Roman Legionary Swords

[dedmoroz]

today i watched some new pictures of RTW i noticed swords that legionaries holding are so short it almost like dagger.

i mean how can they fight with them efficiently?

they can only stab - slashing is hardly possible. what a shame because i like to see lots of severed limbs and heads http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

long live naginata and katana http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[The Wizard]

Why?

Because the gladius, the traditional weapon of a legionary, was not designed for slashing and cutting off heads. It was designed for murderous efficiency. Together with the scutum, it was easy for a legionary to simply block the blow of, for instance, a Gaul (with his longsword with blunted point so he cannot stab - this was deemed 'honorable') with the scutum, and then quickly stab the Gaul in question in his abdomen, and move on to the next. One of the many reasons why the legionary was so effective.

It was easy to weild, it was, in combination with a scutum, safe, and it was - above all - efficient.

Unlike a naginata or katana.



~Wiz

[Oaty]

An easier way to explain this would be think of a guy thats swinging his bat at you. Now most people with no thoght would back away. Now why do that and just get face to face with the person they have no swinging room and your fists are free to go on a rampage on his face unless he opts to drop his bat. So what the legionaires did they did not cower and they got face to face with them making there weapons nearly useless and his only hopes was that the guy behhind him (if there was on behind him) to save his butt. This is why hoplites carried swords so that if there spearwall was breeched they still could defend themselves

[katank]

well, also the short gladius can be wielded more easily by less brawny troops compared to bihanders.

Romans had citizen soldiery and were not that used to the more harsh conditions like the Gauls or Germanic tribes who may well be more built.

troops wielding the gladius can be trained easier and faster not to mention to be safer considering it's fairly hard to defend yourself adequately when on the recovery with a bihander or up close.

gladius and scutum is simply more effective.

besides, the legions also fought in fairly close ranks and that's hard to accomplish if you are all swinging huge bihanders.

[econ21]

I agree with the original poster - I know the gladius was a short sword, but those in RTW just seem too short and dagger like to me. They should be 28in long - the pommel would take some of that length, but even so those on the video seem too small to me.

[Kraxis]

Yes, the gladius is rather short, but is all the swords compared to their actual size.

The gladius was about 60cm which is about 24 inches, these weapons are more like bronzeswords, about 45-50cm.

[1dread1lahll]

people, the reason they were short, is (mainly) the technology to manufacture a 'cavalry saber' did not exist yet. Swords of any length were most like to perform poorly, bend break ect.....also iron was very expensive...the Bessemer blast furnace was not invented until 1836...not until then could steel of real quality and quantity be produced.

[bighairyman]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ May 08 2004,16:42)]Why?

Because the gladius, the traditional weapon of a legionary, was not designed for slashing and cutting off heads. It was designed for murderous efficiency. Together with the scutum, it was easy for a legionary to simply block the blow of, for instance, a Gaul (with his longsword with blunted point so he cannot stab - this was deemed 'honorable') with the scutum, and then quickly stab the Gaul in question in his abdomen, and move on to the next. One of the many reasons why the legionary was so effective.

It was easy to weild, it was, in combination with a scutum, safe, and it was - above all - efficient.

Unlike a naginata or katana.



~Wiz
Right, Slashing is discouraged in the Roman Army. stabbing is more lethal no matter where you stab.

[Longshanks]

Mock the Roman gladius' size if you will, but it conquered and maintained an Empire for centuries. A barbarian broadsword might look cooler, but it was much less effecient than the Roman gladius. The Romans simply pressed in close to their foes with their shields, so close that their enemies could not wield their big slashing swords easily. Then the legionaries would stab their enemies in their vitals from behind their shields. A slaughter usually ensued. The Roman Army at its height was like a machine that chewed up barbarians. (as well as other foes)

Additionally stabbing is preferable to slashing. A stab is more likely to cause serious internal injuries resulting in death, as well as being better suited to punch through armor or a rib cage. Armor & bone will more easily prevent serious injury from slashing attacks.

