Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVIII

[Mike_G]

To further complicate things, does "bearing arms" mean just schlepping them for somebody else, or "bearing arms" as in being armed and using said arms in combat?

[Vinyadan]

so, it could very well be that "Squire" and "Arms Bearer" were Synonyms, at least in some times and places.

From the glorious Du Cange dictionary:

"Ut enim Scutiferi pro Armigeri, ita Armigerium loco Scutagium dici facile potest."

"Indeed, it's frequent that scutiferus is said instead of armiger, and armigerium (military service) instead of scutagium".

"Et armigeri illorum, qui vulgo Scutarii appellantur."

"And their armigeri, who are called scutarii by the folk".

So, yes.

There's also a meaning:

Faciet Scutarios, vel Imperatorum protectores.

"Scutarii, the protectors of Emperors". The mosaics in Ravenna do show Justinian surrounded by guards bearing a shield. And these guys were carrying them to use them, if need be. In this sense, it's synonimous with excubitor.

To further complicate things, does "bearing arms" mean just schlepping them for somebody else, or "bearing arms" as in being armed and using said arms in combat?

Armiger could be used with the meaning of someone guarding a place, bearing arms which he didn't own to use them if need be.

[Willie the Duck]

doubtless, this will be ANOTHER situation where everything is needlessly complicated by the subtle shifting of meanings in words over time and space, so where one writer uses it in one way and another in a second, different way, and both are "correct".

To say nothing of the possibility that the individuals in question's roles might have changed on a situational basis (fighting alongside in one instance, merely schlepping the weapons in another).

[Vinyadan]

BTW, there also is the word "spatharius" which is pretty similar (sword-bearer). And, as "scutarius" can mean "maker of shields", so can "spatharius" mean "maker of swords". The Spatharii also were imperial bodyguards in Constantinople, and later a title of honour.

And then you have "arcarius", which can mean bowman or the caretaker of the public arca = treasure. Apparently it wasn't used for "maker of bows", but it may have been used for "maker of boxes".

[Max_Killjoy]

To say nothing of the possibility that the individuals in question's roles might have changed on a situational basis (fighting alongside in one instance, merely schlepping the weapons in another).

It's also possible that certain written accounts from the time have different agendas.

An author may wish to aggrandize the role of the knight and his honor, and thus present the situation as "of course these other guys didn't fight, that's the role of the knight". Or something.

[Pauly]

To further complicate things, does "bearing arms" mean just schlepping them for somebody else, or "bearing arms" as in being armed and using said arms in combat?

Bearing arms, has from long historical legal precedent, meant carrying weapons that are capable of combat.
So things like a BB gun or a 5cm pocket knife are not considered “arms”.
Things get grey with things like large hunting knives, shotguns (aka fowling pieces), or low power rifles for small game

[Willie the Duck]

Bearing arms, has from long historical legal precedent, meant carrying weapons that are capable of combat.
So things like a BB gun or a 5cm pocket knife are not considered “arms”.
Things get grey with things like large hunting knives, shotguns (aka fowling pieces), or low power rifles for small game

What constitute an armament doesn't seem germane to Mike_G's point. He seemed to have been asking what you had to be doing with something that is defined as an arm to be 'bearing' it.

[Vinyadan]

It's also possible that certain written accounts from the time have different agendas.

An author may wish to aggrandize the role of the knight and his honor, and thus present the situation as "of course these other guys didn't fight, that's the role of the knight". Or something.

I wonder if it may have had something to do with two considerations. One is tactical: the helpers might simply not have been armed well enough to go against a knight with acceptable danger. No reason not to charge a bunch of peasants, though: if things go awry, you can just gallop away.
The other one could have been a social expectation knights fight knights, in a way vaguely similar to duels.

I am just speculating, I have no sources for these.

[Mike_G]

Interesting sparring video.

Four fighters with bayonets versus an ever increasing number of swordsmen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoc0CwpuqkM

Bayonets rock.

[AdAstra]

Interesting sparring video.

Four fighters with bayonets versus an ever increasing number of swordsmen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoc0CwpuqkM

Bayonets rock.

Blades on sticks, what more can you say?

[Vinyadan]

Blades on sticks, what more can you say?

After "Snakes on a Plane" , prepare to witness the new badassery sensation with "Stakes with a Blade!"

Cue Samuel Jackson in revolutionary uniform grumbling about the {Scrubbed} English.

