PDA

View Full Version : Swords as Primary Weapons and the Roman Legion



Potato_Priest
2018-05-25, 01:04 AM
So, it would seem that one of the best examples of swords as primary rather than secondary weapons was the roman legion after the Marius reforms of 107 BC. Here's Wikipedia's information, which seems to be quite consistent with what I could find elsewhere.

A fully equipped Roman legionary after the reforms of Gaius Marius was armed with a shield (scutum), one or two javelins (pila), a sword (gladius), often a dagger (pugio), and, perhaps in the later empire period, darts (plumbatae). Conventionally, soldiers threw pila to disable the enemy's shields and disrupt enemy formations before engaging in close combat, for which they drew the gladius. A soldier generally led with the shield and thrust with the sword. All gladius types appear to have been suitable for cutting and chopping as well as thrusting.

For reference, the Pilus is definitely a throwing spear, not mainly designed for close quarters combat (although they were occasionally used for it, and a few but not most had handguards to help soldiers use them in close range). The wikipedia article about it can be found here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilum)

Thus, it would seem that the main close combat weapon of the roman legion during this time period was not a spear or pike, as are often deemed the "best melee weapons ever made" by others on these forums, but instead a fairly generic one-handed sword. Assuming some level of competence from the military planners of the Roman republic, why might they have chosen to use a seemingly unconventional weapon as their primary during this time period?

Kaptin Keen
2018-05-25, 01:30 AM
It might simply be limits on what can be conveniently carried. In fact, if you have time for throwing only one pilus, I wonder if you'd use the second in melee over the gladius?!

I couldn't say, I know nothing about ancient melee weapons or tactics. But it seems like spears were likely popular for a reason.

Potato_Priest
2018-05-25, 01:40 AM
In fact, if you have time for throwing only one pilus, I wonder if you'd use the second in melee over the gladius?!

I'd rather doubt it- that certainly didn't seem to be a main concern of the romans when building the pilus, since the tips were quite long and prone to bending: not the sort of thing you'd be able to easily stab more than one person with. (Although getting bent after being stuck in the enemy's shield or armor was apparently quite handy for a javelin, since it understandably tended to make its extraction more difficult).

As for the weight- I imagine that factored into the decision, but to my knowledge a one-handed spear isn't dramatically heavier than a one-handed sword? I'm not sure on that point really.

Edit: It looks like the gladius weighed about half as much as the typical short (one handed) hoplite spear (the Doru (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dory_(spear))) from earlier greek times. They're both pretty light though; wikipedia lists the gladius at 1.5-2.2 pounds and the Doru at 2-4 pounds. If you're going by subtraction that's a difference of at most two and a half pounds (1.13 kg), which I imagine isn't worth sacrificing a superior weapon for.

Florian
2018-05-25, 01:49 AM
IIRC, the roman legions of that time used a very broad phalanx formation. The pilum was mainly designed as a heavy throwing weapon with a pointed head to penetrate shields and drag them down/make them unwieldy due to the added weight. As I understand it, unlike the ancient greek phalanx, which had the shield closer to the body and the spear thrust out, the roman phalanx had the shield thrust forward and used that to engage/ram the enemy before using the sword.

Potato_Priest
2018-05-25, 01:53 AM
IIRC, the roman legions of that time used a very broad phalanx formation. The pilum was mainly designed as a heavy throwing weapon with a pointed head to penetrate shields and drag them down/make them unwieldy due to the added weight. As I understand it, unlike the ancient greek phalanx, which had the shield closer to the body and the spear thrust out, the roman phalanx had the shield thrust forward and used that to engage/ram the enemy before using the sword.

That seems to match with my reading as well. Are you suggesting that the sword better complements a shield-central fighting style than a spear? That certainly seems possible in my head at least, since I'd imagine its lower length would allow you to more easily retract it to avoid getting in the way of your giant roman legion shield.

