04-04-2006, 07:52 PM
Heh, heh.
I agree, this is an interesting topic, but looking at the forum archives it must be the third or fourth time it has come up in recent years. The age old Cut or Thrust debate coupled with the why a change from Gladius to Spatha?
My interpretation:
A large part of the discussion comes down to Vegetius and his assertion that Romans of old mocked those who relied on the cut, favouring the thrust.
In my opinion, the key is in understanding the context in which he appears to be writing. He's discussing the reformation of contemporary infantry through ancient examples. There is no clear indication that he makes any distinction between the contemporary sword and the sword used by the ancients. What he means by Gladius, Spatha and Semi Spatha are somewhat open to debate.
He rightly recommends the thrust over the cut as a more effective blow, but does not relate it to any particular sword; he only says it was the practice of the ancients, which we equate with the 'Short Sword', but he may well have made no such connection. Consequently, I would infer that he is recommending using the contemporary 'Spatha' in this way, which implies that he thinks the infantry of his day are relying over much on the cut.
Going back six hundred years or so to the introduction of the 'Spanish Sword' Polybius (relying on a translation http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/polybius6.html ) is clear that it is an effective thrusting and cutting weapon. He also suggests how far apart individuals should be apart from one another to use their Scutum and Gladius effectively. His emphasis is on the flexibility of the Roman Legion over the Macedonian Phalanx.
Apparently, increasing evidence in the archaeological record suggests that this early Gladius had a 27" blade ( http://www.larp.com/legioxx/gladius.html ), which is none too much shorter than the later 'Spatha', 'Migration Sword' or 'Viking Sword', which themselves seem not that different from the Imperial Gladius anyway( http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEqui ... ttack.html ).
In short, I think the situation is a good deal more complicated than a transition from Thrusting Short Sword to Slashing Long Sword. Both 'types' seem to be fully capable of delivering either type of blow, with the thrusting technique being technically favoured. The transition from Short to Long bladed swords is itself a process that is somewhat unclear and also bound up with the continuing debate about the usefulness of the Heavy Pilum as a Spear as well as being dependent on specific tactical considerations, which both vary over time and from theatre to theatre.
Some Cut and Thrust Articles:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html
http://www.thearma.org/essays/howacutworks.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/hype.htm
Thanks for reading, I look forward to any corrections...
Matthew James Stanham
I agree, this is an interesting topic, but looking at the forum archives it must be the third or fourth time it has come up in recent years. The age old Cut or Thrust debate coupled with the why a change from Gladius to Spatha?
My interpretation:
A large part of the discussion comes down to Vegetius and his assertion that Romans of old mocked those who relied on the cut, favouring the thrust.
In my opinion, the key is in understanding the context in which he appears to be writing. He's discussing the reformation of contemporary infantry through ancient examples. There is no clear indication that he makes any distinction between the contemporary sword and the sword used by the ancients. What he means by Gladius, Spatha and Semi Spatha are somewhat open to debate.
He rightly recommends the thrust over the cut as a more effective blow, but does not relate it to any particular sword; he only says it was the practice of the ancients, which we equate with the 'Short Sword', but he may well have made no such connection. Consequently, I would infer that he is recommending using the contemporary 'Spatha' in this way, which implies that he thinks the infantry of his day are relying over much on the cut.
Going back six hundred years or so to the introduction of the 'Spanish Sword' Polybius (relying on a translation http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/polybius6.html ) is clear that it is an effective thrusting and cutting weapon. He also suggests how far apart individuals should be apart from one another to use their Scutum and Gladius effectively. His emphasis is on the flexibility of the Roman Legion over the Macedonian Phalanx.
Apparently, increasing evidence in the archaeological record suggests that this early Gladius had a 27" blade ( http://www.larp.com/legioxx/gladius.html ), which is none too much shorter than the later 'Spatha', 'Migration Sword' or 'Viking Sword', which themselves seem not that different from the Imperial Gladius anyway( http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEqui ... ttack.html ).
In short, I think the situation is a good deal more complicated than a transition from Thrusting Short Sword to Slashing Long Sword. Both 'types' seem to be fully capable of delivering either type of blow, with the thrusting technique being technically favoured. The transition from Short to Long bladed swords is itself a process that is somewhat unclear and also bound up with the continuing debate about the usefulness of the Heavy Pilum as a Spear as well as being dependent on specific tactical considerations, which both vary over time and from theatre to theatre.
Some Cut and Thrust Articles:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html
http://www.thearma.org/essays/howacutworks.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/hype.htm
Thanks for reading, I look forward to any corrections...
Matthew James Stanham
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one\'s own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.
Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350), Tsurezure-Gusa (1340)
Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350), Tsurezure-Gusa (1340)
