The Sword vs. the Spear

[Bryan]

Other than the Gauls, the Celtibernians and the Lusitanians, it seems that the Romans were one of the few European peoples that armed their shield bearing infantry primarily with swords as their primary close in fighting method. Any idea's of why this was? (referring to the Republic and early/mid imperial period)

Culture? Cost? Mentality? Availability of good iron and/or smiths? Effectiveness?

[Michael J. Taylor]

Fernando Quesada Sanz has a very good article, in which he notes that the distinctive Roman way of fighting was perhaps quite common in the Western Mediterranean; in particular Iberians in Spain are using the basic combo of javelins, swords and large shields. The paper is available on Academia.edu

https://www.academia.edu/727113/_Not_so_...an_armies_

The emphasis on the Roman sword has also been challenged, most notably by Alexander Zhmodikov "Roman Republican Infantry in Battle", which is available on JSTOR, although I think the response by Everett Wheeler makes some good critiques, mainly that it is hard to see javelins as the primary weapon when everyone only gets two 'bullets' ("Firepower," Missile Weapons and the "Face of Battle" Electrum 5, not always easy to find).

That being said, there does seem to be something moderately unique about Rome's emphasis on swordplay; Greeks and Macedonians treat the short sword as a weapon of last resort, where as for the Roman it is the primary offensive weapon, at least once the very limited supply of ammunition (pila) have been used up. (Yes, enemy javelins could be re-thrown in some cases, but this will only extend things so far).

At least some of the answers you suggest can probably be dismissed. Swords aren't particularly cost effective, because it takes more iron to make one sword as any number of spearheads. This is while early iron age hoards from Scandinavia show about on sword for every five or so spears. Italy as some iron, especially Etruria, but isn't swimming in it the way, say, Spain and Gaul are (both places with sword culture!). Also the Roman swords from the Smihil hoard, when subjected to metallurgical analysis, were in fact quite poorly made. These admittedly may not the representative, but if they are, they suggest Roman swords were not nearly as high quality as say Polybius suggests they are (similarly, underwater archaeology at the Egadi islands is revealing that Roman warships were not nearly as big as Polybius says they are).

Having the sword as a primary weapons does give a Roman soldier one edge: when the enemy is in retreat, it makes him much more effective at chasing down and massacring the survivors. (Its hard to chase down fleeing enemy when you still have to haul around your massive sarissa). They may explain why the Romans do seem to inflict such catastrophic casualties on defeated enemies.

[antiochus]

Michael wrote:
The emphasis on the Roman sword has also been challenged, most notably by Alexander Zhmodikov "Roman Republican Infantry in Battle", which is available on JSTOR, although I think the response by Everett Wheeler makes some good critiques, mainly that it is hard to see javelins as the primary weapon when everyone only gets two 'bullets' ("Firepower," Missile Weapons and the "Face of Battle" Electrum 5, not always easy to find).

I have a Word version of Everett’s “Firepower, Missile Weapons and the Face of Battle.” Am I allowed to post it here as an attachment?

[Mark Hygate]

We've alluded to some of these things in previous threads.....

The main thing to note, I believe, is that the sword (in this case) is inextricably linked to the presence of the shield and they are used in combination. When combined like that you have a 'weapon system' (please forgive the modern term, but it is apt) that, used with suitable drills (again, as has been discussed before) is pretty efficacious against any of the sarissa/spear/sword/axe (et al) armed opponents; for you either stop a sarissa/spear-armed enemy from hurting you with the shield, or you use the combination of disciplined drills to shield and strike against enemies when they are close. The right pairing plus discipline and training are the key - and particularly suitable to the professional army the Romans became.

Secondly, however, is to note that the Romans probably never lost the use of the spear. It seems likely that when the triarii lost their spears, the velites morphed into the antesignanii (something I intend to present as an adjunct to the organisational thesis) and it is these troops that Josephus describes and others like Caesar mention specifically or as the 'lighter armed troops' - armed with hasta and parma.

