad! But it is possible to fight in very close contact with a spear. You might also be able to bring it down and hold it vertically to help parry, and try to push your shield forward away from your body to keep the enemy at bay. Defensive moves, to be sure, but surviving is usually worth it!

Getting back to my hypothetical, warriors being equipped with spears, shields and short swords was very common in the ancient era, we can't really say that all the millions of warriors who carried spears into battle did so without realizing that they didn't help at all and that the Romans were the only ones smart enough to ditch their spears and draw their swords. Thus the best we can assume is that all other things being equal the spear will have the advantage.

Weeeeeeellllll, I would say the spear had an advantage *for that army*. It's possible the Romans emphasized the use of the sword to encourage aggression. Knowing that legionaries would get right in your face to shove steel in your guts (and enjoy it!) would be something to think about for tribesmen more used to standing off a pace or two and prodding with spears.

So, if they were at a weaponry disadvantage then why did the Romans fight this way? Well, there are 2 (possibly 3) main reasons they were able to get away with it. First was superior training and armor, most Guals, Greeks, etc. that the Romans fought were not nearly as well trained as the legions, thus Romans could usually thrash their enemies with ease even at a weaponry disadvantage (of course they may have suffered slightly heavier losses).

Except that we know that a victorious army generally had very light casualties, while the losers had very heavy losses. As far as we can tell, most casualties occurred when one side broke formation and fled, and got slaughtered as they ran.

Second was the use of the pilum, in the actual engagement the Romans may have been lacking slightly, but the ability to kill or cripple a good portion of the enemy despite shields and armor and before they even engaged easily made up for any deficiency and then a ton (so if the legionary gets a pilum he is now winning the hypothetical scenario probably to 75% of the time).

Except that we also know that the pilum was basically a charge-breaker and area-denial weapon. It was actually more for disruption than outright casualties.

The third possible reason, although there aren't many instances of it coming into play of my knowlege, is the versatility of the pilum, basically if the Romans ever did need to fend off cavalry or form a shield wall then the pilum would have made a perfectly good spear and the Romans could revert to traditional tactics at any time they wanted.

The pilum certainly was used as a spear at times, but it is not optimal in that role. Not only is it much more likely to bend than a spear, but the pyramidal point means that a graze causes no injury, whereas a spearblade can lay a man open even as it slides past.

Let's say effective enough for the Imperial era against the meager opposition faced until the 3rd century, and I agree.

"Meager"?!?! Whoa! Which Gauls, Germans, Britons, Jews, Parthians, Pannonians, or Dacians would those be?

You know there are people thinking the short sword was superior to the long spathae, and that the Romans changed only because Barbarians dominated the army, who were not discliplined enough for the old gladius. Sure this is nonsense, but it is a perfect example for overrating a weapon.

I agree that it is not a valid conclusion, but neither is the opposite, that a long sword is SO much better and all a shortsword would do is cause more Romans to be killed! Or that it's only good if you don't have much serious work to do... I would never say that the Later Roman army was not disciplined! But we know from Roman literature that first century legionaries were contemptuous of opponents who swung long swords at them, prefering their shorter blades. A couple centuries later, there was clearly a different school of thought at work, and they preferred spears and longer swords. It worked for them.

Why do we have to go beyond that and pin the blame on someone or something? Or prove that one or the other was "better" in some way by .02 degrees of danger?

Matthew

[Kai]

"Meager"?!?! Whoa! Which Gauls, Germans, Britons, Jews, Parthians, Pannonians, or Dacians would those be?

The same who got butchered time and again maybe? On a more serious note, I will just quote Goldsworthy: “in any study of the armies of Rome’s opponents it immediately becomes clear that these were markedly inferior in discipline, organization, and tactics to the Roman army” (The Roman Army at War,p.41).

The same cannot be said about what Rome had to face in the 3rd century; compared to the Sassanian military organization the Parthian one looks indeed meager. Rome finally met an equal in tactics and immediately suffered. Same goes for the Barbarian super groups which may not have been equal in tactics and organization but had a lot more stable leadership rallying significantly stronger forces than ever before. In just 30 years, two emperors got killed (the first, but not the last ones btw!), one was even captured, others had to kneel in front of foreign powers – certainly nothing that was ever achieved by “Gauls, Germans, Britons, Jews, Parthians, Pannonians, or Dacians “.

Not saying the long sword alone suddenly changed the tides, yet one thing is more than obvious: the opposition gets better and the short swords are abandoned almost at once. Seldom can we observe such a radical, swift and thorough military equipment reform…
That is all the more telling as tactics with emphasis on stabbing and thrusting still persisted in a highly disciplined army; the Roman army did not become an army of ill- disciplined barbarians slashing around with their fashionable long words.

It worked for them. Why do we have to go beyond that and pin the blame on someone or something? Or prove that one or the other was "better" in some way by .02 degrees of danger?

Because "it worked" is an argument one can make for every weapon ever used. 8) Surely you will agree that there is a qualitative difference between a set of military equipment that works against a weak enemy and a set that works against a strong one, especially if it is used by the same army with basicly the same techniques.