[dedmoroz]

Quote[/b] (1dread1lahll @ May 08 2004,19:44)]people, the reason they were short, is (mainly) the technology to manufacture a 'cavalry saber' did not exist yet. Swords of any length were most like to perform poorly, bend break ect.....also iron was very expensive...the Bessemer blast furnace was not invented until 1836...not until then could steel of real quality and quantity be produced.
ok i perfectly agree with you.

i think the reason roman swords was so short is because by that time it wasn't technically possible to forge long enough swords which would be both reasonably light and strong for steel to steel slashing contact.

now as for stabing vs slashing, i think in crowded battles slashing is far more effective because:

* u can slash any body part (its hard to stab legs and arms and other small body parts)

* slash has greater chances to stop your foe immedietly unlike stabing because of wider wound area (think of it as 9mm with less penetration but higher stoppage power vs 5.56mm bullet) your opponent will be dead anyway because of blood loss...

*slash covers wide area while stab only 1 point area hit.

*while on horse, stabing is impractical

*whole theory of evolution of hand to hand combat teaches that longer swords were prefered on later eras.

[Kraxis]

dedmoroz, while we can agree on a number of points we can't agree on

Quote[/b] ]i think in crowded battles slashing is far more effective
No... of course it depends on your sword, but if we say you have a spatha (long version of gladius), which was good at both, then in a crowded situation you shouldn't slash but stab.

Reason 1: When slashing you open yourself to a quick attack, not good when your enemy is very close by.
Reason 2: In a crowded situation you have too little room to perform a slash properly, the sword becomes unwieldly. The Romans used this to their advantage against the 'barbarians'.
Reason 3: In a crowded situation it is easier to determine your angle of attack. See Reason 2.

[1dread1lahll]

additionally the art of 'fenceing' (wacking swords together) was somthing like 500 years away. The swords of the early (pre republican) Romans were meer round bars of metal that could be used of nothing but stabbing (haveing no sharpened edge).

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (katank @ May 09 2004,01:14)]Romans had citizen soldiery and were not that used to the more harsh conditions like the Gauls or Germanic tribes who may well be more built.
Lets be truthfull on this. The romans were much more capable than the barbarians of organised effort. The work ofa roman legionary in one single day would have exhausted a barbarian warrior.

The romans were impressed by the barbarians charge, but they utterly despised their resistence in a prolonged melee. They considered them quite soft.

[Herodotus]

You may not be able to concieve that a short sword can be more effective than a long sword, and one on one you would be right. But working as a single unit the legions were extremely effective (practically a barbarian eating machine as has been mentioned).
It must be mentioned though that the Romans didn't just advance and win many one on one fights, they created the conditions to slaughter the enemy en masse (though they were often helped by the barbarians impetuousness). First they had to push into the enemy forcing them into close formation (impetuous barbarians often helping by pushing at the back). Then they could use their short swords to stab swathes of men to death.

[Togakure]

My understanding is that Roman infantry usually operated in tight formations and used shields. A short stabbing weapon is more useful in these conditions. Slashing requires more space and more expended energy than thrusting. Thrusts can also more easily target small areas, that are less protected by armor, than slashes can. It is more likely for a slash to be diverted by armor, a shield, or simply the angle of a poorly placed strike, leaving an attacker open to counterattack, than would a thrust.

The Japanese wakizashi (short sword) was the personal weapon of the Samurai. It almost never left its owner's side. When fighting indoors, the wakizashi was more often used because there wasn't enough space to wield a katana effectively. Ninja-to are also shorter to allow for more effective fighting in close quarters. They are also straight blades, which make them better for thrusting.

Thrusting techniques (tsuki) are so dangerous that they are often prohibited in kenjutsu competitions, even using wooden bokken with rounded tips. A properly delivered thrust can do tremendous--immediately incapacitating--damage to an opponent, particularly if delivered to one of the human body's many vital areas.

An exception to the effectiveness of thrust vs. slash in close, crowded combat would be a sword-armed cavalryman. The most effective ancient sword-armed cavalry used curved swords designed for one-handed slashing attacks (like the Japanese tachi).

Given the style of Roman Legion combat, the short, sturdy gladium was a formidable weapon for its time.

[Rosacrux]

Longshanks and Wiz have the correct answers. Wiz's presentation of the technique involved also shows what is this really all about.

I know this sounds silly, but think of the gladious as a more versatile alternative for a spear, not just a "shorter sword". A large sword is not effective in tight formation, like the ones the legion (and the Greek hoplites) fought in. A tight formation forbits any slashing moves: if you hack from right to left, you'll hit the shield of the guy at your right. If from left to right, you'll probably amputate the guy at your left. If from head down, you'll either slash the head of the guy whos behind you, or leave yourself wide open for an attack.

