What was the Gladius designed to do?

[brotus maximus]

Plus, the cavalry has a calvary type of gladius.

 

I thought cavalry used the slightly larger spatha, not the gladius. Anyway, the cavalry usually rellied on spears.

 

Generals of classical Greece fought usually on foot as hoplites. Later everybody important was on horseback and armed with a spatha. Of course, city assaults were foot business.

 

One of Caesar man at Thapsus cut the trunk of an elephant that had risen him above the ground. Also the wide blade it's a indication of slashing movement while the sharp point it's an indication that it was also a thrusting weapon. It was dual purpose.

wasnt it that the cavlery use a longer version of the gladius i remember hearing that there was a longer version of the gladius and would seem like an effective weapon, not saying that spatha's were not used but maybe a little help on this post any one???

[caldrail]

No, the gladius was a seperate class of weapon that grew shorter over the course of the empire until replaced by the spatha starting from the 3rd century. Incorecctly the spatha, the roman cavalry sword, is thought of as a long gladius. It isn't, and it was used with a different style. The longer blade favoured slashing attacks, an important consideration on horseback.

[caldrail]

caldrail,

 

Type in this link and read the text: http://swordforum.com/articles/ams/cavalrycombat.php

 

It's from the Sword Forum International, and with all probability, its members (many of which have extensively studied their subjects) know what they're talking about.

 

I'm not interested in prolonging this argument. I've told you what I believe, and as far as I can see, you're repeating yourself. If this essay isn't enough to convince you, then please, rather than continue trying to persuade me, go ask a cavalry officer or historian. He'll probably be more informative concerning sabre drill than either of us.

 

The force of such a thrust could be awesome, and if landing accurately would kill an opponent almost instantly. However, using a sword to thrust, particularly when moving at high speed, had its own potential for disaster - that of being unable to easily withdraw the weapon from the body of ones enemy. A sword used by cavalry in the American Civil War was not nicknamed the "wrist-breaker" without reason.

 

Yep. Thats what I said. Please continue finding evidence to back my assertion!

[Hadrian Caesar]

So, what? You're admitting you were wrong, yes?

 

The passage does affirm the actual practice of the point charge. Of course it has its own potential for disaster - I agreed with you there before. Yet for some reason, the drill was used in battle, which suggests that as long as it was perormed by professionals, injury could be avoided. Again (you're not the only one who's repeating himself), if it was such a risky action, it would never have been performed.

 

So what's up with the ''Yep. Thats what I said. Please continue finding evidence to back my assertion!''? --- No, that's not what you said. Remember...

 

The spatha will come out of your hand immediately on contact with the enemy. It might even sprain your wrist. If you're galloping at full chat, a slashing attack will slide off the enemy instead of embedding itself.

and

 

When cavalry charge full pelt toward the enemy with sabre pointing forward, you need to realise that the horsemen are not going to stab the enemy with it. Far from it, the sabre is perfectly adapted for slashing strikes. The act of pointing the sword is mainly bravado, to encourage yourself and others in the charge with a display of aggression that hopefully will also frighten the willies out of the poor souls about to receive your attentions. When you actually get there, the sabre would be used conventionally in a swing of the arm. otherwise the sword buries itself in your target, he falls over, and you carry on past. You really will lose the sword there and then.

 

You said they would never charge in such a dangerous way, not that it could be dangerous. Well, as far as I'm concerned, just about every aspect of any cavalry charge is dangerous. But that didn't stop anyone from fighting on horseback now, did it ?

 

By the way, I think you missed a vital bit of the passage...

 

The thrust is also the only blow to which the forward movement of the horse can be directly applied. When charging the straight thrusting sword was held in tierce, with the sword pointing directly ahead, the elbow almost straight, the hand relatively high and the blade point a little lower than the hilt, most importantly the thumb was braced and the wrist locked. With this grip the forward momentum of the charging horse powers the thrust, a little like the use of the couched lance; the cavalryman merely aims his weapon. The force of such a thrust could be awesome, and if landing accurately would kill an opponent almost instantly. However, using a sword to thrust, particularly when moving at high speed, had its own potential for disaster - that of being unable to easily withdraw the weapon from the body of ones enemy. A sword used by cavalry in the American Civil War was not nicknamed the "wrist-breaker" without reason.

 

Take a look at the p.34 paragraph: http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/Patton.php

Edited May 3, 2007 by Hadrian Caesar

[caldrail]

So, what? You're admitting you were wrong, yes?

Admit I'm wrong? Wash your keyboard out with soap and water this instant young man

 

The spatha will come out of your hand immediately on contact with the enemy. It might even sprain your wrist. If you're galloping at full chat, a slashing attack will slide off the enemy instead of embedding itself.

I still maintain that. The spatha penetrates and stops dead. You don't, you're still riding forward at the gallop. Since the blade is straight it can only be withdrawn along its axis which is impossible now you've left the corpse behind. never mind the soldier you just skewered twists as he falls.