It is then these troops that provide the template for the regular auxilia, both infantry and cavalry, who are then, in the main armed with the hasta. Thus you have, actually, the majority of the Roman army still armed with the spear; and which even the legionaries return to later in the empire when the enemy is often more cavalry oriented (and indeed the antesignanii/lanciarii then probably take up the bow (cf Vegetius).

So perhaps it's only the close-order fighting, highly disciplined, shield and sword fighting (with nice initial heavy throwing weapon) 3/4 of the legionaries that specialise in the sword......

[Bryan]

I've often heard or read how the Romans favored the thrust over the cut with their swords, knowing that most thrusts are deadly and that only undisciplined barbarians that are easily defeated prefer the cut (tell that to Caesar!).

However, with a spear, the only real option is to thrust. So the millenia old argument of thrust versus cut (which didn't end until the prevalence of rapid firing firearms) would have existed far longer than the Romans themselves, as both stabbing spears and cutting swords existed before they did. So if the Romans, like Vegetius wrote, thrusted with their swords predominately, why not just use a spear? If that's too long, just lop off a few feet of wood from the shaft like a Zulu assengai. Why transition to the sword, one described by Polybius as equally well at cutting as it was when thrusting?

[Michael J. Taylor]

The notion that Romans only thrust with their swords may be more Vegetian "back in the day" bluster than anything. Polybius implies that the Roman gladius is very good for both cutting and thrusting. A good stab is nice (causing lethal tension pneumothorax if the blade penetrates the pleural cavity), but it is also easy to miss or be deflected, but its easier to find your mark with a slashing blow.

The last few pages of this draft summarizes visual evidence for Romans making broad cutting motions with their swords.

https://www.academia.edu/3394799/Roman_S...ing_Paper_

[spqr95]

Highly interesting and scholarly work, Mr Taylor

[Mark Hygate]

There's a fairly simple reason that a sword is preferred over a spear - once metallurgy is sufficiently developed - in that a sword is stronger and can then also be used to deflect and parry blows better than a spear. In addition, as Polybius and others allude to, a sword can also be used to attempt to cut/hack through pikes/sarissas, let alone the possibility of cutting through javelins/arrows that have lodged in the shield and thus make it less wieldy (cue '300' reference! )

As I mentioned previously, thrust and cut to me is first the forward motion and then a cut on the reverse, like cutting meat; as opposed to the slash and cut style which involves a lot more arm movement. One of the main reasons for the thrust preference when thinking of the Romans comes back to that whole discipline thing and simple agreement with the disparagement for the 'barbarian sword style' - and it's the argument of style over substance. Whilst the antagonist is busy remonstrating with wide long-sword slashing movement, the easy answer is simply to stab straight forwards, which takes less time, the adage of the 'shortest distance' is most apt. (The rapier is, of course, the ultimate development of such a style.)

But in the arena, one on one, and with the intent to entertain more flamboyant moves are the norm - and this sort of thing, the heroic stance with sword raised, is what I do expect to see more in the monumental evidence simply because it's much more dramatic and it's what people 'see'.

It's back to a simple argument - and I have little concern over seeing the Roman century as a simple killing machine; protected by its shields and stabbing and cutting down anything in its path. A bit like a combine harvester...... :wink:

That all said, the spear has its uses and that is why it is never, I believe, abolished and, of course, makes a comeback. Firstly such shield & sword drill takes serious training and discipline; but mainly it's the simple reach of the spear that serves to retain it's value.

As an aside, having spears generally available makes Arrian's OOB against the Alans a simple re-equip; and the spear in general is a much more suitable tool for any form of guard duty than a pilum, with its bendy/frangible top.