Florian
2018-05-25, 02:06 AM
That seems to match with my reading as well. Are you suggesting that the sword better complements a shield-central fighting style than a spear? That certainly seems possible in my head at least, since I'd imagine its lower length would allow you to more easily retract it to avoid getting in the way of your giant roman legion shield.

The wiki page on the scutum is pretty informative on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scutum_(shield)

Knaight
2018-05-25, 02:25 AM
As for the weight- I imagine that factored into the decision, but to my knowledge a one-handed spear isn't dramatically heavier than a one-handed sword? I'm not sure on that point really.

Nobody said anything about weight - the term was "conveniently carried", and while weight plays into that so does the matter of specific dimensions. Spears aren't cumbersome because of their weight, they're cumbersome because they're long poles probably taller than the wielder.

Cespenar
2018-05-25, 02:50 AM
Think round shield + spear of the hoplites. The round shield gives the spear enough freedom and angles. But you need a cleaner formation with less weaknesses, so you use the Scutum. But the Scutum doesn't leave many angles of attack to the spear, so you need a more agile weapon.

Also, instead of being a small medieval county which needs to think about the speed and cost of equipping soldiers, you got a nice little empire, so another two advantages of the spear are lessened.

War_lord
2018-05-25, 04:18 AM
Also, instead of being a small medieval county which needs to think about the speed and cost of equipping soldiers, you got a nice little empire, so another two advantages of the spear are lessened.

The Romans were using the Gladius in the days when their Legions were still Citizen Soldiers who bought their own gear. So that doesn't hold up.

Something that should be noted though, is that the basic idea of Heavy Infantry with a large shield, a pair of Javelins and a sword was not a Roman invention. The Romans originally copied the Greek Hoplite formation from the Etruscans, but abandoned that because it didn't really work on the terrain of Italy, so they adopted the Manipule system from their Samnite enemies. The idea of throwing Javelins before closing in was a Gallic import. The move to short swords over time may have come about because Rome was fighting wars against either the heavily armored but inflexible Phalanx that needed to be outmaneuvered and then broken in close fighting. Or largely unarmored (the mail armor they had was superb, but was limited to the elites) Gallic tribesmen that attacked in waves with spears and large shields (related to the Scutum). Both situations where getting in very close actually works in your favor, since a spear is a liability at very close range.

Still, when talking about the Romans it's important to note that the style of fighting they're associated with didn't come from a vacuum. It was inspired by their geographical location and the enemies they faced. Indeed, the Hellenes adopted similar troops from their wars with the Galatians, but adopted those tactics too slowly to ever challenge the Romans on the field.

TL;DL version: The "Roman" style of fighting is dubiously Roman in invention being more Italic (and the Hispanic tribes used it to a degree), and that style came from being wedged between Gallic equipment and Hellenic discipline, on Italian terrain.

Potato_Priest
2018-05-25, 09:12 AM
The wiki page on the scutum is pretty informative on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scutum_(shield)

That article was pretty interesting indeed, but it didn't seem to mention the advantages/disadvantages of swords vs spears too much. However, I did note that the article mentioned the DacianFalx (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx) and Carthaginian Falcata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcata) giving the earlier designs of the scutum trouble since they could cut through it rather easily. For reference, the Falx refers to either a one-handed sword or a two-handed sword/polearm hybrid weapon, while the Falcata is a one-handed sword. That these weapons in particular should give the scutum trouble does make me wonder if swords were more popular as main weapons during this time period. If wikipedia is to be believed, although the Carthaginians used fairly classical hoplite phalanx formations with spears and shields, their Iberian heavy infantry wore heavy shields and wielded the Falcata, a style that sounds on paper at least fairly similar to that of rome.


Nobody said anything about weight - the term was "conveniently carried", and while weight plays into that so does the matter of specific dimensions. Spears aren't cumbersome because of their weight, they're cumbersome because they're long poles probably taller than the wielder.

That's fair. However, I would still tend to imagine that even that level of cumbersomeness would be worth having the better weapon, if it was actually superior for their style of fighting and location. (especially since the romans were already carrying two shorter but still pretty long poles in the form of the pilum.) After all, many of the romans' enemies who presumably also had to march long distances were still using the hoplite phalanx as well as its typical weaponry.


