The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why?

[Matthew]

Oh well, back to agreement, then. I have no problem with the crouched fighting stance, just the resting of one's shield on the ground whilst doing it. It's been a while since I read Connolly, my mistake. There's an article over at My Armoury that makes this claim about 'shield resting.' Judging by the bibliography and what I remembered of the book I mistakenly concluded that they were citing him:

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_shield.html

I reached the same conclusion about the 'resting on one knee' in Vegetius. Interestingly, a similar passage turns up in Ambroises's 'Estoire De La Guerre Sainte':

'They went down on their knees , placing their round shields and long shields before them, lances* in their hands. The king, who was skilled in arms, had hidden behind the shields of two men, a crossbowman and another man to prepare his crossbow for him and hand it to him when he was ready. In this way the army was thoroughly protected.' [p. 183 of the translaton by Marianne Ailes].

*Apparently this is 'Glaive' and can be translated Spear / Lance or Sword...

Helmet development is an interesting potential indicator; I'm afraid my knowledge of the subject is too weak to comment, though.

[Felix]

Kneeling is clearly described in an 11th century Moorish text; in a similar context: large shields, spears, with archers behind the first row, in a defensive formation. This has nothing specific in common with the situation of the legionary in a fighting crouch.

[Matthew]

Huh? I wasn't referring to the fighting crouch with reference to that passage, just the practice of kneeling and resting Shields on the ground and its suitability in combat (i.e. looking for some occasion when it might be useful and attested). I suppose this mirrors the passage in Vegetius to which I was referring and to which Richard apparently had access:

"The triarii, according to their method of discipline, rested in time of action on one knee, under cover of their shields, so that in this position they might be less exposed to the darts of the enemy than if they stood upright; and also, when there was a necessity for bringing them up, that they might be fresh, in full vigor and charge with the greater impetuosity."

Sounds like a similar defensive formation, suitable for defending against missiles. The article at My Armoury referenced above suggests some combination of the fighting crouch and 'shield resting on the ground' for an offensive formation. Where this idea comes from I have no idea, which is what I was speculating about...

So:

Fighting Crouch with shield raised ~ I have no problem with this.
Fighting Crouch with shield resting on the ground ~ I find hard to believe as an offensive tactic.
Kneeling and resting shield on the ground to resist missile attack ~ This seems likely to me as a static defense and is attested. Certainly useful in conjunction with one's own missile troops. Possibly also useful to resist cavalry attack if used in conjunction with Spears.

Matthew James Stanham

[Martin Wallgren]

Good point. There is an account by Polybius of Gauls having to step on their swords and straighten them after a couple of blows. But that could be propoganda and an isolated case.

I belive so! The same myth is in circulation on "Viking" age swords, Medeival swords and others.

[Tarbicus]

The same myth is in circulation on "Viking" age swords, Medeival swords and others.

Not according to J. Kim Siddorn in Viking Weapons and Warfare, which I was perusing through late last night.

(Skeggi) had an iron sword of his own, but thought he would have a better chance against Bersi if he didn't have to stop and straighten it under his heavy foot every third blow.

He also traces the broadsword's origins back to the Roman spatha. The finest work could produce a sword that would not bend after a few blows, and puts the modern equivalent cost in the region of £250,000, depending on hilt furniture. No wonder they gave them names.

OT, he is also derisory of the katana, but that's another story.

[petrinus]

And from then onwards almost all combat swords have been long bladed until the 20th Century.

well the "ninja to" sword as it is often called is much shorter and lighter than a katana, its basicaly a wakizashi if you straighten out the sori or bend in the blade, of course then the method of appearing delivering short successive strikes at close range and vanishing isnt really combat, its insurgent sword play at best, though when battling larger numbers it was a necessary evolution in tactics and weapons. reach is important, one hand vs a two hand use will give you a critical half inch-to an inch depending how the universe arranged your parts and pieces, i'll take a 3' folded steel razor blade that can plow through 5 corpses in a single cut any day.....however if im sneaking around a camp dispatching my oppressors or a castle corridor, give me the short , straight flat ninja blade!!!!.....can i get some shuriken and caltrops too?

oh the other point i want to make, irimi or entering is what we call moving inside the enemys attack and occupying his center thereby controlling his energy/balance/movement wether armed or not the technique by which one moves the body (his own and his opponents)allows him to effectively employ a weapon or his hands(one and the same) against an armed opponent, im cofident that i with a gladius could carve up most men with larger and longer weapons. atleast i'll leave you praising the confidence and commitment one should always exhibit!

