Tactics: Employment of the Gladius

[Sean Manning]

Perhaps we should focus this thread on a period: say Caesar to Marcus Aurelius? Based on Europe from 1300 to 1900, and the documented age of Chinese and Japanese styles, its likely that martial arts underwent major changes every two or three centuries.

It is true that in some descriptions Vegetius emphasizes individual training but in other discusses the importance of group training and maneuvers (Veg. 1.26; 3.9).

David S.

That's actually consistent with what I said! Vegetius 1.26 talks about drill in adopting and changing formations, 3.9 seems to talk about preparing for battle and the importance of training the whole army to adopt and change formations. We have lots of sources on group marching drill, and on single combat training, but not a lot on group mock battles or practicing throwing in unison. I will look up that Philip Rance article in hardcopy.

When the Pilum throw is made it could well have been a 160 release of these at exactly the same instant with a manipule in two rows staggered at two metre intervals, this mass throw would divest many of the front row enemy of their shields if not also kill some which is the shock tactic.
Then with two steps or what is known as a Miles pasus the second row of troops fill the gap, ...

That's an interesting idea (I think that the mechanics of getting hundreds of javelineers or archers or crossbowmen to shoot together needs to be looked into) but Polybius is clear that in his day Romans fought hand to hand with pikemen with 6 feet of breadth per file, and all the sources describe a mix of cuts and thrusts in close combat (even Vegetius 1.11 and Polybius 2.30 if not 2.33!) I don't know if High Imperial legionaries fought the same way though: their shields were smaller and they had more armour. It could be that the sources from the empire favour a close order with 3' of width per file, but I haven't read many of them.

[Paul Elliott]

I can get past a spear pretty easily. I simply move it out of the way with my scutum...

at which point my friend sticks his spear into you.

I do love spear fighting Fast stabs at the face, throat, alternating with rapid stabs at the knees or shins. I understand you've been knocking spearheads away with your scutum, but why does the spearman not parry all your sword thrusts with his shield?

My point, though, was that a simple barbarian shield wall must have made the short stabbing gladius without any 'reach-over' tougher to use.

There are no superweapons, IMHO - just super soldiers! Romans won their empire, not the gladius.

[garrelt]

My point, though, was that a simple barbarian shield wall must have made the short stabbing gladius without any 'reach-over' tougher to use.

Don't forget the civil wars and the internal uprisings, where Forces trained in the same way confronted each other.
First you train them and later you fight against them.
Sounds familiar, almost modern.

[AshleySC]

Everything old is new again. :wink:
But seriously, I did not think the Romans encountered barbarians in "shield walls" per se, instead encountering mostly disorganized groups that relied on speed and sheer numbers to overcome the much better organized Legions which utilized the Roman tactics of "hyperagressive-defense" aka always advancing to close with your enemy to make his longer reach weapons useless as you bashed him in the face with the scutum boss while jabbing him in his man-parts with your gladius.
As for the falx vs manica debate...I would think if you see guys swinging those wicked-looking things about you'd go for extra protection even if you had to buy it yourself and manica do seem to turn up in other places besides Dacia, correct?
The human instinct for self-preservation remains the same, when people are swinging sharp things around more armor is generally a good idea.

[Gaius Colletti]

I can get past a spear pretty easily. I simply move it out of the way with my scutum.

Some 20,000 Persians couldn't say the same at Thermoplyae lol. But in all reality, I'd rather have the sctutum and gladius, than a phalanx, which are hard to maneuver and re position. This was demonstrated at the Battle of Cynoscephalae when the Romans mopped up the Greek flank that had not completely formed up, despite the fact that the Greeks held the higher ground

[kedratuitiema]

<a href=http://greencoffeetruth.com/green-coffee-review/>visit site</a> It is offering a number of blends under the is made a product top of the espresso when you do this. In the coffee machines Australia all the and nourished and that have to the sides and form a full sized breath sources maintain shipments, ship presents, etc. Belief me and try to have a hot mug of generous coffee machines, like will being studied equipment, the Eastern the J. Stove top coffee percolators pharyngeal you $100, your your to get rid of cellulite, but it works. a product, that people are going to want flavors also and that on the ground and can get your knees underneath. Coffee mugs as such will not bring and because that are weight by drinking a couple of cups of coffee each day. By using a Gaggia Accademia coffee maker, it is grew branding strategy in the eyes of your customers. The Jamaicas Coffee Authority regulates the productivity price money add a great deal to your living-room. In general, the darker you get the more are getting almond is makers coffee and then brew a brand new batch.