The spear was abandoned early by the Romans, because they were looking for a weapon that would allow stabbing (the only way to work a weapon in a tight formation, where wide cuts and swings are forbidden) but without the problems of a spear (long and bulky, did require too tight a formation to be effective, could break easily enough, didn't allow for extremely quick manouvres etc.).

Once again: Don't think of the gladious hispanicous as a "sword". Think of it as an extremely short spear, that posseses the best qualities of a sword too.

[Kraxis]

The gladius would also grant the legionary the possibility of winning a 1v1 fight, as opposed to using the spear. Now naturally in such a case a longer sword would be better, but you can't get everything, and the romans concentrated on cases they were likely to come into.

By the way, the gladius most certainly had a sharp edge, two in fact. Very sharp, so it could be used for slashing as well.

In fact it would surprise me if the legionaries didn't slash at all. Anything to save ones life, right?
Further, when facing an enemy in a tight protective formation that once in a while jabs his arm out would be a great candidate for a shortsword slash to the wrist. So you see a civil war might have resulted in quite a few men with amputated right hands.

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (1dread1lahll @ May 09 2004,02:44)]...the Bessemer blast furnace was not invented until 1836...not until then could steel of real quality and quantity be produced.
It was invented in 1856 but good quality swords were made a long time before that.

Some info on making swords here (http://www.swordforum.com/forge/roadtodamascus.html)


CBR

[Red Peasant]

Quote[/b] (Rosacrux @ May 10 2004,10:42)]Once again: Don't think of the gladious hispanicous as a "sword". Think of it as an extremely short spear, that posseses the best qualities of a sword too.
Quite correct. The comparison that springs to my mind is the short, stabbing spear developed by the Zulus.

[shingenmitch2]

"now as for stabing vs slashing, i think in crowded battles slashing is far more effective because:
* u can slash any body part (its hard to stab legs and arms and other small body parts)
* slash has greater chances to stop your foe immedietly unlike stabing because of wider wound area (think of it as 9mm with less penetration but higher stoppage power vs 5.56mm bullet) your opponent will be dead anyway because of blood loss...
*slash covers wide area while stab only 1 point area hit."


Dead wrong on all accounts. Romans used the stab (predominantly --but not exclusively), because it is the most efficient killing method.

A stab is more deadly. The force of a stab focused upon a small point is MANY MANY times (lbs per sqr inch) more powerful than a cut, and is more likely to penetrate armor.

You only need 4" of penetration on a stab to be lethal (it's also why a bullet -- all of which are relatively small -- can kill u). A slash is far less likely to produce a lethal wound.

A slash also puts you off balance as compared to a stab.

In a crowd (which ancient battles were) a stab can be made in a FAR smaller space then a swing. A swing will hit my buddies next to me unless they are far away -- try standing next to a batter. The beauty of the stab is I can be nearly shoulder to shoulder with my buddy, and now i get close protection from him and his sheild.


----------------

Not sure what this talk about "bi-handers" is about. The Celtic and Germanic longswords were single-handed affairs. POSSIBLY they could be used like a hand-and-a-halfer... I don't know of any true two-handed swords exist before the middle ages... my guess is that has to do with metalurgy.

[DemonArchangel]

The avg. german wasn't armed with a sword, iron was expensive.

Avg. German had a spear. Short sword allowed cover behind shield. To slash, you have to open up the shield, allowing the spearman with a longer reach to stick a pointy thing deep into the unprotected arteries in your thighs.

[dedmoroz]

just for fun lets imagine roman legionary would fight samurai, both using swords and legionary also using shield - who u think would win and why? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[shingenmitch2]

Sam vs. Roman, I think I know where u intend to go with this, but I'll take the bait... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

1 samurai vs. 1 legionary? Both are grizzled veterans who don't fear a good fight and seen much blood spilled... I guess I'd still go with the Roman.... Samurai attacks first, as is his training... sword hits BIG shield and is stopped, Roman stabs extended samurai... or samurai charges... gets 3' of pilum shaft thru chest as he has no shield to stop it...

The real question is 100 samurai vs. 100 Romans in a tight cohort... Part of the Roman benefit of the stab is his ability to stay in a tight formation and gain defensive benefit of his buddy to left and right. Romans march right thru samurai -- who are spread out and, each attacking rather individually have the same trouble Celts did getting at the Roman soldier.