[Bryan]

This isn't addressed to anyone in particular but throughout my reading of this forum, and the internet in general, I have found countless references of different versions of the following phrase commonly thrown around when discussing the Roman “war machine” and especially the “effectiveness” of the gladius:

“Just poke him 2-6 inches in the stomach and he’ll die”

This methodology is fundamentally flawed:
First, fighting in line meant that a Roman would be squaring off against another shield armed warrior. Effectiveness of the pila aside, the enemy WILL have shields, and the front rankers probably will have body armor.
Second, human beings are a lot tougher than that, especially those of the warrior class who have a very basic understanding of wounds and the ability to continue fighting in spite of them. (A basic tenet of the warrior ethos is not to quit)

What follows is a basic outline of human anatomy and how best to kill someone, based off of a decade of service as a professional soldier and a history buff with a penchant for learning. This is basically a summation of a brief I used to give to soldiers in the US Army to increase their effectiveness in combat. While the medics training us would instruct on some basic anatomy to teach how to save I life, I taught anatomy with an emphasis on how to take a life. I’ve changed things up a bit to reflect the emphasis on edged weaponry, versus firearms and explosives.
Most of the below would have been generally known to the Romans, though in a most basic sense, with no understanding of the base physiological or biological science. The elite of warrior societies, those that dictated fighting styles, were hunters and warriors. They had butchered animals before and had slain men, women and children in battle and in sacks of towns and cities. They had seen plenty of death in various ways, on battlefields, while disciplining slaves, slaughtering animals for meals or religious sacrifices, in gladiatorial combat, etc.
(If there's an MD or medical professional on RAT who feels anything I am writing is too generalized or just flat incorrect, please speak up!)

Targets and the Methods to attack

1. Targeting the Central nervous system
Brain, skull, eyes, spine
Symptoms: Dizziness, nausea, confusion, blindness, paralysis, shock, unconsciousness, instant death
Length of time for symptoms to appear: Almost immediate
- A hard blow to the skull, neck or spine could and usually would cause concussion, paralysis, and/or death.
- From analysis of wounds found on bodies in ancient and medieval graves, head wounds occurred more often than others.
- The head is the most common target for hand to hand combat in nearly every martial art system, with or without weapons, in the world. Aside, in a shield fighting situation, the head, while still often covered by a helmet, is often exposed and close by.
- A hard blow to the temple, jaw or back of head can often result in instant unconsciousness and sometimes death.

2. Bleeding your opponent out:
Piercing, severing or rupturing major blood carrying vessels and organs
Symptoms: Pain, dizziness, weakness, shock, loss of blood pressure and oxygen flow, unconsciousness and/or death.
Length of time for symptoms to appear: Within 10-20 seconds for a heart wound, 30-90 seconds for a major arterial wound, 2-5 minutes for a major organ wound. (* longer if victim is laying down, which increases blood pressure)

Three types of bleeding:
A. Capillary Bleeding (skin and organ tissue)
- Any rip of skin will cause this type. But it results in a slow oozing flow. Usually, the wound will clot before enough blood is lost to warrant weakness, unconsciousness or death.
- Usually are superficial wounds that do not limit movement or cause death.
- Can lead to infection.

B. Venous Bleeding (unoxygenated blood carrying vessels)
- They bleed more than a capillary wound but less than an arterial. Will result in a steady flow or trickle.
- Key targets rich in veins: Face, scalp, hands, arms, legs, and organs. All but the last are readily accessible by cuts.
- Major organs such as kidneys and liver have lots of veins and are generally only accessible by stabs, unless deep cleaving cuts are used.
- If left untreated, can often result in severe blood loss after time. The more veunous wounds, the more bleeding.

C. Arterial Bleeding (oxygen carrying vessels, highly pressurized)
- Severing an arterial vessel will result in heavy spurting bloodless, pressurized and en sync with the heartbeat. The faster the heart is beating, the more blood is lost.
- The arteries within the upper extremities, the carotid (neck), brachial (arm pit, upper or lower arm), and are located within one inch of the surface. All are equally vulnerable by a thrust or cut (except for the armpit, which needs a thrust). When it comes to limbs, a cut can engage more flesh than a thrust (20” vs. 2”) and as most times extremities are moving around constantly, the cut is more reliable.
- Within the thorax, you have subclavian, near the collar bone, accessible from a stab or cut from high, the ascending aortic branch in the upper chest, accessible through the ribs or from above, the heart itself, accessible from the rib cage, from above and below, and the abdominal aorta, running from the heart to the hips, accessible from any center line stab in the abdomen.
- The lower arteries within the legs, the iliac in the hip and the femoral in the thigh, are easier to access with a stab than a slash, as the artery rides on the inside of the bone. IE. Unless you can cleave through the bone of the leg, an outside chop won’t pierce the bone.