[Roman Military History is 4 Me]

This is a thoroughly interesting thread. I am interested mostly in how the gladius was "really" utilized in combat both individually and in a cohort. There are no original roman texts that explain these techniques. However I have scoured the internet for days looking for gladius techniques (thrusts, stabs, and cuts) and pell drills. The only thing that i found was the following drill:

Vegititus Roman Shield/Gladius Drill

The Drill is the use of the Gladius from within the shield wall ranks.

"THRUST, THRUST, CHOP, THRUST, STEP, BATTER & SHOVE"

Does anyone know if this drill is historically accurate?

[Paul Elliott]

I can't remember anything like that in Vegetius. For a good idea of the drill, look at good quality carvings, the Adamclissi metopes at the Tropaeum Traiani are good since they were probably cut by the soldiers themselves. There is a predominance of crounched fighting, with gladii held low thrusting past the shield. Although another does show a high chopping attack .

"Written accounts of the sword in use illustrate its particular strengths. During a battle against the Gauls in 360 BC, Titus Manlius 'Torquatus' fought a duel with a Gallic hero:

‘The ...Gaul held out his shield ... to meet his adversary's blows and aimed a tremendous cut downwards with his sword. [Manlius] evaded the blow and, pushing aside the bottom of the Gaul's shield with his own, he slipped under it close up to the Gaul, too near for him to get at him with his sword. Then, turning the point of his blade upwards, he gave two rapid thrusts in succession and stabbed the Gaul in the belly and the groin, laying his enemy prostrate ...’
Livy 7.10

An account written by Dionysus of Halicarnassus describes how the legionaries ‘would duck under [the arms of the Gauls], holding up their shields, and then stooping and crouching low ... they would strike their opponents in the groins, pierce their sides and drive their blows through their breasts into their vitals.’
Dionysus of Halicarnassus 14.10"

[ROMan]

Regarding forearm protection, as someone whose interest in military history goes back to its beginnings, it is actually hard for me to think of who may have had "vambraces" in the ancient world. I'm not saying they didn't exist, I just can't think of any. The only forearm protection I can remember, found even in Prehistoric Europe, is for archers.

As for pugiones, from my studies of knife-fighting I would say it is best suited for a hammer-grip style, used to forcefully thrust into unarmoured soft flesh. I don't see any soldier would do without a dagger or knife of some sort, but as one poster said, they could also be used to settle issues off-duty!

I have actually had the opportunity to attack a phalanx with the equipment of a hoplite. Once you get past the point of a sarissa the phalangist is toast. It really should not be so easy to get past the point of a spear, however.

Robert

[Paul Elliott]

I've not touched my Greek books for years now, but I'm 'pretty certain' that early iron age hoplites used vambraces. Although I could be getting my history mixed up with my extensive RuneQuest roleplaying campaigns ... :0

EDIT: According to John Warry, Illyrian (8th CBC) hoplites used vambraces. Of course bronze age warriors did, they were part of the Dendra panoply, I believe.

[ROMan]

I've not touched my Greek books for years now, but I'm 'pretty certain' that early iron age hoplites used vambraces. Although I could be getting my history mixed up with my extensive RuneQuest roleplaying campaigns ... :0

EDIT: According to John Warry, Illyrian (8th CBC) hoplites used vambraces. Of course bronze age warriors did, they were part of the Dendra panoply, I believe.

