Sword moving from right to left

[Paul Elliott]

What sword type was that? Republican is off my radar a bit...

[Frank]

Do you think then that the hasta and spatha may have been adopted as a new longer-reach fighting combination, and of course the oval auxilia shield (slightly enlarged) naturally came along with the spear. Use of the oval shield then allowed the sword to be switched to the left with ease, making drawing easier.

Thats a less convoluted argument than my 'theory' above.

Yes I have read this theory in a book about the late roman army (perhaps Le Bohec, not sure). But as we know, a lot of changes go back as far as 3rd and 2nd century. That was a long lasting process of trial and error, not a single decision or a new genius "disciplina" of a clever emperor.

The romans changed their tactics from the offensive and agressive infantry shock attack with pilum volley, followed by a rush with scutum and gladius to a more defensive tactics and defensive strategy.

Defensive tactics, means, that they tried to keep the enemy on distance with spears and stay safe behind their shieldwall. The offensive role was now more often with the cavalry and other lighter units on the flanks.

Defensive strategy means that the romans started to avoid pitched battles, whenever possible, if not fully outnumbering the enemy. They focussed more on outmanouevering the enemy, cutting the support lines and therefore the late roman army won more battles without fighting. This defensive approach leaded to less losses, which was essential looking to the increasing recruitment problems.

Also the spear (not the pilum which was better as javelin) was the superior defensive weapon against cavalry. The romans faced cavalry armies at the Euphrat, and at the Danube since the 2nd century, too. The offensive part of the new infnatry against cavalry armies were archers and lanciarii (javelins) behind the heavy infantry. A unit with spear, spatha, (plus light lancea/plumbata), oval shield and sometimes lighter armored is just more flexible in combat-style and could be used for different purposes on the battlefield and for daily business in the provinces.

I guess these changes came along with the extended use of vexillationes. Smaller units organized like auxiliary cohorts, often commanded by a tribune like an auxilia in the 3rd century. Perhaps these vexillationes were the first units which changed the equipment in order to become more flexible; ready for every task and battlefield in this huge empire. Not as a big bang. It happened step by step, unit by unit, while the reduced core of the old legions wore perhaps still scutum and gladius for a while.

So when Septimus Severus allowed legionaries to wear the sword on the other side, like he gave the principales the right to wear the white mantle during triumph, the gladius had most propably already lost its role. How were the new Legio I - III Parthica equipped? Do we know it?

[Paul Elliott]

Le Bohec looks likely, I will get hold of a copy and have a look.
Thanks for the recommendation Frank.

[Renatus]

How were the new Legio I - III Parthica equipped? Do we know it?

The tombstones of Leg II Parthica at Apamea show the men with oval shields and, where visible, the sword is worn on the left. In some cases, no sword can be seen, implying that it is hidden by the shield held in the left hand. (J. Ch. Balty & W. Van Rengen, Apamea in Syria: The Winter Quarters of Legio II Parthica, Brussels, 1993)

[Robert Vermaat]

The next painful question is, like the 'chicken or the egg', which change came first? The spatha or the oval shield? Date-line late 2ndC...
I tend to think that the need was for a longer weapon to reach more mounted foes, just as the hasta was being introduced into frontline service. The cylindical scutum may have proved difficult to use in combination with this longer weapon, used also for slashing as stabbing. An oval shield began to be introduced, and soldiers found they could shift the sword to the left, it made drawing the longer weapon slightly easier. The new shield also made slashing attacks over the top of the oval shield easier than over the top of the rectangular scutum.

Actually, both were around before that time. The auxilia used both the oval shield (no idea if these were flat or dished back then) as well as the spatha, plus they used a (shorter) hasta. However, I don't think they carried their swords on the left side, did they?

EDIT
I think the ayuxilia was used in a more versatile role on the battlefield (during the Principate) than the legioaries, who were basically mainly heavy infantry. Interestingly we see that same versatile role extended to the rest of Late Roman infantry, aswell as oval shields, hasta and spatha. Which makes it even more interesting to see whether earlier auxilia also wore swords on the left side or not.

[Nathan Ross]

I doubt anything like a '167 AD' directive went out to all legions to begin oval shield and spatha operations.

All these changes (sword right-left and short-long, shield rectangular-oval, pilum to spear) relate to what Simon James (in Rome and the Sword) calls the 'Antonine Revolution' in Roman arms. Whether it was a revolution, or more of a slow evolution over the last quarter or so of the second century and into the third, is unclear. The old curved rectangular scutum still turns up at Dura Europos, mid-3rd century, after all (and on the Arch of Galerius c.300, in the hands of the enemy!).

Either way, I very much doubt that it was the work of a single emperor, or a single 'directive' - more a combination of various ad hoc tactical alterations finding widespread adoption.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I doubt anything like a '167 AD' directive went out to all legions to begin oval shield and spatha operations.