3. Asphyxiation
Prevention of breathing by destroying the diaphragm, severing the wind pipe, piercing the lungs (tension pneumothorax “sucking chest wound”), and drawing in blood.
Length of time for symptoms to appear: 2 minutes to 2 hours
- Lungs are easiest to pierce with a stab, as is the diaphragm. Severing the wind pipe on a moving target is easiest to accomplish with a slash.

Note: On the effectiveness of these wounds, I have personally seen four individuals receive knife or gun shot wounds that resulted in a pierced lung (single not double). In the two knife wounds (one was a single dagger wound and the other was multiple dagger wounds, each from the back, delivered accidentally) and one of the gun shot wounds (9mm pistol fired accidentally through a plywood wall in a man’s back), the victim was completely conscious and upright for up to five minutes until the effects of the wound (lack of air, or increase of air in the cavity, preventing lungs from filling). Only one individual immediately was effected and that was from a large caliber sniper bullet travelling at high velocity.

4. Infection:
Tetanus, Gangrene, Sepsis, and Staph are the most common post battle killers.
Length of time for symptoms to appear: Days or weeks
- According to the book “Sumner to Rome”, out of 100 men wounded in battle, 13% will die of shock/bleed out within in 2 to 6 hours. 6% will die of tetanus later.
- All historical records reveal that the winning side suffered a greater number of wounded than that which died in the battle itself. Meaning more people will succumb to infection than that which will have actually died in the battle.
- Any wound that pierces the pericardial sac, pleural cavity, gut sack, stomach, intestines, etc., will generally lead to infection in almost every case in the ancient world, resulting in a slow death.
- Any arterial bleed, even those controlled by some sort of tourniquet or dressing, will highly increase the likelihood of infection from gangrene.
- Dirt and organic materials and cloth shoved into wounds increases the likelihood of contamination.
- Use of poorly understood antibacterial treatment can prevent some infection: wine, vinegar, garlic, honey, etc. A wounded man would pray, make sacrifices, wear amulets, as much as have proper medical treatment.

Additional Targets for wounding only:
- The hamstring: The medial hamstring tendons run on the outside of the bottom of the thigh, near the side and back of the knee. As the left leg was the leading leg for most fighting styles, it was accessible with a right handed slash, wrap cut or even a hard draw cut with a sharp sword that can sever it, causing the loss of muscle control.
- Wrist, hand or fingers. All are full of necessary tendons and ligaments which are not thick. As the weapon hand was often not protected by the shield, a quick slash could easily disable an opponent.
- Eyes: Loss of eyes from either a direct stab or slash to the eye socket or from blood from a head wound seeping into the eye socket can result in blindness. Additionally, speaking from experience, eye wounds are EXTREMELY painful and discomforting. A wound to one eye often causes the other to involuntarily close.
- Genitals: An attack, such as a stab, to the genital reason not only threatens the iliac arteries running aside the groin area, but is often a great psychological target, as nearly any man wounded in the groom will want to check the damage almost immediately, ensuring their replacement in the enemy’s fighting line.

One of the key points that the reader should be aware of is that most of the main targets that would lead to instant death would be either protected by armor, such as a cuirass, pteruges, greaves, and most importantly the shield and helmet, which nearly every warrior but every culture possessed. The fighting arm, neck, face, groin, upper thigh, strong side leg were usually the only available targets to attack and to attack one isn’t easy or a guarantee of a quick kill.

