Longsword vs Shortsword(with scutum maybe)

[Companion]

Googling casually on Celt-Rome conflicts, I came across numerous articles(Webpages) stating "Celtic longswords are inferior to Roman gladius&scutum combo in close hand-to hand fighting so Romans gained an edge on the battlefield."

Then I remember that I saw some hellenic phalanx units in EB like Celto-hellenics or Hypaspists chose longsword as their sidearm although they usually fight in denser formations than Roman legionaries do.

I am under the impression that people are mostly rational in what they choose so I speculate there will be some logical reason beyond the preference but can't catch it.

Maybe "Heroic" culture of Celts required warriors to carry longswords which are supposedly better than other weapon types in 1-1 duels. But Greeks certainly did not dueled THAT much and still, some of them chose longswords over shortswords and Kopis. If longswords are so much inferior to shorswords in close combat then why use them? Esp. luxurious Royal Shield Bearers who could afford almost anything on the market? (albeit under the phalanx formation restrictions)

Somebody please Enlighten me

And please refrain from arguments like "Celts are so dumb and Greek geeks are just irrational enough to follow after them."

-Comp

[Leão magno]

Saw some History Channel program where they used the wepons of yore and they showed that what made the Gladius Hispaniensis so effective was its use together with the scutum allowing the bearer to get real close to the enimy, close enught to used the short Gladius sword... The long sword is not better nor worse, it is a question of tactcal adaptation of wepons, shields and armours...

[Spoofa]

yeah, im sure with a big huge shield you could easily block the first blow and move in and get in so close he cant use his sword too well, raise your shield up and stab him in the gut.

[Companion]

Then is it just that Celts/Greeks were just not aware of Roman shorsword&shield trick? Were they just immersed with some sort of "Longsword Bias"? (Sounds like I am the one who's biased here though)
Sorry, I just don't get the reason beyond preference for longsword.

[Leão magno]

Lomg swords were effective too, do not think that Rome won all battles and certainly do not think that Celtic gear was not efficient, as far as I believe, the question here is that Romans chosed the best gear for their close quarters, close combat and celtics choose their best gear fo their tatics too try to imagine that you have an scutum and some two meters tall, heavy muscled Gaul is attacking your shield with a long sword and all its weight... you can see that the Gladius Scutum combination may have had a hard time blocking, avoiding and counter attacking this... still, victories were not only Romans and can not be credited only to combat gears

[BigTex]

Think your missing the key point here. Romans were by and large money scrunging beaurocrats. Longswords were far expensive then any shortsword and took alot longer to make.

If longswords are so much inferior to shorswords in close combat then why use them? Esp. luxurious Royal Shield Bearers who could afford almost anything on the market? (albeit under the phalanx formation restrictions)

You hit on the exact reason here. Longswords are more expensive, thus the royal guards could afford them. It's not as though longswords couldnt thrust as easily as a shortsword could....

The reason the shortsword and scutum worked was that they were cost effective. Cost effective enough that if one legion was defeated, you could easily raise another with more shortswords and scutums. Personally I think the scutum is far more effective then the gladius hispanius ever was. Big, plywood shield, encases in leather and the edges protected by bronze.

[lobf]

AFAIK longswords require a bit of momentum to strike someone properly. The gladius could be used after a shield block and a step forward to poke you in the belly (or wherever) really quickly, which is why it is superior in a close fight.

[NeoSpartan]

The Celtic long sword (or any longsword for that matter) is NOT to be used like a gladius. A gladius is to get REAL close (or let the enemy get real close) and stab/hack. A longsword is to hack and also stab BUT at a longer distance.
BTW since I made my celtic shield I noticed that it was EXTREMELY easy to use a "long sword+long-slender-shield" combo common in Celtic units. I can keep my shield in place while I hack, stab, lundge, run, whatever.

The problem was with the Celts Ceasar & other Imperial Romans encoutered were mostly rookies and who got REAL close to the legions, so close that they can't wield their swords properly and get stabbed.

Oh and don't forget by 400BC the roman legions used the Hasta (a longsword) as their main infantry weapon. BUT they no longer fought like the legions of Ceasar, Titus, etc.

