Hadrian Caesar

It offers a few more advantages. As you're bobbing about at the trot, it's very easy to slide off to the left or right. The saddle elliminates the possibity of falling off to either side by giving you two footholds. In battle, the stirrups were also a real help in melees. The trooper was constantly swinging his arm about to parry sword blows, some of which were enough to unhorse inexperienced fighters - even with the use stirrups. This advantage of stability must have been even greater in ancient battles, where shields were equally used to absorb blows - most of which didn't just glance off and away, as was so often the case with sabre parries. What's more is that by now being able to stand up in the saddle, mounted bowmen could wield larger bows than ever before - an asset with which stirrup-employing nomads must have terrified their enemies.

Yes, the drill you mention does exist, but so does mine. Most of the time, when they charge with their points down, they're still going to follow through on it; they will, as I've said, use the superior reach of the outstretched arm and sabre to bury the blades in the enemy (cavalry of inf.), and then let the forward movement of the horse draw it out again as they pass their targets. That's where our opinions differ, no? I'm just saying they do the same drill today and, just like 200 years ago, their intentions in battle would be to skewer the adversaries at the charge, not cut them.

Well, caldrail, you know what I think, so I'll just be quiet. But just so you know, every one of England's (if that is where you're from) mounted regiments would disagree with you. If you ever get the chance to visit with one of them, you'll find their sabre drill does, as it has for centuries, include charging with the point. Of course, no Romans will correct you, but the Royal Armoured Corps wouldn't hesitate for a moment.

When the early Roman cavalryman charged the opposing infantry's flanks or cavalry, he used his spatha to skewer the enemy, putting the full momentum of his galloping horse behind the blow. With his elbow locked and his arm and sabre pointing straight forward, he would have looked for all the world like a Napoleonic cuirassier (minus the large, oval shield). Once the melee was joined, he used his spatha to cut and thrust. Although it would have been easier to slash, he must have employed both actions to make the most out of the situation - much to the disadvantage of his more cut-oriented foe. The javelins, as says caldrail, were used for skirmishing. Later Roman cavalry included lancers.

Alright, but wouldn't you say they would have had to resort to cutting the odd time? Even in close order? I can't see the thrust coming in handy in every single situation. I'm just saying that if they were employing both actions (which they positively were) in close order, they must have mastered both the cut and the thrust, equally. Situations demanding the use of a cut come up just as often as those demanding thrusts. A professional soldier knows exatly when to use either.

No problem, man. Not even the other guys know everything.

Yes, the gladius could. And you're right about the equestrian generals; most of them fought on horseback in the heat of battle, but Klingan's refering to individual duels which took place before the actual battles - often as ways to avoid huge loss of life at the cost of losing a good leader.

Sure, it might have been easier to perform a thrust in close formation, but you have to take the enemy's shield into consideration; it's hard to get around and behind it with a thrust. Thrusts came in handy sometimes, as did cuts. A professional soldier would strike in the most advantageous way depending on the situation, and that didn't always mean just one type of movement - even in densely-packed ranks. Might I add the gladius' shortness would have made tight cuts easier. The kind of close proximity between legionaries you're talking about would even be a hindrance to your almighty thrusts.

Well in that case, I seriously doubt one action was used more often than another. In a duel, you sometimes need to slash your opponent, and you sometimes need to stab him. To say the Romans emphasized thrusting more than cutting is a real lack of understanding; to be able to do both, they must have been very well trained in both. You can't sacrifice one for the other. That's the beauty of the gladius' design: you have a versatile weapon, unlike, say, the spear or axe.

Alright, interesting thoughts. True, I was exagerating a bit. But would you say the gladius was never used to cut?

You're basically right, but we can't say just that. Because of its versatile design and title of sword, it must have been used for both actions. Likewise, the legionary carrying it must have be drilled in both the thrust and the cut.

How do we know the legionary was trained to twist his gladius? I'm sorry, but I've never come across the twist method in bayonet drill, nor any references to it. Again, please prove what you're saying with obvious logic or, more preferably, with a valid source of information regarding the subject. If you don't, then this debate'll never end.

You mean the inadequate pilums to which Caesar's referring are the hinged models?