The next point that the reader should be aware of is that anyone worth stabbing and slashing once is worth stabbing or slashing a dozen times. Stabbing into an abdomen once might mean your opponent may die, though days from then, but stabbing him in the abdomen three or four times and twisting the blade while its inside will increase the likelihood that a major organ or blood vessel is damaged and your opponent may just die right there or quit fighting from weakness or pain.
According to the interpretation in “From Sumner to Rome” of casualties of ancient battles as reported by historians, battles lasted for hours and the winner of a battle generally suffered 5-10% casualties, with most of them being walking wounded, thereafter with many to die of infection, while the loser would suffer 30-90% casualties, mostly caused during the rout and depending on a losing army’s ability to remain cohesive.

I think it’s a fair statement to say that killing an armed warrior is a lot harder than most people think it is. Gauls, Lusitanians, Macedonians, Dacians, etc. weren't wheat waiting to be harvested...

[Mark Hygate]

Bryan,

It will make a very bitty post to try and quote elements, so I'll just raise a number of points in order as your post goes.....

- the first point is part of the disagreement you and I have about how the fight goes, but that's why I have a different view. For, whilst indeed in the battle line one opponent faces off against another, for me it is not 'he' that is the primary target, but the man to his left presenting his unshielded side as he attacks the guy on your right (and hence the need for both sides to maintain the battle line). One-on-one combat in the heroic style (and gladiatorial) is not the same as in battle - as long as the formation hasn't been broken up, but is that favoured by the warrior cultures and part of the reason they often lost.

The emphasis then is more on attacking: his sword arm as it extends; his leading thigh, knee, calf; his exposed neck, throat; and indeed anywhere not covered by armour. That's not to say that your direct opponent may not be a target, particularly head and feet in our Roman context, if that should happen, but I do not think it the norm.

All the rest of your post is otherwise spot on as to detail, although I never did learn all of the ~108 points on the human body where you can cause death; with very few comments to make.

- Overall I would emphasise the general longevity of conflict along the battle line and that actual deaths at that time are not overly common. More actual kills during the battle phase are by rear-rankers killing those they are stepping over, who have only been wounded/maimed beforehand.

- the head is indeed the most common target now, but I do not (in context) believe then - for the ancient battles we are talking about are fought in cohesive battle lines, which is simply no longer the case; and all martial arts are versus single opponents (even in multiple scenarios - witness the calm waiting of the next opponent in all those great films). The main reasons the head is now the main target are two-fold: firstly that it is the most vulnerable; but mostly because it is so because it is the hardest to armour effectively and still function (eyesight and turning). All ranged weapons, however, are still taught to aim at centre-mass.

- all those skeletons with head wounds, however, are symptomatic of another point you raise - that most losses are during the routing phase. Once the shield and weapon are dropped, the router then takes off his helmet - and it's time for the cavalry to have their time (after the battle and mostly not during it) with blows to the back of the head, or slashing backwards into the face and eyes. Those wounds are mostly post-battle and not whilst fighting.

The point you raise about the "elite of warrior societies....dictated fighting styles", however, misses, I believe, a major point. Greece/Macedon & Rome (Carthage and other Successors) were not 'warrior societies', but farmers and who evolved the City States (Rome is a City State writ large). The rise of the trained militia defending their homes, evolving to the permanent armies - they are not warriors. 'We' soldiers of the 20th and 21st centuries are not 'warriors'; we are trained, equipped and ordered to simply kill on command (a supposedly lawful one). The elite warrior, the puissant knight - they became extinct with the appearance of the crossbow and then the gun; anything since is pretence.

The overriding need to win/overcome/survive, preferably with minimised losses, dictated the Roman military machine.

Whilst knowing that many don't like the comparison, the closest visual image we can have today of the style of fighting of the ancient (and particularly Roman, IMHO) is indeed the riot-police/troops. I am fairly confident I could take some of them and put them in Roman kit and make a good showing. They'd still have to be taught to thrust however...... Just about all our visual entertainment images, however, are based upon the 'heroic' model and thus not accurate - and that's because the pushing and shoving of battle lines is not 'fun' - and it takes too long. (I will note, as an aside, a recent re-viewing of 300 with a cynical eye showed that they did incorporate a lot of nice elements!)