Think round shield + spear of the hoplites. The round shield gives the spear enough freedom and angles. But you need a cleaner formation with less weaknesses, so you use the Scutum. But the Scutum doesn't leave many angles of attack to the spear, so you need a more agile weapon.
Makes sense.


TL;DL version: The "Roman" style of fighting is dubiously Roman in invention being more Italic (and the Hispanic tribes used it to a degree), and that style came from being wedged between Gallic equipment and Hellenic discipline, on Italian terrain.

That also makes a lot of sense! Thank you for that explanation.

KarlMarx
2018-05-25, 02:20 PM
The logistics, as well as pure fighting efficiency of spears, was something that has to be considered. Remember, a Roman soldier especially after the Marian reforms carried all of his personal equipment, armor, and weapons, up to and including components of a tent and ballista. The pilum was lighter and easier to carry than a full spear, and had a greater tactical advantage by allowing for massed, effective javelin fire. So it wasn't worthwhile to carry a full spear instead of a pilum, and the soldier simply wouldn't have the hands to carry both.

Furthermore, while spears definitely provide some tactical advantages over swords, particularly in phalanxes, they do have their drawbacks. As previously mentioned, the Italian terrain was too rough to effectively deploy phalanxes in many areas (as the Romans learned at great cost during the Samnite Wars). Furthermore, phalangite warfare tends to lead to an arms race in spear length, as classical phalangites have no real counter to an enemy with longer spears. Take a look at the absurd arms race in spear length employed by the Successors during the period, and then consider that dense pike phalanxes weren't an option outside the flat terrain of Syria and Egypt. Meanwhile, javelin vollies disrupt phalanxes just as well when employed by disciplined and aggressive soldiers, traits that Roman commanders could and did count on.

Ultimately, spear warfare was too localized in terms of what geography and tactics made it effective. Even at the time of Marius, the Roman Legion had to be able to counter a variety of threats in a variety of terrains, from Hellenic phalangites to Germanic and Hispanic irregular tactics to Numidian cavalry. It would have been too great a logistical nightmare to train separate armies against each of these threats, and furthermore would have prevented Rome from effectively concentrating forces against a major enemy. Spear tactics, which would have worked great against some of these opponents, were simply not flexible enough to counter all the threats that Rome faced. In some cases, the Roman doctrine of flexible equipment and tactics led to horrendous losses against opponents using a doctrine superior in a particular region--notably at Carrhae and against Arminius--but the Republic/Empire could redeploy troops from elsewhere to cover its defenses, if not mount another offense immediately. Spear phalanxes would have to be more localized in their tactics--training in flexible formations against the Hispanic and Germanic tribes and large pike phalanxes against the Greeks and Parthians--and thus could not be so easily redeployed.

Finally, the cultural motivations of the Romans must be considered. The Romans, in war as well as peace, were both highly individualistic and competitive and highly communally minded, seeing everyone as having a responsibility to work for the whole using their particular talents. Their ideal game would have been baseball, which has a variety of individual competitions--pitcher vs. batter, runner vs. baseman--but is ultimately still a team sport. Larger spear pike phalanxes take away the individual element of warfare, as a warrior would depend entirely on his neighbors for protection--anathema to the Roman mindset. Meanwhile, wild, barbaric rushes ignore the Roman appreciation of teamwork and combined effort that they used to great effect against so many enemies. The manipular doctrine, in all its various forms, was the ideal compromise. It was not only a strategic choice but a cultural mandate.