[Brother Oni]

Interesting sparring video.

Four fighters with bayonets versus an ever increasing number of swordsmen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoc0CwpuqkM

Bayonets rock.

Given how the video was labelled, I can guess which side you were rooting for.

Cue Samuel Jackson in revolutionary uniform grumbling about the {Scrub the post, scrub the quote} English.

{Scrubbed}.

[Vinyadan]

This is what happened at Culloden, isn't it? The Scots had a fairly effective tactic of gearing themselves with targes, broadswords, and handguns, dropping to the ground when the English shot, and then charging the English while they were still trying to attach the bayonets, and the Jacobites (many of whom were Scots) tried it out against Governmental forces. These however had socket bayonets that didn't need to be removed for shooting, and won the battle, pretty much ending the uprising.

[Lemmy]

Blades on sticks, what more can you say?

Pfff... Fools... All they needed to do was take a 5-ft step instead of charging. This way they wouldn't have provoked so many AoO!

[Vinyadan]

Given how the video was labelled, I can guess which side you were rooting for.

About the title, I think it would be cool if they did something like this with objects here and there to simulate a boarding action. You know, some low walls the pirates have to get over, and then crates, stairs, and cramped space.

But I guess that it would increase the risk of injury by falling to unacceptable levels.

Also, this.

[BlacKnight]

Why do the swordmen keep their blades in that position, on their right with the point down? It seems terrible to parry stabs.

[Dienekes]

Why do the swordmen keep their blades in that position, on their right with the point down? It seems terrible to parry stabs.

Now forewarning, I use longsword and am not all that great, so someone with better experience may come to correct me. But I’ve talked, fought against, and watched a fair few of the Sabre fighters at my guild. And it’s not as bad as you’d think. That’s a hanging guard, and from that position you get one very strong whip of a cut. And importantly, if you do it right a similar movement of moving the arm across your body while the wrist rotates to keep the blade in presence should cover the majority of your torso and head in one single action (with slight adjustments that a good swordsman should make fairly automatically).

It may be slightly slower than having the weapon forward, however, I suspect the strength gained from the movement may be much more important when trying to move aside a thrust made by a heavier, longer weapon held in two hands to your one.

[redwizard007]

Interesting sparring video.

Four fighters with bayonets versus an ever increasing number of swordsmen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoc0CwpuqkM

Bayonets rock.

It's almost like long thrusting weapons have some sort of inherent advantage against shorter slashing weapons.

More seriously, I'm surprised to see no strikes with the stock of the "rifles." That was a big deal when I went through Paris Island. Neat video over all

[fusilier]

Why do the swordmen keep their blades in that position, on their right with the point down? It seems terrible to parry stabs.

If I remember correctly, Angelo's manual shows that kind of a guard in saber vs. bayonet combat. The idea was to parry the bayonet towards the off hand, grab the gun at the muzzle, then step in and cut.

I've seen similar videos with these fencing muskets before, and I know I've mentioned it before -- those plastic muskets are lighter than the real thing! Probably quicker, but also probably easier to parry.

[fusilier]

It's almost like long thrusting weapons have some sort of inherent advantage against shorter slashing weapons.

More seriously, I'm surprised to see no strikes with the stock of the "rifles." That was a big deal when I went through Paris Island. Neat video over all

I'm familiar with American Civil War bayonet drill, which I don't think they are using, where strikes with the stock of the musket usually were used when you were pressed in close. I'm not sure if they were particularly useful in bayonet versus sword though, as the reach is a lot shorter.

[Brother Oni]

About the title, I think it would be cool if they did something like this with objects here and there to simulate a boarding action. You know, some low walls the pirates have to get over, and then crates, stairs, and cramped space.

But I guess that it would increase the risk of injury by falling to unacceptable levels.

You don't really want a risk of falling with sharp pointy implements around - far too much chance of people falling onto them.

Also, this.

What did I ever to you to deserve this?

[Mike_G]

It's almost like long thrusting weapons have some sort of inherent advantage against shorter slashing weapons.

More seriously, I'm surprised to see no strikes with the stock of the "rifles." That was a big deal when I went through Paris Island. Neat video over all

Part of that is probably reach, where your point has the advantage at distance, but the sword would have the advantage in close, where the buttstroke would be used, so you want to stab him before he gets there, and part may be safety, since the "bayonet" is flexible but the musket stock is a big heavy hunk of plastic and would hit with a lot of force. If you're fighting bayonet to bayonet, then once your point is past him, you use the butt. I love the tactic of thrusting at the face, then swinging the butt around to hit him in the side of the head when he parries the point.