 

You said they would never charge in such a dangerous way, not that it could be dangerous. Well, as far as I'm concerned, just about every aspect of any cavalry charge is dangerous. But that didn't stop anyone from fighting on horseback now, did it ?

Wow! Not bad! For a moment I thought you were going to get the better of me

 

I do understand your point and to some extent I'm going to have to give ground (Oh the pain...the pain...) BUT - You really do need to look closer at how blades and bodies interact, particulary with regard to mad horsemen doing dangerous things. The spatha can be used to impale but thats something best left to melee combat when there's no speed differential. In fact, the spatha is a very unsubtle weapon with no more development than a barbarian sword. Its primary use is hacking because the length makes it less wieldy and inaccurate, and the weight of the blade lends itself to chopping. The blade is not curved and cannot slice, so we won't see many missing limbs or heads, but plenty of nasty deep gashes instead. Is that any less lethal? Not necessarily. But I'm not volunteering to test it.

 

Caldrail 2, Hadrian Caesar 1

 

Keep up the good work

Edited May 4, 2007 by caldrail

[Hadrian Caesar]

Keeping score, are we? Sorry caldrail, I honestly couldn't care less about the ''points''. As long as you can, as did I, say your adversary was right all along, rather than immediately oppose yourself to him, then I feel fine .

 

Thanks for the congratulations, I look forward to the next time one of us retorts at the other's illogical comment.

 

I still maintain that. The spatha penetrates and stops dead. You don't, you're still riding forward at the gallop. Since the blade is straight it can only be withdrawn along its axis which is impossible now you've left the corpse behind. never mind the soldier you just skewered twists as he falls.

 

--Why then did the Scots Greys charge at the thrust? Surely it would have been better to avoid breaking a wrist, caldrail?

Edited May 4, 2007 by Hadrian Caesar

[Primus Pilus]

OK guys... enough of the personal quibbles here. This topic has evolved well beyond the original scope anyway. Nothing wrong with that in theory, except for the noted bickering. Just tone it down a bit.

[caldrail]

--Why then did the Scots Greys charge at the thrust? Surely it would have been better to avoid breaking a wrist, caldrail?

Because thats what they were taught to do, thats what napoleonic cavalry did. Roman cavalry weren't used in this overly aggressive manner. Back then, horses were too expensive to waste in foolhardy charges. In napoleonic times there were military stables breeding horses like no tomorrow. Not so in ancient times. Remember that the roman legions were very biased toward infantry, at least until the later empire when the situation begins to evolve. A frontal charge by roman cavalry? There weren't many commanders back then who would have chosen that course, given the likeliehood of sharp implements to run into. Notice that during the pike and shot era, cavalry mashed musketeers but avoided the pikemen. The same principle applies to our earlier period.

[Hadrian Caesar]

I'll give you that, yes. I have but one more question, caldrail.

 

Regardless (for a moment) of what tactics Roman cavalry employed, you did say it was strongly frowned upon to charge point-first. Have you changed your mind?

Edited May 5, 2007 by Hadrian Caesar

[caldrail]

Nope. I'll post why this afternoon.

[Hadrian Caesar]

Yes, Caldrail?

[sonic]

The original question was 'what was the gladius designed to do?'

 

It was designed to kill people.

 

It doesn't matter about the length, or whether it was good for slashing or stabbing. It was designed to kill people and the individual soldiers used it to slash and/or thrust depending upon their circumstances at the time.

 

The fact that it was shorter than enemy weapons meant that the troops using it had to be confident, otherwise they would cower behind their shields as the longer swords came at them and they didn't dare to take the fight to the enemy.

 

Anything else is simply armchair warfare. It's easy to talk about cutting and thrusting when you're sat in front of a computer; when you're on a battlefield, you smack the enemy however you can.

Edited May 8, 2007 by sonic

[Hadrian Caesar]

Makes sense to me, sonic. But I'm afraid many others aren't of that opinion.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Hadrian Caesar

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Yes, Caldrail?

HC, if you try looking in the split thead started by Caldrail titled "Why didn't Romans charge?" I think you'll find the response you're looking for.

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6537&hl=

Edited May 8, 2007 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[caldrail]

Anything else is simply armchair warfare. It's easy to talk about cutting and thrusting when you're sat in front of a computer; when you're on a battlefield, you smack the enemy however you can.

 

There is a lot of truth in that, and a desperate man soon resorts to desperate measures. Thats where training breaks down. However, an experienced soldier can retain his cool much longer, and thats one reason why experience was (and is) so vital. Its also the reason why novice gladiators were more likely to be killed on their first professional live bout. For a brilliant illustration of this, watch the 1960's film 'Zulu'. The bit where the colour sergeant takes on the zulu horde behind the wall makes the point very vividly.

 

It is true that roman soldiers were taught very specific styles of fighting. A well-formed legion is restricted in its use of a sword. Each man must fit between another, all have big shields, with a narrow slot between them to thrust a gladius forward. Slashing around is only possible when casualties or melee make room for it.