Edit:

Oh, and as an addendum to what was said about the Carthaginians:

In many ways, Carthaginian military doctrine was superior to that of the Romans. They had much more effective use of combined-arms, with Cannae being the most famous example. They lost the Punic Wars more for logistical and even cultural reasons than military ones. The Carthaginian government could never decide what to do about the Romans, whether to support wars between semi-independent families (the Barcids vs. the Cornelii Scipii) in Spain, to support Hannibal's incursion into Italy, or to focus on naval defense of Africa. Thus, they didn't give any one leader or theater the resources needed to secure victory. The Carthaginian people, likewise, were reluctant soldiers at best, generally more focused on trade and profit than honor and soldiery. Thus, Carthage was dependent on sometimes-unreliable mercenaries, like the Numidians who crucially sided with Scipio Africanus at Zama. Meanwhile, the Romans were agrarian citizen-soldiers, who (particularly after the Second Punic War) were convinced that Carthage represented an existential threat to their livelihoods and families. Likewise, the Roman political system-particularly via the appointment of a dictator--was much more effective at marshaling resources to a single goal. Thus, Rome could reach much deeper into its manpower pool and use that manpower much more efficiently than Carthage--even while Rome lost many battles, she rarely lost the will to fight, while the Carthaginian State faced massive demands for peace once the conflict seemed to turn against them and their trade interests. Thus, Rome could fight a much longer war; even if the Romans lost tactically their system was simply better prepared for a massive, long-term conflict like the Punic Wars. Even if the Carthaginians won individual battles, they would be hard-pressed to break Rome's will to fight, thus, Rome ultimately was able to win out despite the deficiencies of their tactical doctrine versus the Carthaginians.

War_lord
2018-05-25, 03:36 PM
That article was pretty interesting indeed, but it didn't seem to mention the advantages/disadvantages of swords vs spears too much. However, I did note that the article mentioned the DacianFalx (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx) and Carthaginian Falcata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcata) giving the earlier designs of the scutum trouble since they could cut through it rather easily. For reference, the Falx refers to either a one-handed sword or a two-handed sword/polearm hybrid weapon, while the Falcata is a one-handed sword. That these weapons in particular should give the scutum trouble does make me wonder if swords were more popular as main weapons during this time period. If wikipedia is to be believed, although the Carthaginians used fairly classical hoplite phalanx formations with spears and shields, their Iberian heavy infantry wore heavy shields and wielded the Falcata, a style that sounds on paper at least fairly similar to that of rome.


The idea of the Falx (or the Rhomphaia, which was a less curved Thracian cousin) or Falcata slicing through shields easily is bunk. Certainly the blade could penetrate the wood and injure an arm, but I find destroying the shield entirely unlikely. The extreme curvature of the Falx gave it a lot of cutting power, and also allowed hits around the shield.

The main reason swords weren't more popular in the ancient world (since they did make good primary weapons in a time before the existence the armor that "hard counters" them.) was that there was a lack of good Iron in many areas, and that limited swords to only the elites. The military cultures of Iberia, Dacia and Italy produced heavy Infantry with swords, because Iron was easier to obtain in those areas.

The Carthaginians made heavy use of "mercenaries" (the word has connotations that don't really match the complexity of the system) who were either Gauls, or fighting in the Gallic style. Later on, when Rome starts fighting enemies who are fielding semi-professional https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyreophoroi who are wearing chainmail, they call them "armed in the Roman fashion", but it's actually a separate evolution.

King of Nowhere
2018-05-25, 05:40 PM
Also consider that the roman legion was good for its timee, but hardly perfect. one of the (many) reasons for the decline of the empire was the development of new tactics that made the legion less effective. I'm not sure how well a roman legion would have fared against a medieval square of pikes, or knigts charge, or fire from longbows and crossbows.

Jay R
2018-05-25, 06:14 PM
A. Pikes and long spears are primarily superior for stopping horse charges. There weren't many in the enemies of the Romans.

B. The Roman sword was vastly superior to their enemies' swords, because they had learned to sharpen and use both edges. This makes it easier to get around a shield, and to throw blows that their foes aren't used to blocking. The cliche about a "two-edged sword" didn't mean something dangerous to both sides. It meant a superior weapon.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2018-05-25, 07:46 PM
It's also worth noting that the evolution of the Roman army over time.