I would also note that I see Spear and particularly Pike combat as probably aimed to the right and not straight ahead, which is why I now don't believe there are gaps in a pike phalanx to exploit so easily - for the spear/pike covers the area in front of your neighbour's shield and aims to get at the unshielded side of the man to the right - and further reinforces the tendency of ancient battle lines to drift right.

[Bryan]

Getting off topic a bit but....

Definition of Warrior:
A warrior is a person specializing in combat or warfare, especially within the context of a tribal or clan-based society that recognizes a separate warrior class or caste.

[Bryan]

Beating a dead horse but...

Soldier means "one who serves in an army" and "one who receives pay."

Warrior means "One who is engaged in or experienced in battle."

So I think the Romans qualify as both. : :wink:

An additional word to throw into the debate of "soldier vs. warrior":
Bellator
"warrior, soldier, fighter"
"synonym with miles"

If the Romans weren't a warlike people, please tell me how often were the doors to the temple of Janus closed? Actually, please don't tell me.

[Lyceum]

Beating a dead horse but...

Soldier means "one who serves in an army" and "one who receives pay."

Warrior means "One who is engaged in or experienced in battle."

So I think the Romans qualify as both. : :wink:

An additional word to throw into the debate of "soldier vs. warrior":
Bellator
"warrior, soldier, fighter"
"synonym with miles"

If the Romans weren't a warlike people, please tell me how often were the doors to the temple of Janus closed? Actually, please don't tell me.

Nah, you're right, I think by any sensible measurement the Romans had a warrior culture. I think it was more militarised and centralised than most other anthropological examples but its part of their psychological makeup in a deep, deep, way. Even something "nice" and "helpful" as the medical tradition uses metaphor from warfare, there's a reason doctors always sacrificed to Mavors. Actually warfare is one of the major concerns of Roman religion to a wonderful degree.

As for your question on Janus, I know it was rhetorical...but the world's foremost living Livian (hehe liv...liv...) scholar, Stephen Oakley, has an excellent article on that. Its in an edited volume, Warfare and Society in Ancient Rome. Or something like that. The table alone is worth flicking through and I may scan it later and upload since I don't think a table violates copyright.

[Mark Hygate]

It's off topic, so I won't belabour the point - but merely use two examples to simply explain where I'm coming from....the rest is simple semantics and modern definitions have no real place.

The Roman soldier of the Early to Middle Republic (ie where it started) - was definitely a farmer.

The Celtic 'warrior' was just that - a warrior, one who looked down on farmers. The various Nomads were the same - they preyed on farmers.

Finally - the Romans subsequently extolled 'warfare' as a means to power, something to occupy their soldiers and make Patricians wealthy - nothing to do with a desire simply to 'fight'. They weren't in any way a 'warrior culture' like the Celts, partially the Germans, definitely those who went a-Viking; certainly the Alans, Huns and Mongols; but definitely not the Greeks (Homer and his stories notwithstanding), although Sparta came close.

Different basis for the discussion. Making war has nothing really to do with being 'warriors'.

[Sean Manning]

As I mentioned previously, thrust and cut to me is first the forward motion and then a cut on the reverse, like cutting meat; as opposed to the slash and cut style which involves a lot more arm movement.

We certainly don't have a lot of evidence on how the Romans fought, but what I have seen does not support the idea that the Romans mainly used pull-cuts. The Romans usually chose violent words like impetus, ictus, impulsus, caedere, and ferire to describe blows with the sword, and we do have Livy 31.34 on how Roman cavalry severed heads and arms with sword cuts while, supposedly, the Macedonians were only used to tidy wounds from spears and javelins. We also have Vegetius' criticism that cutting exposes the sword arm.

Vegetius' description of soldiers working their way around a pell jumping in and out, and Polybius' of how much space a soldier needs to fight, and several authors' of gladiators training soldiers, sound pretty flamboyant to me.