Ancient History

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by RMS

...
True. The concept of a sword being used for both is something that postdates swords actually being used to any large extent on the battlefield. Actual swords are designed to do one or the other and are not balanced properly to do both. I don't allow the option in my RQ games. Big swords are slashing weapons, strictly, and short swords are thrusting weapons...though they can be used either way.

The kopi (greek shortsword) is a purely chopping weapon.
The roman gladius is as good for chopping (Macedonians were horrified by the wounds made at Cynocephales, where it was used mainly as a slashing weapon) as for thrusting (after Marius, the roman doctrina was to use thrust to cause bleeding wounds that will kill sooner or later).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[badcat]

Just out of curiousity, what is your source for the statement that the gladius was used primarily as a slashing weapon at Cynocephales?

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by badcat

Just out of curiousity, what is your source for the statement that the gladius was used primarily as a slashing weapon at Cynocephales?

According to Polybus, in "General History of the roman Republic", about the battle of Cynoscephales (chapter 18 to 33), (I'm translating my french translation to english, so some words may be different to one direct latin to english text":
"Each roman legionnaire also uses only 3 feet of terrain; but to be able to both cover themselves with their shields and give cutting strike, they need some space to be given to them, having between them, wether on the side or front to back, at least 3 feet of free space if they want to be able to move freely."

So, the order of battle is made to allow cutting strikes.
After Marius, the rule is to use thrusting strikes to provoke bleeding wounds, but this is 100 years later (Cynoscephales is -197, marius is around -100).


Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[SDLeary]

Originally Posted by Kloster

According to Polybus, in "General History of the roman Republic", about the battle of Cynoscephales (chapter 18 to 33), (I'm translating my french translation to english, so some words may be different to one direct latin to english text":
"Each roman legionnaire also uses only 3 feet of terrain; but to be able to both cover themselves with their shields and give cutting strike, they need some space to be given to them, having between them, wether on the side or front to back, at least 3 feet of free space if they want to be able to move freely."

So, the order of battle is made to allow cutting strikes.
After Marius, the rule is to use thrusting strikes to provoke bleeding wounds, but this is 100 years later (Cynoscephales is -197, marius is around -100).


Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Dayum... Thanks! Now I'm going to have to go dig out my copy of Polybius to see if thats the way it reads in an English translation! ;-)

SDLeary

[badcat]

Interesting.

[SDLeary]

Hmmm... found the passage. Reads the same. This had never registered when I first read it.

Such is the arrangement, general and detailed of the phalanx. It remains now to compare with it the peculiarities and distinctive features of the Roman arms and tactics. Now, a Roman soldier in full armor also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man---because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing---it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear if he is to do his duty with any effect. The result of this will be that each Roman soldier will face two of the front rank of a phalanx, so that he has to encounter and fight against ten spears, which one man cannot find time even to cut away, when once the two lines are engaged, nor force his way through easily---seeing that the Roman front ranks are not supported by the rear ranks, either by way of adding weight to their charge, or vigor to the use of their swords. Therefore, it may readily be understood that, as I said before, it is impossible to confront a charge of the phalanx, so long as it retains its proper formation and strength.

-Polybius, The Histories, Chapter 34

I wonder though if this was the case during the initial engagement, or after the charge and wall has broken apart.

Here is the link ( I couldn't find my own copy ):
Ancient History Sourcebook: Polybius: The Roman Maniple vs. The Macedonian Phalanx

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

The passage doesn't mean that the gladius was necessarily used as a cutting weapon in the battle though, just that it was spaced out far apart so it could be. The open space formation was typical against the phalanx because of it's superior mobility. It was easy for the Legion to wrap around a flank. The Phalanx's big weakness was it's inability to maneuver quickly.

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by SDLeary

...
I wonder though if this was the case during the initial engagement, or after the charge and wall has broken apart.

Here is the link ( I couldn't find my own copy ):
Ancient History Sourcebook: Polybius: The Roman Maniple vs. The Macedonian Phalanx

SDLeary

As this is a group of chapter that compares the different merits of the phalanx and the maniple, and that the phalanx is clearly described as having a better push and a stronger organization, each legionnaire having to face 10 sarissa, and although that the roman organization proved better, I presume this is about the main battle. This is an educated guess, of course, furthered by the fact that the roman commanders deliberately choosed to oppose maniples to the phalanx led by Philippe.

I can't imagine the roman tacticians choosing voluntarily an organization that has a clear disadvantage but allows something without using it.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

The passage doesn't mean that the gladius was necessarily used as a cutting weapon in the battle though, just that it was spaced out far apart so it could be. The open space formation was typical against the phalanx because of it's superior mobility. It was easy for the Legion to wrap around a flank. The Phalanx's big weakness was it's inability to maneuver quickly.

Yes, true, but in this case, why does Polybius states that those 3 feet are needed to maneuver the shield and the sword.
And the maniples were used even where the phalanx was organized and on flat terrain. This was a choice.

But I nevertheless agree, it does not NECESSARILY means it was used as a cutting weapon.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[badcat]

I think they might not have if the pilums had not begun the process of breaking up the phalanx pretty good. I wonder how the battle would have turned out if Alexander or his father had been in command, as I have read somewhere that Philip V did not have nearly as good a grasp of tactics and strategy, although his army was very similar in structure and organization to the army Alexander led into Persia...