In the early days, Rome was simply one Helleno-Italic city amongst other Italic tribes of varying levels of Hellenization. They combined Hellenic hoplite traditions (shared with the Etruscans to their north) with the medium-infantry traditions of their Italic neighbours (Samnii and Brutii and similar). The Italic tradition emphasized a sort of mountain-based raiding warfare, and thus spears were primarily ranged weapons, and infantry had to be nimble on all sorts of ground; spear-wall formations of various types were a lot harder to pull off, and shield-and-dagger combat was easier.

The Samnites teach the Romans that the sort of hoplite warfare that served them well in the Tuscan plains wouldn't work in the central and southern mountains, so instead of the heavy-infantry-first Hellenic forces, the Romans transition to the famous division of units; Hastati-Principes-Triarii. Now, the Hoplites were the REAR, and the lightest troops were in the front. But still, they were spear-armed; the gladius hadn't yet been introduced, nor the pilum. Instead, the Hasta is the main weapon (hence Hastati), a heavy melee spear a little shorter perhaps than a traditional Hoplite spear, to allow quicker movements. The javelin used by the skirmishers is just another Italic javelin, not yet the Pilum.

Then the First Punic War, and the Romans see all these Hispanic warriors with the Carthaginians and say "oh dayyyum gotta get me some of those". This is when the larger Spanish Gladius replaces the smaller daggers they'd used as side-arms previously. Additionally, they adopt the Hispanic javelin-throw with their main infantry, developing the early Pilums for their first two lines. It's too much to carry a sword AND javelins AND a spear, however, so the Hasta goes, and is left to the Triarii, who maintain their heavy-spearmen hoplite formation. Then the Celts come (again with larger swords for their elites), and the Romans learn of this cool 'chain-mail' idea which is so much better than linothrax, or the light breastplates they'd previously used. Chainmail is highly protective, but still allows for quick movement.

Once the Romans secure the northern border of Italy, they buy steel from the Celtic kingdom of Noricum (modern day Austria), which is high-quality enough to make larger swords than many of their enemies. They now had top-notch armour AND weapons, and the elimination of the overly-complicated citizen-army with the simpler Legion gave them strategic flexibility as well.

As they grow larger, though, they rely more and more on the Auxiliaries, who are armed instead with spears again, and as time continues they move more and more to use of the Spear again, especially in the East, where most enemies are using cavalry and archers.

Kiero
2018-05-26, 05:11 AM
Not all pila are made the same. There are heavier and lighter pila, and the heavier ones could double as a spear if need be. That's what some of Caesar's legionaries at Pharsalus did, in order to cover their flank against Labienus' superior cavalry.

The Romans also still had their own spearmen in the antesignani, and plenty of auxiliary spearmen too.

LibraryOgre
2018-05-26, 09:12 AM
Well, we're talking post Marian Reforms... which also represented a change from a force that was equipped by the soldiers themselves (who were envisioned as being citizens of means), into a professional army equipped by its generals (and had a large number of urban poor in its ranks in hopes of being rewarded with land).

I imagine that's going to be a large part of the change, as well... instead of everyone bringing their own, you have central purchasing authority, and quartermastering.

dps
2018-05-26, 09:24 PM
I'm not sure how well a roman legion would have fared against a medieval square of pikes, or knigts charge, or fire from longbows and crossbows.

I'm no expert on this, but at a guess:

Against pikemen, I think a legion would do pretty well--they would have many of the same advantages over a pike square as they had against a phalanx.

Against mounted knights, I think a legion in good order would have minimal trouble defending itself, but would have little to no way to go over to the offensive.

Against longbows, well, archers lose against almost any other type of troops if the enemy gets within melee range, but well-trained longbowmen would have been able to tear a legion to pieces before the legion could get into melee range, I think.

Good mechanical crossbows would probably rip right through Roman shields and armor, but their rate of fire probably isn't good enough to keep the legion from getting into melee range.

Again, just guesses on my part.

Jay R
2018-05-27, 12:27 PM
The pike square was invented in the 15th century. While there is evidence that longbows and crossbows may have existed by the time of the Roman legions, they were not major parts of any armies at the time.