All these changes (sword right-left and short-long, shield rectangular-oval, pilum to spear) relate to what Simon James (in Rome and the Sword) calls the 'Antonine Revolution' in Roman arms. Whether it was a revolution, or more of a slow evolution over the last quarter or so of the second century and into the third, is unclear. The old curved rectangular scutum still turns up at Dura Europos, mid-3rd century, after all (and on the Arch of Galerius c.300, in the hands of the enemy!).

Either way, I very much doubt that it was the work of a single emperor, or a single 'directive' - more a combination of various ad hoc tactical alterations finding widespread adoption.

Doesn't a painting at dura europus show soldiers with round shields and mail coifs too though?

[koechlyruestow]

It interestingly shows soldiers with oval, clipped and six-sided shields, in long, almost knee-length hauberks and with coifs, probably all of mail construction.

[Renatus]

Doesn't a painting at dura europus show soldiers with round shields and mail coifs too though?

It interestingly shows soldiers with oval, clipped and six-sided shields, in long, almost knee-length hauberks and with coifs, probably all of mail construction.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...he_Ark.jpg

But are they even Roman?

[koechlyruestow]

Well no, they are Egyptian, Philistine, and al the other bad guys from the bible, but that does not mean the artist did not model them after the Roman troops in Dura. The Jews had no inhibitions using Romans for their bad guys, see the vain attempts of Julian to mobilise the Babylonian Jews against the Persians, who however still hated the Romans for their destruction of Jerusalem and fought valiantly against his troops alongside the Persians.

[Nathan Ross]

Doesn't a painting at dura europus show soldiers with round shields and mail coifs too though?

Sure, and most of the shields found at Dura were oval. But I meant that rectangular shields were apparently being used as well at that date, which suggests that the change in shield and/or sword arrangement cannot be determined as a single point, but must allow for at least half a century of variations.

[Paul Elliott]

All these changes (sword right-left and short-long, shield rectangular-oval, pilum to spear) relate to what Simon James (in Rome and the Sword) calls the 'Antonine Revolution' in Roman arms.

It has been reading Simon James' book that has me thinking about this. Although I'm not sure revolution is the right word for a process that begin in the mid 100s and continued through to the mid 200s!

Certainly it did happen, but not everywhere at the same speed, which fits a model of units taking up the new fighting styles bit by bit. And elements such as pila and curved shields and short swords (the 3rd century 'semi-spathae') still continued in use throughout the first few decades of the 3rd century so some units, or troops within units, or missions carried out by units, still required the use of these bits of tried and tested kit.

But the switching of the sword seems to be complete by 200, I can't think of a grave stelae with a sword on the right from then on.

[Paul Elliott]

I think the auxilia was used in a more versatile role on the battlefield (during the Principate) than the legioaries, who were basically mainly heavy infantry. Interestingly we see that same versatile role extended to the rest of Late Roman infantry, aswell as oval shields, hasta and spatha. Which makes it even more interesting to see whether earlier auxilia also wore swords on the left side or not.

Robert's comments about the legions adopting auxiliary fighting styles and tactics, I think are extremely valid, and although it is getting a bit off topic, I wonder at what point, if any, we could say that the legions and auxiliaries reached parity with the very same spread of weaponry and armour. The edict of Caracalla in 212 bringing all inhabitants into the citizenship is important, but only for the auxiliary's terms of recruit and service. I doubt that edict had any impact whatsoever on military tactics or equipment. Soldiers on the Arch of Severus are depicted with oval shields so the new methods of fighting certainly seem to be in place by then.

Frank's earlier comment seems to fit in here:

I guess these changes came along with the extended use of vexillationes. Smaller units organized like auxiliary cohorts, often commanded by a tribune like an auxilia in the 3rd century. Perhaps these vexillationes were the first units which changed the equipment in order to become more flexible; ready for every task and battlefield in this huge empire. Not as a big bang. It happened step by step, unit by unit, while the reduced core of the old legions wore perhaps still scutum and gladius for a while.

[Nathan Ross]

Is the key to this perhaps vexillations that were in use almost constantly from the Marcomannic Wars onwards, forcing single or small groups of cohorts to be able to fend for themselves in a variety of situations, and carry out much more varied missions in different terrains than the traditional legionary?

Could be. I wondered here if the shield change was a weight thing - flatter oval shields were easier to carry long distances! But a more adaptable tactical role is probably a better way of looking at it.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Doesn't a painting at dura europus show soldiers with round shields and mail coifs too though?

Sure, and most of the shields found at Dura were oval. But I meant that rectangular shields were apparently being used as well at that date, which suggests that the change in shield and/or sword arrangement cannot be determined as a single point, but must allow for at least half a century of variations.

That's what I was trying to say - Dura is an example of where they were being used at the same time.