[RisingSun]

We've had this discussion how many times, now? But I too, will take the bait. The Romans, hands down. The Japanese never encountered an army who were disciplined like the Romans, but the Romans had certainly encountered cultures focusing on individual heroics. I don't care what you say, that katana will not go through a big ol' banded Roman shield. And the samurai, if losing, will fight to the death, while the Romans will retreat to cut their losses. The samurai will exhaust all their manpower. And this is an unfair comparison, seeing as the samurai have a good 1300 years on the height of Rome.

Not to mention, that the Romans, if under a competent general, will adjust their tactics if they seem to be losing, while the samurai would just keep sending more men to the meatgrinder. This is why the samurai eventually were abolished- they would not change, even when gunpowder dominated modern armies.

[biguth dickuth]

Quote[/b] (1dread1lahll @ May 10 2004,06:47)]additionally the art of 'fenceing' (wacking swords together) was somthing like 500 years away. The swords of the early (pre republican) Romans were meer round bars of metal that could be used of nothing but stabbing (haveing no sharpened edge).
Ooh they did have sharpened edges, very sharpened ones
Sure, the swords of the time didn't have the quality of a 19th century sword, but metalsmith thechnology was not as backwards as you may think in ancient times.

Regarding sword length, they were able to make long and slashing swords who were of good quality and would not break on first impact.
As it has already been said in this thread, the short length of the gladius was not due to inability of making longer swords but due to the roman fighting style.

[Bob the Insane]

Must not confuse more technically advanced with more civilized... The romans where better organised, better equiped and when it came down to it, just as savage (if not more so) than just about any barbarian tribe...

[Hakonarson]

romans were trained to fence with their swords - at elast as much of their training was in cutting (slashing for the hoi poloi :)) as stabbing.

the Gladius is very well balanced for cutting - it was NOT merely a short pear.

The myth that the Gladius was for stabbing only is an extension of prejudice agaisnt medieval swords that came about with the decline of armour and teh rise of the true stabbing sword - the rapier - anything that cut was seen as clumsy and old fashioned.

With the disappearance of bladed weapons from general use we are left with the last set of predjudices that evolved with them.

Certainly stabbing can be more lethal than cutting, but the torso, which is the main target of stabbing, is usually the best protected part of a body by shields and armour.

[Herodotus]

Good metals did exist in Roman times, but they were very limited. I remember reading about a mine somewhere in Gaul or Germany (out of Romes reach at the time anyway) that was prized for the quality of its ore. The ancients believed that it was just naturally superior to other ore but the reality was that there was an impurity mixed with it that made the metal stronger during forging.

The Romans tactics were only overcome after many hard learnt lessons by the barbarians. The barbarians eventually worked out that giving battle (in their traditional manner)with the Romans was practically suicide no matter what the number of impetuous barbarians (indeed impetuousness made things worse in most cases). They changed their form of warfare and started to fight Guirella style. The eventual overrunning of the empire by the barbarians was in the form of thousands of small bands of warriors taking individual areas, not a massive army of the style that Rome had defeated time and time again.

As for the 1 on 1 between a Legionaire and a Samurai, my money would be on the Samurai, they were trained in 1 on 1 combat and I can't imagine one of them being stupid enough to get their blade stuck in the Legionaires shield, or get close enough to be stabbed with a Gladius.

100 on 100 I would go with the Legionaires but only if they had a good Centurion.

On the subject of swords and metal quality, it is interesting to look at the way swords were used in the bronze age. A bronze sword was only sharp for a few chops, bone let alone armour made large dents. After the blade was dulled though the bronze sword was still usuable as a club, and it is for that reason that bronze swords were reasonably large (so as to be a heavier club when it came to it). Also you could never be sure that you're sword would penetrate the enemies armour so it was ideal to have enough weight to crush you're enemies without needing to pierce his armour. I'm pretty sure swords weren't used widely at the time but it is interesting that the sword came into being before it was anywhere near as practical in the sense that we think of swords today.

[spmetla]

People must remeber that the "barbarian" broad swords are not fine weapons. They are made broad to overcome the lack of good iron refinement techniques, to make a sword of the same length in ancient times but as thin as a Gladius would mean a sword that would break after a short period of use and in the thick of combat that can spell death. Instead they were made thick which reduced their cutting power but allowed them to be made longer. The increased mass meant that they were primarily bashing weapons, they could knock weapons and shields away leaving defenders venerable but that was usually only seen in 1v1 combat. In close massed combat the mass and length of the broad sword made it a terrible weapon, especially when a tower shield almost knocks you off balance and can't swing yet.

