moving the sword from right to left

[Chuck Russell]

in your mind, what is the greatest factor for the wearing of the sword from the right hip in roman to the use on the left up untill now?

weight?
length?
style?
emperior?
etc?etc?etc...

[ambrosius]

The increase in length going from gladius to spatha is obviously the
main reason why it was subsequently drawn from the left instead of
the right, with the move away from close-order tactics using the
highly curved scutum making it possible to draw from the left. But
how closely the increase in sword length was coupled with the decrease
in curvature of the scutum/use of close-order tactics, who knows. :?

Ambrosius

[Helstafir]

Hello,

in my opinion it is mainly the length.While it is ( for me ) possible to pull a gladius" straight up "out of its scabbard wearing it on the right hip , it is impossible to do it with a longer spatha.Having it left hip it gives a little bit more room for pulling it out.So perhaps it came with the development of longer blades.
This is only my opinion und it only works as long as the soldier is righthanded.But most people are.
In "Die Alamannen" is a picture of a tombstone of LEOPONTIUS from Straßburg .It shows the man wearing a spatha on the left hip.

Helstafir

[Peroni]

Salvete,

I have a first century spatha with a blade length of 69.5cm and is worn on the right, from a baldric. I have no problem whatsoever in drawing the blade from the right hand side.

There are depictions of soldiers (auxiliary) frrom the early second century wearing their swords on the left. Namely on the Adamklissi metopes and one particular scene on Trajan's Column. So we could be seeing the first movement from right to left during the Trajanic campaigns in Dacia.

Here... Adamklissi metopes, Mail shirts, oval shields, scabbards on the left.
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/ ... /met-g.jpg

There are many scenes of cavalrymen wearing their swords on the left on this monument too. This would make more practical sense. When you are wielding a hasta or lance the sword would be well out of the way of your weapon arm hanging on the left.

The scabbard on the Adamklissi metopes is also slung VERY high, almost under the armpit. This is also depicted on the cavalry troops on the Hadrianic friezes of the Arch of Constantine.

If your sword hangs too low, it will smack the rump of the horse in effect 'geeing-it-up'. If you are pulling up on the reins to slow the horse down, the animal sometimes gets confused, as it is still being tapped on the backside by the scabbard, making it think it should go faster! Having the sword tucked up under the ‘static’ left arm holding the shield stops this happening, and holds the scabbard very firmly out of the way.

And here... Trajan's Column, auxiliaries defending a fort from a Dacian attack. All visible baldric's are on the right shoulder.
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/ ... heleft.jpg

(And I did wonder if the images were reproduced the wrong way round, but the men clearly have their shields in their left hands)

Regards,

[Robert Vermaat]

There are depictions of soldiers (auxiliary) frrom the early second century wearing their swords on the left.

Indeed that would fit the theory that the hamata, spatha and the scutum developments during the 3rd c. AD reflected a move towards armament standardisation. It seems that all of the Late Roman infantry came to be armed like the earlier auxiliaries had been.

[adamparsons]

I was wondering about the amount of marching/field campaignings effects?

Round-about logic I know, but the quickest way to draw is out of a left slung scabbard, I'm don't really believe the "getting tangled in scutum" reasons as to why swords were right slung. Right slung swords are great for drawing- never had an issue with it. Easy enough with a short sword, but it does become harder the longer the blade is and though not an inferior way to draw neither does it have any advantage over left slinging except one! When you are marching a left slung gladius bangs off a shield (especially curved scutum) all the time which is over longer distances painfull and awkward as I'm sure we all have experienced!

I was thinking that given early armies were mainly designed for marching/conquest i.e field based activities- coonstantly looking to advance and expand the empire. This, combined with the short gladius, means you can sling it on the right, it causes no pain or obstruction when marching, and is very easy to draw.

In the later 2nd century it seemed to me that the armies main focus seems to be more along the lines of auxiliary troops (discussed elsewhere I think?) who act in a more garrison/patrol duties and less of a constant field ready army (though this is still perfectly possible). This is when you get the spatha being used more commonly and slinging left seems to be more common, its longer so easier to draw from the left and given the army is marching a lot less this consideration needs to play a more secondary role to the ease of use of the weapon.

I know there were a lot of campaigns and field activities in and after this period (especially antoninus and severus). But I think that these campaigns had more of a specific objective, rather than the old- "keep expanding and campaigning attitude"? So the problems caused by left slinging were less of an issue than being able to draw a sword quickly and easily.

Sorry I haven't put this particularly well!
Adam

[Pompeius Minus]

I wouldn't discount fashion as an explanation.

Having the sword on the left side was originally the privilege of officers, and military fashions tend to migrate from the top downwards. Cf the almost universal adoption today of berets, which used to be worn only by "elite" units.

Maybe over time the left-right discrimination between officers and men simply faded away?

[Mitra]

I dont think pratical reasons are the solutions in this case ; hoplites use sword on left in close formations and gauls use swords on right side. I think that sword position have only an hierarchic value , the same of albata decursio (with the same destiny during the III century) , a distinction of gregarii and centurions (celtic origins?).