-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is available! Price is $250 ea (shipped within CONUS).
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/
Gladius
- Thread starter blade man
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 135
Hi Blademan,
I know of no existing historical manuals that cover the use of the gladius. Anything you see on the market is either made up or assumed from later sources. The earliest known sword manual is Tower Manuscript I.33 (pronounced one thirty three) from approximately 1300 which deals with much longer swords.
Large shield material can be extrapolated from Talhoffer but of course one needs to make some pretty serious assumptions as Talhoffer wrote in the middle of the 15th Century. Still, personally I consider any historical manual to be better than none.
Cheers
Stu.
I know of no existing historical manuals that cover the use of the gladius. Anything you see on the market is either made up or assumed from later sources. The earliest known sword manual is Tower Manuscript I.33 (pronounced one thirty three) from approximately 1300 which deals with much longer swords.
Large shield material can be extrapolated from Talhoffer but of course one needs to make some pretty serious assumptions as Talhoffer wrote in the middle of the 15th Century. Still, personally I consider any historical manual to be better than none.
Cheers
Stu.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2000
- Messages
- 740
My understanding - the gladius is a short cut and thrust sword. Historically used in close formation in conjunction with a large body shield. There is very very spare information as to tactics and actual use. My educated guess is that you stab out from behind your shield and make cuts as the situation allow. Not fencing but very effective.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2001
- Messages
- 1,242
Actually, I watched a video about the Roman foot soldier in one of my history classes. From what I understand, Roman soldiers would attempt to go up under the rib cage to reach the heart. And they did this from behind a large, curved shield. I just wondered if there was anything a little better than what I saw. Thanx.
Thank you for your kind words, Ken.
Blade man, the problem is that the only commentaries dating from the period when the gladius was in use are histories and, Polybius aside, seem to think that any reader of the history already knew about its use. Polybius, though, was a Hellenistic Greek taken to Rome as a form of hostage after Rome had conquered Greece and Macedonia. Since he was writing for the Greek audience, he did not assume, and there is much useful information to be found there. You need to be caeful when using later writers, such as Vegetiius, in what they have to say about the gladius, as they were writing during teh decay of eh Empire and were idolizing the weapons, organization, tactics, etc., of the period of greatest Roman expansion.
I will note that the blades on the gladius seem to have decreased in length right up into the 3rd Century, when it was discontinued along with the manipular tactics. For reasonable modern discussions, try:
The Legionary (The Roman World Series), by Peter Connolly
Greece and Rome at War, by Peter Connolly, List Price: $49.95, Our Price: $34.97
Warfare in the Classical World: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Weapons, Warriors and Warfare in the Ancient Civilisations of Greece and Rome, by John Gibson Warry, List Price: $24.95, Our Price: $17.47.
The latter two are general histories and contain very good discussions on the tactics, weapons, etc. of the various armies at different periods. I recommend both for their general knowledge, Connolly's book being the more academic and Warry's the more basic. The first book is a children's book by Connolly, heavily illustrated, of the early service of an actual Roman legionary during the Principate of Trajan. There is a good bit on his training, including sword and shield practice against a stake, using double-weighted gladius and scutum.
Blade man, the problem is that the only commentaries dating from the period when the gladius was in use are histories and, Polybius aside, seem to think that any reader of the history already knew about its use. Polybius, though, was a Hellenistic Greek taken to Rome as a form of hostage after Rome had conquered Greece and Macedonia. Since he was writing for the Greek audience, he did not assume, and there is much useful information to be found there. You need to be caeful when using later writers, such as Vegetiius, in what they have to say about the gladius, as they were writing during teh decay of eh Empire and were idolizing the weapons, organization, tactics, etc., of the period of greatest Roman expansion.
I will note that the blades on the gladius seem to have decreased in length right up into the 3rd Century, when it was discontinued along with the manipular tactics. For reasonable modern discussions, try:
The Legionary (The Roman World Series), by Peter Connolly
Greece and Rome at War, by Peter Connolly, List Price: $49.95, Our Price: $34.97
Warfare in the Classical World: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Weapons, Warriors and Warfare in the Ancient Civilisations of Greece and Rome, by John Gibson Warry, List Price: $24.95, Our Price: $17.47.
The latter two are general histories and contain very good discussions on the tactics, weapons, etc. of the various armies at different periods. I recommend both for their general knowledge, Connolly's book being the more academic and Warry's the more basic. The first book is a children's book by Connolly, heavily illustrated, of the early service of an actual Roman legionary during the Principate of Trajan. There is a good bit on his training, including sword and shield practice against a stake, using double-weighted gladius and scutum.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2001
- Messages
- 252
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I beleive the gladius was primarilly a stabbing weapon. They had iron back then, so they couldn't get a very good cutting edge. The weight of the relatively thick wide blade helped it's cutting power, but draw type cuts where just less effective than a hack, or thrust.
In practice, it was usually used in conjunction with the tower sheild, and as a back up for the lance. They usually stood abreast, with the sheild up front, and stabbed to the side to cover their companions.
Incidently, this is why pawns move forward, but attack to the sides in chess. You literally can't see anything forward of you with this huge wall of a sheild held up ahaid of you, and have to depend on the ranks to protect you on the sides.