In groups the Germans used primarily spears despite what conan the barbarian has taught you. Swords were expensive to make and therefore rare and used as status symbols of Germanic princes. Armor was also rare both because of the cost of manufacture and rarity but also the culture of bearing skin to show a lack of fear of the enemy.

As for the Gladius remeber that one of the techniques used was not to stab the man in front of you but to stab the man in front and to the right of you while you use your shield for continued cover. While the tower shield knocks the oppent off balance the soldier behind you continue to push you with their shields so as to continue the momemtum of the charge all the while you stab to the right and out which allows you to see and attack an enemy without exposing yourself to the man in front of you for all but a brief second when you hand thrusts out and stabs his buddy, in turn your friend to the left stabs the man in front of you.

[Rosacrux]

Hakonarson

good points there, I have to admit that I exagerated a bit by the statement "a gladious is only a short spear", but not much.

Sure the Roman legionaire could also fence effectively, but that was not the point of the whole legion system warfare. Despite it's differences with other tight formations (phalanx, for instance) the legion was fighting in a tight formation. What made them particularly succesful was that unlike the other formation fighting forces (hoplites) the legionaire could rely upon his gladious (individual skill also, but you can't say the Spartan hoplite, for instance, didn't posses individual skill...) to defend him effectively.

I have a minor gripe with what you state, though: The torso was not the prime target for the stabbing. Two were the prime targets for the stabbing attack: the face (for very long spears and of course pikes) and the thighs (for short spears and stabbing swords as the gladious).

The Torso 9/10 times was protected by a cuirass or, at least, the prime area for the protective efforts of a shield. And, a deep stab in the thigh is - unlike most people believe - extremely lethal and instantly incapacitating.

[spmetla]

The thighs are prime targets as well, although hard to hit if the main artery there is severed the person WILL bleed to death, also it tends to be unarmoured.

[Nelson]

Quote[/b] (biguth dickuth @ May 10 2004,18:38)]Ooh they did have sharpened edges, very sharpened ones
I agree. Iron/steel weapons of the time could be razor like. We have no reason to believe that a gladius was dull as a matter of course. As meticulous as Romans were about such things, I’ll bet they maintained them in a very sharp state. A thrust or chop would be much more damaging with a keen blade and require less effort to penetrate or cut.

For what it’s worth, Colleen McCullough, who did a lot of research for her Rome series, believes the gladius was wickedly sharp.

[Oleander Ardens]

@Herodotus: The Noricum was famous for it's highquality steel, the "ferrum Noricum" which actually became a trademark and remained it well into the medieval.
Ceasars legions during the civil war got oustaffed mainly by Noric steel, thanks to his close alliance with the Noric king, which even sent 300 heavyarmored noblemen to assist him; Ceasar accepted, glad to get his hands on such priced cavalry...


BTW: The Romans were not as invincible as some may think, also not in open battle. For example the Alemanni did defeat, despite being outnumbered in a large battle the Ittalic army before they got defeated in turn by the Gallic army near Strasbourg in a narrow fight with luck and skill...

[The_Emperor]

I think that Polybius mentioned that the Roman Gladius was a versatile sword that could be repeatedly used in combat and keep its perfomance.

The Barbarian Swords of the time had a tendancy to lose their sharpness in prolonged combat after the first few swings, the Gladius on the other hand was mainly used for stabbing and as such didn't suffer in prolonged combat.

As has already been mentioned the Gladius can be used in very close quarters fighting, while the Longer Swords needed room to swing... Therefore the Barbarian swords were used at their best in the initial charge and suffered as battle went on. Also the longer swords had a tendancy to dig into the edges of shields and into the ground if the swing missed, leaving the fighter exposed.

Since the Romans always had their large shields they would not suffer in this way, and Quick attacks would leave them open to counterattack for the shortest length of time... Even then they still had that shield for someone to get around

[spmetla]

The degrading usefulness of the Gladius though is seen in the Late Roman era when the Armies stopped using true tower shields and discipline within the army was not what it was in the Early Roman period. The later ill disciplined legionarries couldn't use the Gladius effectively which is why the switch to Longerswords came about instead of increasing training.

Longswords were better in the medieval period when armies lacked discipline and cohesion were the combat was lots of indiviual battles of individuals instead of large battles of units (not saying there were less troops in battles).