How probable is it that any man with a deep gash in his belly keeps on fighting? Ask any surgeon, and he'll tell you that gutwounds (touching some of the vital organs) are most painful (as you said). From that little bit of info, it's easy to say that a sword thrust taken to the belly was probably one of the most agonizing - not to mention disabling - things that could happen in battle. All I'm saying here is 1)There's no point in this twist - not that it isn't supposed to be painful - just that there's no point in taking an extra second to turn the sword about, especially if there's a good chance your slippery, bloody hand will slip freely around the wooden grip. The Gaul's already about to collapse in pain, whether he suffered the ''twist'' or not. 2) I really don't see the point in discussing this if we can't prove they actually performed this action in the heat of battle. Has any infantry even practiced this with a bayonet? So look, just tell me, caldrail, can you prove that anyone has ever been drilled in twisting the bayonet, spear, sword, etc. inside the wound? If yes, then I'm wrong again. If not, then this debate will remain unresolved unless someone else gets involved. What are the others' opinions?

I apologize, you're absolutely right about the wound. Yet I still don't see the point of this twisting motion. Yes, it would cause additional dammage by streching and opening up the wound a wee bit more, but if you already have a blade in you, I can't see it making much of a difference whether it's twisted or not. In both cases the dammage and pain are mainly caused by the depth of the wound (hopefully in a vital organ). Neither the gladius nor bayonets were designed with wide blades to make a wider cut. Why bother with the turn if the poor guy's innerds are already bleeding? I have to admit that my logic might be wrong. If that's the case, then please correct me with the use of some ancient reference to this practice, or at least prove to me that more recent infantrymen applied it to their bayonet drill. Even better, let's ask a Private in the infantry. After all, there's no point in arguing if the answer's within arm's reach.

Perhaps, but not quite reasonable, either. That would mean twisting a blade that's an inch wide at the most around in a cut of the same width. Yes, it can be done, but considering the cut's size, the additional dammage caused by a rotation at that depth would be too insignificant to be put into practice. The result would be a cone-shaped gash (circular at the surface), the base having a diameter of no more than 1 inch. Widening the wound with a twist would only be effective if the blade was, say, 2 inches wide closer to the point, so as to dammage the enemy's vital organs. To achieve that, however, the point would have to be much less tapered - not wicked enough for a great thrust.ich Does anyone know if Primary Sources describing this action exist ?

Which ancient Roman refers to the thrust & twist technique? I would have thought it would be very difficult to open up a sword wound by twisting the lodged gladius, especially if your hands are nice and bloody. You wouldn't be able to get a proper grip; you'd have to have some kind of lever and proper traction to rotate the weapon. When stabbing the chest, they had to make sure the blade entered horizontally to fit through the ribs.

Against a naked warrior, a cut would be effective as well. The versatility of being able to cut or thrust at any opportune moment is what made swords so popular. Yes, perhaps a thrust is more armour-piercing, but you need to be able to do both. Legionary training must have featured both actions, and would have emphasized both equaly; in Roman infantry practice, every action must be perfected. I agree with Conan. They would most certainly have avoided striking armoured parts of their opponents and instead focused on any weak spots.

Thanks,

They'd be daft not to, or the weapon has limited utility. But the standard training of legionary swordplay featured thrusting. True...I never said it didn't. No, the epee doesn't have a sharp edge nor do some cleaver style swords have points. Again, I didn't exagerate so much as to say ''All swords''. I said ''most''. Nope. Try that in combat and you won't be holding the sword for long. Sorry, I disagree. With the thumb putting pressure behind the guard, very well directed thrusts can be made while properly absorbing the impacts. And by ''fingers'' I didn't mean the tips. The whole fingers curl around the grip - plus a bit of the palm. Try it yourself with an accurate replica; there's more control over the sword's movements. Also, if you try waving a gladius around a bit, you'll find the acutely-shaped grip (which just happens to fit the fingers perfectly) doesn't actually seem comfortable enough for the whole palm. For swords like that, the grips were smoother. The short length can be a disadvantage. It requires more guts and practice to get in close. Swords became shorter during the empire and the style more fancy and florid. From the 3rd century AD the gladius is dropped very quickly in favour of the longer spatha, which wasn't generally used to thrust and could be used by poorly trained troops. More fancy? Nobility always had more ornate swords than the Plebs or lower military ranks. In the hands of a professionnal legionary, practice in point-control wasn't lacking. Long reach is useful if your opponent has shorter weaponry. The reason the romans used a short blade is a quickdraw principle based on the mass formation of a heavy infantry unit. If the combat involves long, single-grip shields, then I disagree. The singular grip allowed the fighter to thrust the shield before his opponent, thus prohibiting his movements and perhaps even his vision. The reach wasn't so important in this case. The adversaries came closer to each other than in the Late Middle-Ages, when shields disappeared. What's more, is those large gallic shields were difficult to get behind with thrusts. That's why the Romans had to employ a sort of slicing cut by reaching behind the impenetrable shield and slitting the enemy somewhere back there, e.g., in the neck. Yes, that wicked point was there for a purpose. Both Livy and Polybius discuss swordfighting and confirm the changes of style over time. Yes.

