Roman swords vs Greek swords

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I also expect slashes to be used in cavalry fights

And when exactly did I say this????

That's really what I expect was the origin of Livy's little tale (and of the Maiden Castle skull); the same goes for the "skirmishing" role of the legionary, as Livy, provided he understood his source correctly, speaks of a minor event in the Second Macedonian War.

Sounds interesting. Isn't it dangerous? Doesn't it make you vulnerable too? I guess you have reenacted such a hit.

That's a question I'd also like to see answered.

Well ,if you read my replies it will be easy to figure out!

As regards the Zliten mosaic, the Thraex seems to be rather exposed, even though he has apparently blocked the high blow from his murmillo adversary if I interpret the mosaic correctly. It'd be interesting to see this move re-enacted.

I have reenacted such a hit.
You are agressively engaging your opponent.
You take the shot when the opportunity arises.

Don't you give your opponent an opportunity to take a shot of his own? Or is that a risk you'd be willing to take in order to get your hit in and take him out of combat? Or does it actually expose you less than it sounds?

Agressive assault, until he give the opening...if he exposes the body ot face, target.
If he keeps well covered up and you have him on the back foot...

[M. Caecilius]

And when exactly did I say this????

Sorry, editing error on my part. I quoted George (Macedon) who quoted you, and forgot to delete that part. I meant, of course, to quote George. Edited above, and left a statement to that fact for the record.

Well ,if you read my replies it will be easy to figure out!

Editing error II. I read your reply after I posted mine - it got in before I had finished composing. I then added the further questions to your post, and forgot to amend the part I'd already written.

Apologies.

[M. Caecilius]

For such wounds to have been inflicted I would expect either a terrible unconventionally packed melee cavalry action or the Romans hacking at fleeing Macedonians who had fallen off their horses.

The latter is more or less what I had in mind - whether or not the Macedonians had already fallen of their horses or not. Your point about javelins is well taken.

Infanry skirmishing action on rough ground with one side trying to keep their ground... an attack against fortifications... Now there is where I would expect to see such single combat action and probably such wounds.

Wouldn't this involve the cavalrymen (provided again Livy knows what he is talking about, but in order to have any discussion at all, we will have to trust him that far) to be dismounted? I can only with difficulty see infantry reaching shoulders of mounted men with their comparatively short gladii, even from the elevated position of fortifications; if those cavalrymen have already dismounted, the situation would be different.

I should note that I have no practice in sword-fighting, so I'm always happy to be corrected by someone who works from a less theoretical level and has hands-on experience.

[M. Caecilius]

The Spanish sword was multi-purpose, wasn't it?

That's pretty clear from what George and I have quoted from Polybius (6.6, 3.114, and 18.30).

But it's also been stated frequently that a stab is usually more effective than a slash. It's faster, penetrates deeper (though not as broadly), leaves you less exposed, and the opponent has less of a warning that it's coming, you also risk much less to unbalance yourself. (I haven't tried fighting with a sword, but done some martial arts also involving weapons, so I can add some actual experience to the theory).

In short, the Gladius Hispaniensis can be used for slashing and thrusting, but, except in situations such as George, Byron and others have described, thrusting seems to be the more common technique.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, thats it really. A couple of inches of point will usually inflict a serious wound,
a hacking attack not so often.
The hamstring attack is really vicious in that it puts the victim out of action, in great pain and agony, which is also demoralising to his comrades!

[Macedon]

Wouldn't this involve the cavalrymen (provided again Livy knows what he is talking about, but in order to have any discussion at all, we will have to trust him that far) to be dismounted? I can only with difficulty see infantry reaching shoulders of mounted men with their comparatively short gladii, even from the elevated position of fortifications; if those cavalrymen have already dismounted, the situation would be different.

My comment was about other theoretical instances, not this specific one. Just wanted to say that such action would probably produce such results too.

[Theodosius the Great]

Maybe one reason the Romans were able to inflict those sword wounds and the reason they abandoned the Xiphos (or whatever Italian variant) was that the gladius Hispaniensis had a much longer blade? In that sense it was a superior sword. Greater range, right?

~Theo

[john roberts]

In battle you use what works. The Adamklissi monument shows a legionary dispatching an enemy with an overhand stab and it looks like he's doing it with his gladius, not his pugio. Probably his training sergeant wouldn't have approved, but he doesn't seem to be worrying about that.

[hoplite14gr]

I think John said it all.

