Longsword vs Shortsword(with scutum maybe)

**Spoofa** · 11-07-2007, 02:34

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** · 11-07-2007, 03:08

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** · 11-07-2007, 03:13

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** · 11-07-2007, 04:11

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.

Originally Posted by Companion

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** · 11-07-2007, 04:13

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** · 11-07-2007, 05:30

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** · 11-07-2007, 05:34

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)

**Companion** · 11-07-2007, 07:21

Originally Posted by BigTex

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.

Originally Posted by NeoSpartan

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** · 11-07-2007, 07:58

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** · 11-07-2007, 09:04

Originally Posted by Companion

...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.

**Sakkura** · 11-07-2007, 06:09

Originally Posted by 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.

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.