[Tarbicus]

What timeframe are you talking about when you say katana? It's my understanding that when they were mass produced (which is basically most of the katana's historical usage), not individually made over a period of months, they were utter rubbish and couldn't cut through butter (I exaggerate with that last bit). However, the ones that were so good would set you back ten year's pay and couldn't possibly be produced to equip a whole army.

Now, your good old gladius hispaniensis..... :wink:

[petrinus]

maybe weapons for bushi were crap but a samurais weapon, someone of actual samurai rank and social status dictated by his birthright in most periods and identified by his daisho set of two swords, to my knowledge was never been supplied with crap-ever, id pitty the sword smith, often the blades were ancestral and past down, samurai died all the time, there were no shortage of weapons to be inherited legitametly or via the spoils of war, ive never known anything japanese-of the fuedal era , to be executed with carlessness, please supply your sources for this because i have been lied to or mislead if this is the case. also swordsmiths were abundant and in constant production, im not saying every blade was folded 10,000 times but i'll wager theyd cut through a scutum. forging swords was a spiritual process, they bathed in ice water to purify themselves before begining work, i cant imagine them half assing something sacred, maybe? ive just never heard of this. regardless of period, daito, katana, nodachi what have ya when ya have it.............let me know and im off to dig in the dirt myself

[petrinus]

also the whole army wasnt samurai, samurai were an elite warrior caste, not common soldiers, at times a daimyo or feudal lord supplied his weapons, a benevolent one atleast, further entrapping, ensuring the samurais loyalty

[petrinus]

alright, i can find a reference to the muramachi period, a time of decline well after the kamakura period"the golden age of sword craft" when katanas were mass produced for "export" 200,000 alone to the ming dynasty so utility and capitalism cut the throat of the craft and it never saw a return because soon after the ashikage shoganate, the tokugawa ushered in a 250 year reign of essentially peace and prosperity, not that certain schools and smiths didnt perfect their arts in this time but mass quality production was done and over with, hell most samurai had their blades, or a long period of peace to commission one from any number of artisans and master craftsman, soon after this the age of blackpowder brought with it the demise of bujutsu. sword craft, of the "katana" (daito) didnt start until 700-900 AD, most say 6th century, you know how scholars are?! :lol: , so i dont think many gladius thrusting romans were running around and the term samurai if i remember my lessons was derived from saburu and used officially in 1100 ad? id have to look, any way good point and thanks for prompting my research, i'll be sure to caveat that protion of history when i discuss this ever in the future

now onto the spatha, would my legion the II adiutrix pia fidelis have been using more gladius or spatha while fighting in moesia 86 ad?

[Tarbicus]

J. Kim Siddorn in Viking Weapons and Warfare:

"For the Japanese... during the turbulent years of the Civil Wars, sword smiths could also hammer them out in quantity. However,... a good blade takes weeks of concentrated effort and whilst one smithy increased its rate of production from one every two weeks to ten a day, the pattern welded blade vanished until it was re-invented in the twentieth century.
I would particularly like to mention that the methods of pattern welding that the Japanese used were in use in Japan some 700 years after they had been superseded in the west. Considerable nonsense has been spoken and written about the sword of the Samurai and it should be realised that they were no better nor worse than the finest examples of the northern swords made by the same process of over 20 generations before... For the filmmaker, the traditional dress, the ceremonies and the painstaking handwork all combine to make excellent camera. This over all considerations is why the Katana and its ilk are much better known than the pattern welded Northern European swords in whose path they tread....
Personally, I find them clumsy and one requires considerable practice with the type to use one effectively... Being difficult to control, their use dictates a two-handed style that naturally rules out the use of a shield. Therefore, the warrior has to use his sword as a means of defence, imparting great stresses to the blade.
...However, a good man with a broadsword and in equal standard of training would find few problems in making his presence felt against such a weapon."

[petrinus]

im not even going to pretend for a minut this guys serious, now i know martial arts are overplayed but dont underestimate them becaus eof this, that goes for the sword too, stereo types exist for a reason, they are often and in this case true, a vking or european blade, stand up to a a kamakura blade, now I"LL say rubbish and mean it, and to even attempt to compare training, to even suggest a barbarian could advance on a samurai successfully i think is a bold statement

and as far as he describes his experience with a katana, he obviously lacks grace, an essential element in sworf fighting, well to do it well i mean

oh bother and away with this, each his own, my love of rome remains untarnished but my observances and observations in kenjutsu are proven and a subjective reality!!!

[Tarbicus]

What is it about religion and Sino-Japanese martial arts that gets everyone so pissed off and precious?

and to even attempt to compare training, to even suggest a barbarian could advance on a samurai successfully i think is a bold statement

Since when were late Romans and Vikings barbarians?

a vking or european blade, stand up to a a kamakura blade, now I"LL say rubbish and mean it, and to even attempt to compare training, to even suggest a barbarian could advance on a samurai successfully i think is a bold statement

Did you read what he says?