Kind reagrds

[Quintius Clavus]

I have just started reading Infantry Combat in Livy's Battle Narratives, by Sam Koon, BAR International Series 2071, 2010, which I picked up at the AIA Meeting in Philadelphia this past weekend. It looks like he will compare Livy's narratives to those of Polybius and Caesar. He repeats frequently that the whole subject of infantry combat in the Roman middle Republic era is contentious. It looks like he will get into Livy's use of certain Latin words or phrases and compare their use as well in Polybius and/or Caesar.

He does cite Polybius' description of the gladius hispaniensis as a weapon suited for both thrust and cut. If everyone will remember, Polybius' spacing for a Roman infantryman is larger than that proposed by Vegetius writing several centuries later. It allows more room for a cutting motion with the longer gladius hispaniensis (compared to the shorter Mainz and Pompeii types of the early Principate). A military with as long a history as ancient Rome's will, of course, change over time.

I am certainly not going to rush through it. He is looking at both the individual in combat as well as the units in combat. I am anticipating an interesting read. Short of a time machine, we will never know for sure, but the discussion is worth having.

[M. Demetrius]

A straight forward thrust when done when the enemy has his weight forward is probably the most difficult to parry. Unless the defensive move takes the point all the way outside of the body, that enemy will still get a stab, though perhaps not in the same spot that the attacker intended.

[Titus Labienus]

Maybe one reason the Romans were able to inflict those sword wounds and the reason they abandoned the Xiphos (or whatever Italian variant) was that the gladius Hispaniensis had a much longer blade? In that sense it was a superior sword. Greater range, right?

~Theo

I realize that this is a bit of an old topic, but does anyone have thoughts on Theodosius's comment? Is there a distinct advantage to the gladius hispaniensis over the xiphos, and if so, what is it?

[Lyceum]

Maybe one reason the Romans were able to inflict those sword wounds and the reason they abandoned the Xiphos (or whatever Italian variant) was that the gladius Hispaniensis had a much longer blade? In that sense it was a superior sword. Greater range, right?

~Theo

I realize that this is a bit of an old topic, but does anyone have thoughts on Theodosius's comment? Is there a distinct advantage to the gladius hispaniensis over the xiphos, and if so, what is it?

Interesting question on one hand but...also one that both from experimental archaeology on blade profiles and looking at historical/traditional fencing and comparative ethnography is kind of a non question.

To say something is a "superior sword" really requires a lot of justification. It's been shown again and again how for example bronze age Aegean swords differ little/not at all in cutting and thrusting power after a while (uni of Sheffield) and again that even the difference between bronze and Roman period swords is negligible.

You have to take the blades in their context: what is the economic and material situation surrounding them? Obviously there was a reason for adopting them, they were probably superior to previous blades in their context. I don't think its a case of simple length, hasn't it been said before that the G.His. was actually shorter than the contemporary Roman sword?

Another thing is to remember that none of the swords from the ancient world are swordsman's swords. The lack of proper quillions and the proper pommelation basically points to something very shield heavy. So really, we only need a weapon that can be used in a hanging guard with a shield, to deliver good thrusts but also cuts roughly congruent to fendenti cuts in the later Italian tradition. Maybe a manner of parrying to sixte (circular?) and that's it.

Overall it would be the training and provisioning of the men en large that mattered.

[hoplite14gr]

Weapons simply adapt to tactics.

From 1700 BC to 700 BC. the warrior class in used long swords. First bronze and then iron

With the general usage of the phalanx tactics and the need to fight in the crammed spaces of a tight formation a shorter weapon will do the job. Also no elaborate swordplay was required.

There are no super weapons. Just a good combination of training, disipline and tactics.

Kind regards

[Lyceum]

I agree, especially as it was what I was saying above. Though I think we need to a) not be so brash as to posit a direct continuity in practices from 1700-700! :| Indeed I would not say particularly long swords were prominent in the LBA either, outside of Crete where the F class was most prominent (probably polity sponsored) there seems to be a heavy prefer for shorter, stouter types.

Also whilst a shorter type has some advantages in tighter corners, its perfectly usable (and in some cases, preferable) in open environs as we can see via the usage of the schianova or even by looking at, say, FMA.

Swords a priori require more advanced training patterns, I think this is something, sadly, which re-enactors just don't get. Even so, its obvious that weapons from early antiquity simply preclude advanced swordplay. They're not just viable tools for reprises, rebates, circular parries etc. In fact, these movements would be downright retarded with them.

Imagine something much more timed to wrestling, fought from a hanging guard. Only viable solution.