[NeoSpartan]

So in conclusion:

BOTH weapons are effective its just a matter of knowing how to use it.
-Gadius get close, REAL close.
-Longsword, don't get too close.

btw.. any longsword carries more momentum in a hack so it can crack ur head under your helmet. (A flax, or an axe is even more powerful)

[Sakkura]

AFAIK longswords require a bit of momentum to strike someone properly. The gladius could be used after a shield block and a step forward to poke you in the belly (or wherever) really quickly, which is why it is superior in a close fight.

Longswords can easily be used for stabbing as well, but in very close quarters this of course becomes more difficult than for the shorter gladius.

[Companion]

The reason the shortsword and scutum worked was that they were cost effective. Cost effective enough that if one legion was defeated, you could easily raise another with more shortswords and scutums. Personally I think the scutum is far more effective then the gladius hispanius ever was. Big, plywood shield, encases in leather and the edges protected by bronze.

...Sounds convincing.

The problem was with the Celts Ceasar & other Imperial Romans encoutered were mostly rookies and who got REAL close to the legions, so close that they can't wield their swords properly and get stabbed.

Oh and don't forget by 400BC the roman legions used the Hasta (a longsword) as their main infantry weapon. BUT they no longer fought like the legions of Ceasar, Titus, etc.

Gauls at Telamon are not fresh greens I believe... Superiority of Roman arms at Telamon is maybe another one of those Roman boasts I guess...

BTW, out of topic though, wasn't hasta a Roman name for spear and spatha a name for Roman cavalry longsword?

[stupac]

Well we know that in the late roman empire, when things were looking bad and the legions were in a sorry state having to deal with numerous invasions and having too few romans willing to serve, that the spatha saw widespread apoption over the gladius hispanis. I read somewhere that the multifaceted reasons included a breakdown in discipline, formations, and tactics on the battlefield as well as the inclusion of more and more germans in the legions who would of course bring their culture battlefield tactics. This is further seen by the adoption of lighter, oval shaped shields than the former scutum. I believe these would offer better mobility and better compliment a longer sword than the full scutum. Obviously, in order to swing a long sword you would need a good amount of space between you and your fellow soldiers, and when chaos insued on the battlefield and you were pretty well on your own it would be your best friend. But the gladius hispanis allowed the legion to fight in a coehisive unit, due to its short size which was none the less deadly for the short but lethal stabs it would produce, though I would imagine this would require more training. Well, I've said too much, I'm no historian and I don't consider myself informed on this topic, no doubt some EB historian will come along and dismantle everthing I've said.

[NeoSpartan]

...Sounds convincing.



Gauls at Telamon are not fresh greens I believe... Superiority of Roman arms at Telamon is maybe another one of those Roman boasts I guess...

BTW, out of topic though, wasn't hasta a Roman name for spear and spatha a name for Roman cavalry longsword?

I said CEASER AND IMPERIAL ROMANS!

Telamon was during the Republic..... and they outnumbered and hit the Gauls from the front & back.

[NeoSpartan]

Well we know that in the late roman empire, when things were looking bad and the legions were in a sorry state having to deal with numerous invasions and having too few romans willing to serve, that the spatha saw widespread apoption over the gladius hispanis. I read somewhere that the multifaceted reasons included a breakdown in discipline, formations, and tactics on the battlefield as well as the inclusion of more and more germans in the legions who would of course bring their culture battlefield tactics. This is further seen by the adoption of lighter, oval shaped shields than the former scutum. I believe these would offer better mobility and better compliment a longer sword than the full scutum. Obviously, in order to swing a long sword you would need a good amount of space between you and your fellow soldiers, and when chaos insued on the battlefield and you were pretty well on your own it would be your best friend. But the gladius hispanis allowed the legion to fight in a coehisive unit, due to its short size which was none the less deadly for the short but lethal stabs it would produce, though I would imagine this would require more training. Well, I've said too much, I'm no historian and I don't consider myself informed on this topic, no doubt some EB historian will come along and dismantle everthing I've said.

you are not 100% wrong...

...just don't make the mistake a lot of people (including me made) that the legions of 100-200 AD were "better" because of their equipment than the legions of 400-500 AD.

They were badass too.

[Centurion Crastinus]

Correct me if i'm wrong, the legions of the 3rd and 4th centuries were not as effective as they were in the 1st and 2nd centruies because of constantly reoccuring civil wars, not neccessarily because of the quality of the soldier and their equipment.