As for the gladiatorial contest, there basicly was no style. Despite the name, the gladius wasn't a popular weapon in the collesium. They used all kinds of weapons, including nets, and tridents. The combatants where given very little training, and only basic marching orders. Hollywood really messed things up in the movie.
In practice, it was usually used in conjunction with the tower sheild, and as a back up for the lance. They usually stood abreast, with the sheild up front, and stabbed to the side to cover their companions.
Incidently, this is why pawns move forward, but attack to the sides in chess. You literally can't see anything forward of you with this huge wall of a sheild held up ahaid of you, and have to depend on the ranks to protect you on the sides.
As for the gladiatorial contest, there basicly was no style. Despite the name, the gladius wasn't a popular weapon in the collesium. They used all kinds of weapons, including nets, and tridents. The combatants where given very little training, and only basic marching orders. Hollywood really messed things up in the movie.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 135
Hi All,
Not much of a debate when everybody agrees is it?
Hey Hugh,
I remember reading somewhere (this is probably wrong) that the edges on the gladius were not made all that sharp in order to encourage the roman soldier to thrust rather than cut. This was presumably done to preserve the shield wall.(My expertise in swordsmanship starts as late as 1.33)
Guys,
Draw cuts with a straight sword don't work very well. They work even less well with a thickish blade unless of course we are dealing with a backsword.
Cutting tests prove that a drawing motion is essential to a good cut but a straight sword will not cut like a Kat in that slicing fashion in any case. We have little evidence from the historical manuals on this but have alot of evidence that percussive cuts were used of course.
Cheers
Stu.
Not much of a debate when everybody agrees is it?
Hey Hugh,
I remember reading somewhere (this is probably wrong) that the edges on the gladius were not made all that sharp in order to encourage the roman soldier to thrust rather than cut. This was presumably done to preserve the shield wall.(My expertise in swordsmanship starts as late as 1.33)
Guys,
Draw cuts with a straight sword don't work very well. They work even less well with a thickish blade unless of course we are dealing with a backsword.
Cutting tests prove that a drawing motion is essential to a good cut but a straight sword will not cut like a Kat in that slicing fashion in any case. We have little evidence from the historical manuals on this but have alot of evidence that percussive cuts were used of course.
Cheers
Stu.
There is something of a fetish today about how the Romans used their shortswords only for stabbing, but, if you look at Albion's gladius hispaniensis, Fulham-style gladius, Mainz-style gladius, or at the pictures of my reproduction of the Late Republican gladius, you will see that they have curved edges that make for formidable cutting weapons as well as stabbing weapons. It was a true "cut and thrust sword" if there ever was one. Polybius comments that the Greeeks were horrified after the battles of the Macedonian Wars by the arms, legs, and heads lopped off by gladii. So, I suggest that you take the modern fetish about the Legions using the gladius for stabbing only with some salt. History does not bear out it exclusive use in that manner.
However, what the legions did was to wait while the enemy, especially the Celts or Germans, charged and then hurl their lighter jevelins(pila) at them before starting a counter charge. They would then pause at about 10-15 yards and hurl their second pila, the much heavier ones with the long metal tang that bent on impact. These were very effective in causing terrible injuries and in so encumbering the enemy's shields that he frequently threw them aside. After the pila were thrown, the legions would close, smashing the oncoming enemy with their shields(scuta) to knock him off balance and to knock his shield aside, at which point the legionary was trained to stab upwards into the soft belly area with an eye to reaching the heart, but seriously injuring his opponent in any case, slicing around a good bit on the way out. This left the enemy dead or writhing in the dust with his guts hanging out and soon to be dead. The manipular structure and the excellent training of the legions allowed the front lines to be pulled back and exchanged for fresh troops in the middle of a battle so that the Romans could bring continuously fresh troops up to face the increasingly exhausted opposition. This is how you get such lopsided casualty figures in these early Principate battles, such as when Suetonius Paullinus put down Boudicca's Rebellion with only a very few Roman casualties in the final battle and several tens of thousands of British casualties.
However, what the legions did was to wait while the enemy, especially the Celts or Germans, charged and then hurl their lighter jevelins(pila) at them before starting a counter charge. They would then pause at about 10-15 yards and hurl their second pila, the much heavier ones with the long metal tang that bent on impact. These were very effective in causing terrible injuries and in so encumbering the enemy's shields that he frequently threw them aside. After the pila were thrown, the legions would close, smashing the oncoming enemy with their shields(scuta) to knock him off balance and to knock his shield aside, at which point the legionary was trained to stab upwards into the soft belly area with an eye to reaching the heart, but seriously injuring his opponent in any case, slicing around a good bit on the way out. This left the enemy dead or writhing in the dust with his guts hanging out and soon to be dead. The manipular structure and the excellent training of the legions allowed the front lines to be pulled back and exchanged for fresh troops in the middle of a battle so that the Romans could bring continuously fresh troops up to face the increasingly exhausted opposition. This is how you get such lopsided casualty figures in these early Principate battles, such as when Suetonius Paullinus put down Boudicca's Rebellion with only a very few Roman casualties in the final battle and several tens of thousands of British casualties.