12-16-2011, 05:49 AM
I actually go with Polybius' understanding of 3rd century Roman warfare, I personally completely distrust Livy on that era, I think he is too tied to his own time...
Polybius writes in his Historiae 2.33, when he compares the Gaulish swordsmanship to this of the Romans :
"The Romans, on the contrary, having excellent points to their swords, used them not to cut but to thrust: and by thus repeatedly hitting the breasts and faces of the enemy, they eventually killed the greater number of them."
Indeed he also later writes in 3.114:
"For that of the Roman can thrust with as deadly effects as it can cut, while the Gallic sword can only cut, and that requires some room."
The first quote is very straightforward, the second one not that much. The Roman sword could also cut, but according to quote 1 it was common to fight with thrusts. The comment about the room necessary for cuts, it is directly meant for the Gauls and does not imply that the Romans fought so (the Greek text is much more revealing :
"τῆς μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἔλαττον τὸ κέντημα τῆς καταφορᾶς ἴσχυε πρὸς τὸ βλάπτειν, ἡ δὲ Γαλατικὴ μάχαιρα μίαν εἶχε χρείαν τὴν ἐκ καταφορᾶς, καὶ ταύτην ἐξ ἀποστάσεως.". It does not even talk about cutting combat in general. It explicitely is directed at cutting combat as employed by the Gauls.).
All this, of course, has nothing to do with whether the gladius was an average or superior sword regarding cuts nor do I discuss densities of order etc. I am just pointing out how Polybius saw and described Roman swordsmanship in the 3rd century BC. A good objection here could be that these quotes are about an era before the adoption of the "gladius hispaniensis" (wasn't that introduced after Scipio's Iberian campaign?), but I would answer that in both instances Polybius is sure to make understood that (even if he is wrong) what he describes is contemporary swordsmanship, so he might also have been wrong about Roman swordsmanship before and during the second Punic War in his account before the introduction of the gh.
Polybius writes in his Historiae 2.33, when he compares the Gaulish swordsmanship to this of the Romans :
"The Romans, on the contrary, having excellent points to their swords, used them not to cut but to thrust: and by thus repeatedly hitting the breasts and faces of the enemy, they eventually killed the greater number of them."
Indeed he also later writes in 3.114:
"For that of the Roman can thrust with as deadly effects as it can cut, while the Gallic sword can only cut, and that requires some room."
The first quote is very straightforward, the second one not that much. The Roman sword could also cut, but according to quote 1 it was common to fight with thrusts. The comment about the room necessary for cuts, it is directly meant for the Gauls and does not imply that the Romans fought so (the Greek text is much more revealing :
"τῆς μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἔλαττον τὸ κέντημα τῆς καταφορᾶς ἴσχυε πρὸς τὸ βλάπτειν, ἡ δὲ Γαλατικὴ μάχαιρα μίαν εἶχε χρείαν τὴν ἐκ καταφορᾶς, καὶ ταύτην ἐξ ἀποστάσεως.". It does not even talk about cutting combat in general. It explicitely is directed at cutting combat as employed by the Gauls.).
All this, of course, has nothing to do with whether the gladius was an average or superior sword regarding cuts nor do I discuss densities of order etc. I am just pointing out how Polybius saw and described Roman swordsmanship in the 3rd century BC. A good objection here could be that these quotes are about an era before the adoption of the "gladius hispaniensis" (wasn't that introduced after Scipio's Iberian campaign?), but I would answer that in both instances Polybius is sure to make understood that (even if he is wrong) what he describes is contemporary swordsmanship, so he might also have been wrong about Roman swordsmanship before and during the second Punic War in his account before the introduction of the gh.