[Charge]

...just don't make the mistake a lot of people (including me made) that the legions of 100-200 AD were "better" because of their equipment than the legions of 400-500 AD.

They were badass too.

You mean their foes were much better than in 100-200ad ?

[L.C.Cinna]

Well we know that in the late roman empire, when things were looking bad and the legions were in a sorry state having to deal with numerous invasions and having too few romans willing to serve,

This is not true, the legions were not in a sorry state at all. some necessary changes to the static grouping of the army and it's different branches had been made since the time of the Antonines.

that the spatha saw widespread apoption over the gladius hispanis. I read somewhere that the multifaceted reasons included a breakdown in discipline, formations, and tactics on the battlefield as well as the inclusion of more and more germans in the legions who would of course bring their culture battlefield tactics.

It is true that the Spatha became the main weapon but:

this process already started during the antonine era (2nd century) with the introduction of the ring pommel swords and the semi-spathae instead of the gladius...so at a time when we are at the hight of "fanboy-segmentata -wearing-disciplined legions"... Same goes for the more frequent use of spears and other weapons instead of pila and more and more oval shields.

Tactics had changed and the troops equipped to fullfill more different roles. the infantry spatha is a bit longer but can be used like a gladius or more like a longsword in situations like smaller skrimishes or such things.

the Germanics have nothing to do with it. Germanic customs concerning swords were mostly influenced by the Romans not the other way round.

This is further seen by the adoption of lighter, oval shaped shields than the former scutum. I believe these would offer better mobility and better compliment a longer sword than the full scutum.

that's true

Obviously, in order to swing a long sword you would need a good amount of space between you and your fellow soldiers, and when chaos insued on the battlefield and you were pretty well on your own it would be your best friend. But the gladius hispanis allowed the legion to fight in a coehisive unit, due to its short size which was none the less deadly for the short but lethal stabs it would produce, though I would imagine this would require more training.

the republican hispaniensis like the Delos type have a lenght between 620 and 760mm, for example some 3rd century CE types vary from 557 to 800mm. not that big a difference if you ask me.

[O'ETAIPOS]

Many (majorty?) celtic longswords are completely unsuitable for stabbing due to rounded tip.

Roman scuttum+gladius combination allowed forming sth like phalanx with the line of closely packed shields. the result was that each solider was very well protected and can reach his enemy almost without exposing himself to attack. You can also slash with gladius - Livy mention even cut off limbs as the wounds romans inflicted on macedonians in early stages of II macedonian war.

On the other hand, if you use slashing longsword you need more free space to allow blade get momentum. Without momentum (for ex if gaul champions penetrated roman line and were swarmed by legionares) the longsword loses almost all its merit.

So in single combat I'd place my bet on celt but in formation with experience equal I'd choose romans

[Charge]

The key is to represent formation vs formation fight. It more seems that represented 1man vs 1man duel..

[macsen rufus]

So in single combat I'd place my bet on celt but in formation with experience equal I'd choose romans

Yay! It took a lot of reading, but eventually someone came up with the obvious answer. To the Celts generally the ethos was biased very much towards single combat. Rome's focus was on disciplined manipular tactics. Two very different weapons suited to two very different styles of warfare. Neither weapon is "better", both are suited to their purpose.

For the Celtic tribes a battle could be decided by a single one-on-one fight. The Romans didn't have the same honour system, and I can't remember which battle in particular but one "famous" Roman victory over the Gauls really boiled down to many of the Gauls seeing - "Oh, look our champion just killed their champion. We've won, let's go home and get pissed". Of course the Romans thought no such thing There was a command sent out to Roman officers to desist from single combats - because they nearly always lost (and anyway what's the point if you don't accept the result as binding in the same way the Celts did?) All of which points to longsword for single combat, gladius (itself a celtic word/weapon btw) for manipular tactics.

[Charge]

because they nearly always lost

bull shit. never heard about Roman (not remember exactly) , that killed gallic chiftain in head-to-head?

[macsen rufus]

Yes - that's WHY you heard about him - he was by far the exception!

[geala]

There were not a few Roman aristocrats in the republic who were honored with coronae because they killed foes in single combat. Victory in single combat is often more a question of individual skill and luck and not of the type of weapons used.