You're pitting the Roman legions against military technology of 1,000 -1,500 years later.

Kiero
2018-05-27, 12:50 PM
The ancient Greeks knew of the gastraphetes, which was basically a crossbow. However, they only used it in sieges, preferring the regular sort of bow in skirmishes and battles.

Are longbows really all that much more powerful than composite bows?

Tobtor
2018-05-27, 01:34 PM
Are longbows really all that much more powerful than composite bows?

No. It all depends on the longbow and the composite bow. I do not know how many good examples of 100bc-400AD bow we actually have, and how strong they were.

RazorChain
2018-05-27, 03:48 PM
I think it's worth mentioning and often forgotten that the legions didn't operate in vacuum, in the imperial era the auxilia was often 3/5 of the army, and these were cavalry, archers.....and spearmen!

Before the imperial era Rome had the socii, it's latin allies that provided troops that weren't legionaries.

When Hannibal was beaten at Zama the Numidian cavarly played a huge role on the Roman side. If you really thought that the Romans just marched in with some heavy infantry and beat everbody then you are wrong. sagittarii and funditores almost always accompanied the legions. The Greeks found out the hard way that a guy with almost no armor throwing **** at you when you have a big ass shield and heavy armor is going to beat you because you can't catch them. Just like the Romans found out that when Hannibal outclassed them with his Numidian and Spanish heavy cavalry he beat the crap out of them.

Kiero
2018-05-27, 06:04 PM
The socii were always half of a Republican Roman army, and the provided roles the legions didn't cover.

Mr Beer
2018-05-27, 07:12 PM
I'm not sure how well a roman legion would have fared against a medieval square of pikes, or knigts charge, or fire from longbows and crossbows.

If numbers were roughly equal, extremely badly I think.

Potato_Priest
2018-05-27, 07:30 PM
The pike square was invented in the 15th century. While there is evidence that longbows and crossbows may have existed by the time of the Roman legions, they were not major parts of any armies at the time.

You're pitting the Roman legions against military technology of 1,000 -1,500 years later.

Exactly. It’s about as fair as a comparison between the pike square and a modern armor division. (Well, that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but I imagine you get the point.)

JAL_1138
2018-05-27, 07:50 PM
The as a primary weapon depended heavily on a) the scutum, b) the scutum, c) the scutum, and d) the tactics, terrain, technology, and numbers of troops/political situations of the times.

War_lord covered part d) pretty well, and several others have mentioned some of the use of the scutum, but I do need to point out that the gladius is kind of a rubbish primary weapon without it. It's very short as primary weapons in the West go, and provides pretty much nil in the way of hand protection (the guard mainly kept the hand from slipping onto the blade in a thrust and covered the scabbard opening to help keep rain out. It *might* stop a blade from slipping down in a bind, but not very well, and does basically nothing to keep an opponent from targeting the hand). You need a shield (or something like full plate harness) not to get pretty much destroyed immediately by an opponent with a reach advantage. (The same also applies to other short one-handed melee weapons, such as the flanged mace or warhammer--you need a shield or armor to be particularly effective with one unless your opponent only has the same kit or rough equivalent.)

In a way it's a mistake to think of "the gladius" as a primary weapon in itself. It's the offense-oriented part of a weapon system of gladius-plus-shield.

Edit: With a large, sturdy shield, a short weapon is more viable. The shield allows you to close distance and defend against spears, missile weapons, other close-combat weapons like the comparable swords of opponents, and suchlike (which the gladius itself isn't well-suited to do).

It's also worth noting that the pilum fills in for the reach, as a thrown weapon—you don't just wade in with your shortsword; you open by having huge numbers of troops chuck their pila at the opponents, then hitting them quickly in a dense formation soon after, while they're still reeling from the pila barrage (and the enemy has also been softened up by your javelin-throwing skirmishers--velites or allies depending on era--before that). Another part of the weapon/tactics system that in a way the gladius shouldn't be viewed in isolation from.