The other point that I saw that nobody has brought up much is that a co-ordinated line of men with bayonets is tough to close with, since even if you deflect one and close, the guy's buddy can stab you on your way on. The same group has a series of one on one spadroon vs bayonet sparring and the result were much more even.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKbOj3i0rQ8

And, in respect to the Highland comments, here's some broadsword and targe vs bayonet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG3v_XZv7jQ

[Pauly]

This is what happened at Culloden, isn't it? The Scots had a fairly effective tactic of gearing themselves with targes, broadswords, and handguns, dropping to the ground when the English shot, and then charging the English while they were still trying to attach the bayonets, and the Jacobites (many of whom were Scots) tried it out against Governmental forces. These however had socket bayonets that didn't need to be removed for shooting, and won the battle, pretty much ending the uprising.

Butcher Cumberland changed the bayonet drill for the Scottish campaign. Instead of engaging the man in front of you, you engaged the man one to your right., and trusted your buddy to engage the man in front of you. Culloden was 1745.

You’re thinking of Killecrankie in 1690 (?)

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Butcher Cumberland changed the bayonet drill for the Scottish campaign. Instead of engaging the man in front of you, you engaged the man one to your right., and trusted your buddy to engage the man in front of you. Culloden was 1745.

You’re thinking of Killecrankie in 1690 (?)

Somewhere between 1690 and 1715 or so sounds like the most reasonable period for that anecdote (although 1745 is possible), I figure you're probably right.

[Mike_G]

Butcher Cumberland changed the bayonet drill for the Scottish campaign. Instead of engaging the man in front of you, you engaged the man one to your right., and trusted your buddy to engage the man in front of you. Culloden was 1745.

Which, again, works for unit tactics. That's fine. That's how most battles are fought. But today we tend to see a lot more one on one sparring and that often changes our ideas of how effective a weapon is.

[Vinyadan]

Butcher Cumberland changed the bayonet drill for the Scottish campaign. Instead of engaging the man in front of you, you engaged the man one to your right., and trusted your buddy to engage the man in front of you. Culloden was 1745.

You’re thinking of Killecrankie in 1690 (?)

My post was unclearly written. What I tried to say was that the Highland charge was effective against the plug bayonet, but didn't work against socket bayonets, and that's one of the reasons the Jacobites were defeated in Culloden.

[Pauly]

My post was unclearly written. What I tried to say was that the Highland charge was effective against the plug bayonet, but didn't work against socket bayonets, and that's one of the reasons the Jacobites were defeated in Culloden.

The highland charge was effective in earlier battles in 1745. For example at the battle of Prestonpans where the scots were able to use mist to cover their advance. The specific reason usually given for the highland charge getting stopped so decisively at Culloden is the change in bayonet drill. The English soldiers had become fearful of the highland charge so Cumberland introduced the new drill not just for tactical reasons, but also to give his soldiers confidence that they could beat the Highland charge in melee.

[Roxxy]

I'm going to ask something that requires a degree of speculation, because I know that a lot of the information to factually answer the question doesn't exist.

I'd like to know how the Roman Legions around the year 79AD might have learned how to fight. In particular, how one might train with the Pompeii pattern sword, and how much training a legionary might receive before combat. I'm also interested in exactly how recruitment worked, and how much training revolved around the use of javelins or daggers as opposed to the sword.

I'm interested in this topic partially because I own a replica of a gladius excavated from Pompeii, and my untrained arm has some thoughts. Logically, I know that the legionaries generally used the thrust as opposed to the cut. However, the sword feels like it would be a pretty effective chopper, and the point, while certainly looking like an effective stabbing point, doesn't look quite so good for splitting mail as other gladius blades do. Like, this image illustrates that:



My sword has a longer tip than the picture shows, somewhere between the Pompeii and the Fulham, but it still has a stubbier point than any of the other shapes shown here. Which would seem to indicate a sword that's not quite as oriented towards thrusting as the other designs. Whereas when holding the sword, it feels like it would easily remove anything unarmored and exposed. Yea, I'd stab a barbarian with it, but I'm not really convinced that this is a sword meant predominantly for thrusting, especially with earlier gladius designs having points clearly better suited for that.