That aside, consider that more or less no weapon is superior to another in an abstract way. The circumstances and the tactics is what counts. The legions of the republic and the early principate were made to fight pitched decisive battles. By coincidence (fight against the Oscan people led to the fighting techniques) the preferred style of fight was with scutum and sword. The tactics were made for it. The tactics and the weapons were fit for the demands of the time - the fight against well organized armies of civilized states or barbarians in big battles. No need to change to longer swords.

Later in the principate and in the dominate the foes were more or less unstructered barbarian small armies, quite more often however small bands on raids. The fight against and the interception of raids was the biggest task for the later Roman army. Big battles were rare (except in civil wars). Individual fighting in small groups was the rule, not the exception. A longer sword offered more possibilities in this kind of fighting although the gladius would have done the job too.

In the east the situation was not that different. The Parthians and Sassanids were never able to threaten the Roman hinterland other than with large scale raids, the fighting was more for the border towns and forts. The kind of warfare against these foes, who used mainly cavalry, saw either no need for close packed anti-infantry infantry forces with heavy shield and short stabbing sword.

[NeoSpartan]

yep well said fellas... there was ONE roman comander who did fought a Gallic chieftan (forgot the guys name, forgot the tribes name) and he won. I don't know of any other Roman Officer engaging in single combat to decide the fate of the battle.

BTW, not all gallic swords had a rounded tip, or the same size, or quality, etc... remember there was no set "statandard" for the making of swords among the Celts, there was no "state", so it came down to the tribe's smiths and the soldiers $$, and/or standing with the noble, and/or status in the tribe.

[Sakkura]

But geala, didn't the Roman republic face lots of unstructured enemies as well?

[Sakkura]

yep well said fellas... there was ONE roman comander who did fought a Gallic chieftan (forgot the guys name, forgot the tribes name) and he won. I don't know of any other Roman Officer engaging in single combat to decide the fate of the battle.

BTW, not all gallic swords had a rounded tip, or the same size, or quality, etc... remember there was no set "statandard" for the making of swords among the Celts, there was no "state", so it came down to the tribe's smiths and the soldiers $$, and/or standing with the noble, and/or status in the tribe.

Plus a rounded tip doesn't prevent stabbing, as long as there is still a sharpish edge.

[Maeran]

yep well said fellas... there was ONE roman comander who did fought a Gallic chieftan (forgot the guys name, forgot the tribes name) and he won. I don't know of any other Roman Officer engaging in single combat to decide the fate of the battle.

Manlius Torquatus, according to tradition, that's how he got his cognomen.
I seem to remember accounts of later Romans (perhaps an emperor even, I couldn't find anything in a quick search) also achieving fame through single combat against a Gaul. It could even be the result of Livy's cut and paste approach to describing battles (how many times does he have the standard thrown into the enemy lines?), so that several men have been given the reputation of doing something which might never have happened but was just a family story to begin with.

[Shifty_GMH]

yep well said fellas... there was ONE roman comander who did fought a Gallic chieftan (forgot the guys name, forgot the tribes name) and he won.

All information given is according to the article entitled "Scars, Spoils, and Splendour" found in the April 2007 issue of the magazine Ancient Warfare.....

Just reread this article the other day.

Here are two famous examples of spolia opima (spoils taken, by a Roman, from a king in single combat) with Gauls:

Titus Manlius Torquatus dueled a Gallic champion/chieftain in 361BC. "His subsequent taking of the Celt's torque gained him his nickname and made the torque one of Rome's decorations for bravery."

Marcus Claudius Marcellus dueled Viridomarus (King of the Gaesati) in 222BC. The consul took the Gauls armor and head.

I don't know of any other Roman Officer engaging in single combat to decide the fate of the battle.

"The first historic example of the taking of spolia opima...:"

Cornelius Cossus, a military tribune, unhorsed and killed Lars Tolumnius (king of the Veii) in 437BC. Cossus stripped the king of his armor and head. Put the head on his lance and brandished it at the enemy cavalry. The enemy cavalry promptly fled.

EDIT: Maeran beat me to it.

[NeoSpartan]

thanks man....

i have that magazine somewhere around my room.... now where the hell is it?

[runes]

this stuff just doesn't go on anymore.

the last badass war event i can think if is that guy (i can't recall his name) who got shot like three times, but jumped up and took control of a .50 cal and killed like 60 germans and held off, singlehandedly, his position from being completely overrun.

war needs more one on one general fighting and head-lance mounting.