[Celer]

Salve

Oriental martial arts and arms and armour have held our attention for nearly 150 years. Ever since Commodore Perry's violent 'opening' of Japan, we have been fascinated by a culture that we have emulated in ignorance of our own. Western martial arts were just as sophisticated and varied as anything in the East, as were the weapons and armour. The myth that the katana was intrinsically superior to anything else before or since came about simply because in the West, the much greater use and advances in firearms had made the 'old' martial arts irrelevant, allowing them to evolve into a largely sporting form with only limited practical use.

I have been in the extremely privileged position to handle and examine arms and armour from a whole range of cultures, including a complete and unique garnature made by Samonji, and western swords ranging from Luristan to a priceless rapier from the Rothschild collection by Diego de Caias. Despite the fact that most of the Western swords are not as well cared for as those from Japan, it is pretty obvious that the quality is every bit as fine as anything in the East. The simple fact is that in a highly competitive and war-like culture, the technological development of the weapons will sooner or later hit the same ceiling; the limitations of pre-Bessemer steel forcing the development of pattern-welding to get the most out of impure iron.

The best book on Western martial arts at the moment is still Sydney Anglo's 'Martial Arts of the Renaissance Europe', which while it does not cover the techniques in any great detail, does give a superb overview of the culture of fighting in Europe at a time before the gun changed the nature of warfare beyond all recognition. Alan Williams of Reading university has been in the unique position of being able to examine a wide range of swords from around the world and to publish on their metallurgy to such an extent that he is a sought after authority by the Japanese sword-smith's guild themselves. Anything written by him is thoroughly recommended.

Please, I am not in any way trying to denigrate Japanese sword-making, but rather to undo the ignorance that has surrounded the western traditions for hundreds of years. We are only just beginning to scratch the surface of the manufacturing techniques used by the old master cutlers and armourers in the West. The more that I learn, the more amazed I am by the levels of skill and ingenuity that went into making the tools used for such a horrific purpose.

Vale,

Celer.

[stevesarak]

Some of the Viking swords are considered big and bulky compared to the samurai sleek sword but if you’re fighting for hours on end against Roman metal helmets, not laminated wood or wicker like the Japanese, then the Viking sword has its advantages. The larger bulky sword can take a lot of punishment, meaning that after you’ve hacked away for hours and the blade isn’t that sharp anymore you can still kill or maim with a good swing, the momentum of the heavy sword packs more of a punch.

The samurai sword after hours of smashing against the metal rim of Roman shields or metal helmets will become blunt, then what? Its not a stabbing sword, it doesn’t have that much kinetic energy because of it weight and being thin and slender it can snap from a side blow easier (yes they can) metal is metal, even current metal can snap from a hard side impact. The samurai doesn’t have any protective armor that worth talking about, so unless he can get past a mass of screaming, armored Romans quickly, he's lost.

Comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges. The swords evolved for a particular use and style of fighting. The Samurai is great for attacking people dressed in wood and wicker, their style is aggressive, chop, chop, chop. They don’t really have any formal defense. Their style is fast, aggressive, kill and move on, which has its advantages. Even fighting someone in armor, they might slaughter them. A good samurai could get the sword in to the killing spots of someone armored and make short work of them. But again we’re talking one on one fighting

Rome’s legions didn’t fight one on one; they fought as a single unit. Imagine a wall of samurai against a wall of veteran cohorts. What the samurai are used to seeing is a wall of targets where any blow could cut through the armor (wood and wicker) and deliver a killing blow, but against the Romans, their first blows hit shields as the roman soldier is plowing into them with their shields. The samurai could hack away some more but against what, metal armor and metal helmets, sure their blows are going to hurt and possible break bones but are they killing shots? All the while the Romans are just trying to get close because their short little stabbing swords are going to pierce the armor of the samurai and oops, one less samurai. The samurai is a great killing machine designed for its environment but against armored Romans legions, they’re out of their element.

Now of course one Roman against one samurai might be a different story. One of my hobbies is epee fencing; I’ve also fought kendo (Japanese sword fighting). If I had to choose who I’d be in the scenario, I’d it pick the samurai, even though I’m a roman soldier at heart. I’ve always believed that the mobility and coordination of a good fighter could overcome brute force, even with armor. I’d run circles around him until I found the right time to strike at a distance with the long sword.

“to even suggest a barbarian could advance on a samurai successfully i think is a bold statementâ€