What say you guys?

[Pauly]

I'm going to ask something that requires a degree of speculation, because I know that a lot of the information to factually answer the question doesn't exist.

I'd like to know how the Roman Legions around the year 79AD might have learned how to fight. In particular, how one might train with the Pompeii pattern sword, and how much training a legionary might receive before combat. I'm also interested in exactly how recruitment worked, and how much training revolved around the use of javelins or daggers as opposed to the sword.

I'm interested in this topic partially because I own a replica of a gladius excavated from Pompeii, and my untrained arm has some thoughts. Logically, I know that the legionaries generally used the thrust as opposed to the cut. However, the sword feels like it would be a pretty effective chopper, and the point, while certainly looking like an effective stabbing point, doesn't look quite so good for splitting mail as other gladius blades do. Like, this image illustrates that:



My sword has a longer tip than the picture shows, somewhere between the Pompeii and the Fulham, but it still has a stubbier point than any of the other shapes shown here. Which would seem to indicate a sword that's not quite as oriented towards thrusting as the other designs. Whereas when holding the sword, it feels like it would easily remove anything unarmored and exposed. Yea, I'd stab a barbarian with it, but I'm not really convinced that this is a sword meant predominantly for thrusting, especially with earlier gladius designs having points clearly better suited for that.

What say you guys?

I am not an expert on swords or sword drills. What I want to say is that while legionnaires were trained to thrust, the gladius sword is not exclusively a thrusting weapon. I suspect the sources emphasize the thrusting part of its use because that was the counter-intuitive part. Lots of people at the time carried big shields and use short ‘choppy’ swords, for example the Greek xiphos. So the ‘choppy’ part of its use would be expected and not worthy of comment.

Another issue is that it is designed to be used in formation with other guys carry big shields. Thrusting requires less space and is less disruptive to your cohorts than swinging cuts.

My gut feeling, which I am happy for the experts to prove me wrong on, is that thrusting was used more in formation fighting and cutting more when the formation had broken down.

[Roxxy]

I can definitely see an argument that cutting is just more intuitive, and needs less emphasis than thrusting. When I hold the sword, it really feels "choppy", for lack of a better word. Like, it feels like I'd swing it at someone, even though logically I know to thrust. Then again, if I do try thrusting with it, it's fast. Definitely faster than a cut, though I'll admit to not being properly trained to deliver a cut. I can jab with scary fast, and I don't even really know what I'm doing. So I don't want to oversell this as a cutting sword versus a thrusting sword. You could deliver a lot of rapid thrusts with it, and it's short length means it's lighter and a lot easier to aim than, say, my broadsword. If you're going for vulnerabilities in armor, I imagine that ease of aiming it is a pretty big deal. I'm just not sure about the shape of the point, though. It feels shallow.

Skallagrim has done a little speculation that perhaps cutting was a matter of opportunity? Like, let's say you're using this as a thrusting sword, because you're in a close formation with a large shield, but suddenly an opponent leaves their wrist wide open to you. You would, of course, want to lop his hand off, and the sword I have should absolutely be capable of that. Skal also referenced one Roman writer mentioning that legionaries would thrust, but if they couldn't find a vulnerability, they'd resort to slashing at the legs if an opportunity popped up. And getting back to the point about instinct, maybe legionaries are just assumed to be smart enough to know to take a swipe at exposed arms or legs if the opportunity presents itself.

Think is, even Skal mentions that there are very, very few sources mentioning cutting with a gladius, or even necessarily the use of a gladius, and we're talking about a 600 year period between the Marian Reforms and the fall of the Western Empire, in which the legions were reorganized many times, and the short stabbing sword was replaced with a longer cutting sword. Things naturally change depending on when we're talking about Roman soldiers. Which is why I ask about 79AD in particular, since that's when the sword my sword is a replica of was buried by a volcanic eruption.

I guess my issue is, looking at and handling this sword, it feels less optimized for the thrust than multiple gladius designs that came before it. Which would suggest that, while I doubt the thrust was being abandoned, perhaps the cut was becoming more important? This doesn't really feel like a thrusting blade or a cutting blade in particular, but more like something that needs to do both. And if the Roman soldier of 79AD is still thrusting the vast majority of the time, well, this sword does again feel like a step down from earlier designs the Romans used. Why change to a blade less optimized for the thrust, unless the thrust is becoming less dominant?