I just looked at the Mesopotamia exhibition here at the ROM from the BM. Lots of Neo-Assyrians, no vambraces. Before that, I quickly looked at Greek pots with warriors on: no vambraces. I believe what I am saying is that people don't always think of things without having seen them. WE see vambraces all the time: in "Rome", "Ten Commandments", "300", "Lord of the Rings", etc EVERYONE wears vambraces because they are so damned sexy. Possibly Early Imperial Romans would not necessarily *think* of vambraces (having not heard of the Dendra Panoply).

[john m roberts]

This from Michael Grant's "Gladiators" (1967)

"Quintilian compares the speeches of counsel with the fencing of gladiators: 'the second stroke becomes the third, if the first be made to make the opponent thrust, or becomes the fourth, if there be a double feint, so that there are two bouts of parrying and riposte.' "
I have no idea of the accuracy of the translation (especially the 18th century fencing terms) but it clearly implies that there was a recognized system of swordplay used in the amphitheater. This, of course, is duelling, not battle. Single combat and melee are two very different things.

[Bryan]

This is a very interesting topic and needs to be discussed further, as it is wonderfully entertaining.

John,

Good quote, here's the source and a different translation: Quintilian: Institutio Oratoria (9,1.20)

For just as in sword-play it is easy to see, parry, and ward off direct blows and simple and straightforward thrusts. While side-strokes and feints are less easy to observe and the task of the skilful swordsman is to give the impression that his design is quite other than that it actually is, even so the oratory in which there is no guile fights by sheer weight and impetus alone; on the other hand, the fighter who feints and varies his assault is able to attack flank or back as he will, to lure his opponent's weapons from their guard and to outwit him by a slight inclination of the body.

I wonder if in the original Latin it can be surmised whether the sword play refers to a soldier or a gladiator. Any of you Latin readers want to take a shot at this one?

It was my understanding that the Roman army was never standardized. That training techniques, styles, tactics, mindsets, etc., where never static over the course of many centuries, let alone during specific times.

The manner of fighting of those soldiers was to run forward with great impetuosity and boldly take a post, and not to keep their ranks strictly, but to fight in small scattered parties: if hard pressed they thought it no disgrace to retire and give up the post, being accustomed to this manner of fighting among the Lusitanians and other barbarous nations; for it commonly happens that soldiers are strongly influenced by the customs of those countries in which they have spent much time. Caesar, De Bel Civ, 1.44

So right there, during the same time period, we have two separate Roman armies, each with extensive combat experience at the individual and unit level, that both use entirely different small unit tactics, which in turn would have drastically affected the usage of certain individual fighting styles.

Polybius (and at times Caesar) say open order, which adds freedom of movement but decreases protection. Vegetius and other sources say close order, which adds cohesion and protection but minimizes offensive capabilities. Maybe both were used at separate times. I've been wrong of this in the past myself, thinking that the Romans ever standardized anything.

Also, from my understanding, the Roman Gladius, used during the Republic and early principate, where many of its wars and the majority of its land was acquired, was not a short sword per say. Is a 25-27" blade considered short? The use of a truly short sword (pompeius style) was only for a few centuries, before and after a longer sword prevailed.

For the record, I have zero reenacting experience, aside from a poorly developed and executed experiment involving homemade/non period accurate scutum (1/4" plywood, ratchet straps to bend the shield, dog bowl as a boss, etc) that nearly resulted in broken finger and a busted lip (shields sure do tip easily if not braced).

[Roman Military History is 4 Me]

Although there aren't any definitive historical accounts of specific techniques, a degree of common sense must be used to fill the gaps. Its my opinion that they are both correct. Im no expert by any means, however the romans adopted their tactics based upon the enemy and the environment that they were fighting in. The small unit tactics were both open and closed depending on the battle...each battle was different as were the tactics.
Surely the scutum/gladius techniques were also based on the open or closed formations. The closed formation would have had a basic manual of arms which might consist of high, mid, and low line thrusts.
Where as the more open formations(individual combat) would require the same techniques but add various scutum strikes, parries, and cutting with the gladius.