Sorry about this, it's a bit long... From what I've read/discovered, the gladius' design doesn't seem to have been so focused on thrusting. I have a gladius replica which, although it isn't as heavy or rigid as the original, indicates a more versatile purpose. Almost all swords share the ability to both thrust and cut - hence the term: sword. Otherwise, they're usually classified as axes. The gladius' characteristics don't necessarily make it better for thrusting than for cutting. Unlike that of most other melee weapons, its unique grip was to be held by the fingers (thumb included), rather than by the whole hand. As a result, it automatically became more manoeuverable (less unwieldy) than its barbarian counterparts in the heat of battle. This agility has often thought to be caused by the blade's shortness, which is only partly true; the gladius' lesser length gave it yet another advantage over the longsword. One way in which ancient sword combat differs from that of the renaissance is the use of shields. With the use of gunpowder, armour was discarded in favour of agility. Length and reach became more important in dueling. In ancient warfare, on the other hand, reach wasn't such an advantage; because shields were such effective forms of protection, their users could get in closer and even use them as sorts of brutish, offensive weapons. Fighting with a longsword in this case would have posed a problem - especially for the thrust. Should the user miss his enemy with a stab, he'd have had to pull his arm back a long way to make another one. With a shorter sword, however, making thrusts became much easier, even in the very close (shields) combat of the ancient world. Finally, the gladius' acute point probably just permitted more deadly stabs. The only ancient reference to the gladius' primary purpose as a thrusting weapon, as far as I know, comes from Vegetius. He may very well have been mistaken, because by his time (late fourth century), the roman sword had become more akin to the germanic broadsword - mainly a slashing weapon.

I see, so you're saying the bend in the shank was intended to make returning the pilum impossible, not to force the enemy to drop the shield? Likewise, the breaking pilum was mainly designed to allow the legionary to step on the shaft, thus pulling down his enemy's shield arm?

True, what you say is possible. If it's alright, I just need a bit more info. Please describe once more how the pilum bent and the circumstances in which it did, and finally why the ancients prefered that bending design to a simpler, hard-shanked throwing spear. Thanks, PS: Again, if you have the time, I may have a couple more questions afterwards.

Dear caldrail, Before I go on, I'd just like to illuminate the topic: the existence of original, ancient quotes mentioning the pilum's ability to bend - either through the breaking of a wooden pin, or the softness of the metal shank. If, as I suspect, there are no such quotes, then we must discuss this by means of probability and logic, as opposed to mere guessing. In other words, experimental archaeology is usually helpful when no historical evidence remains to clarify the matter. However, if anyone can produce a genuine record of the pilum's purposely flexible design, then by all means, be my guest. Concerning the strength and construction of the targeted shield, it's safe to say that on average, most shields of the ancient world probably couldn't resist the impact of a 10 pound javelin focused on a minuscule, steel point - especially if the overall diameter of the shaft was no more than 7mm. The pilum was armour-piercing, and could thus punch a hole in most germanic and celtic shields. Friend, physics have shown that in a collision, an object in movement has an advantage over one that's static. For example, lead bullets are found whole after having penetrated through armour. That said, they endure some deformation upon impact, but don't deteriorate. On the other hand, lead is a soft metal, whereas a pilum's head is of iron. Thus, if a lead bullet can absorb the impact of high-speed contact with steel armour, then a pilum can probably cope with piercing a layered wooden shield. In Case 1, logic dictates that the pilum's pin, unless composed of sculpting clay, is likely to stay intact upon entering an gallic shield. Also, most of the momentum is focused in a forward direction. The only forces that could break the pin are lateral ones, such as gravity, and even it wouldn't be enough. In Case 2, I can't see how a pilum with such a flexible iron shank can still be called a weapon. Sure, it may succeed in hampering an enemy shield, as you say, but for the iron to be so soft as to sufficiently bend would mean seriously decreasing the chances of dammaging the shield or its user. Again, in order to be dangerous, the shank would have to be too hard to bend so effectively. It would have to bend to an angle of at least 45 degrees if it were to have any effect, and barbs do a better job at preventing removal, anyway. For both cases, we have to remember that some post-marian pila had wooden guards to protect the hand. This modification indicates their possible use as melee weapons. To bestow the javelins with the ability to bend or break, as suggested, would render this guard futile; the pilum would become unusable after the first thrust. The technique of stepping on the broken pilum is supposedly the one demanding the use of these pins, correct? That would mean that the point where the pilum broke has become a loose joint. How, then, could the Roman pull down his enemy's shield arm if his foot could only kick the free-swinging javelin out of the way? Thanks