Gladius Techniques

chenessfan wrote
And while the Trajan's column certainly was made by artists who didn't see real battles, the gladiator depictions were made by people who saw fights in the arena and had a working knowledge of the basics. And there is OVERWHELMING pictorial evidence for the left leg forward stance, look at the art, practically EVERY gladiator with sword and scutum faces left leg forward. There is only one, obvious explanation.

MOK wrote

What, that it looks more dramatic? Mind, I wouldn't call that the only explanation, although it is pretty obvious.

Osprey Men at Arms 479 Roman Centurions 31 BC-AD 50

Metopa X from Adamklissi shows the Emperor Trajan with two soldiers clad in crotch length mail armour; one of them wears the gladius slung on his left side, and can perhaps be identified as a primus ordo of Legio I Italica, based in Lower Moesia, to which the monument was probably dedicated.

...but a strong clue is found on one little-published monument. A carved procession of soldiers from the Templum Gentis Flaviae (c. AD 95), whose fragments are shared between the Museo Nazionale Romano and Ann Arbor Museum in the USA, includes, among others, a man wearing an Attic helmet with a richly embossed frontal diadem, and a lorica segmentata of Corbridge type. All the soldiers are wearing the same kind of cuirass; but this man seems to have a staff in his right hand, and separated fragments clearly show both segmented armour and a gladius (short sword) slung on the left side. The man depicted was probably a centurion, perhaps of the Praetorian Guard, perhaps of one of the legions that conquered Jerusalem in AD 70...

On centurions’ gravestones the sword is invariably represented as worn on the left side of the body, and the dagger on the right, i.e. opposite to those of the ordinary milites gregarii. Practical reasons for an officer to wear the sword on the left have been suggested in a recent discussion with Dr Massimo Bizzarri: standing clear of the closed-up ranks of his men, the officer would perhaps benefit from a faster and easier way to draw his sword, which would also allow his men to see more easily orders signalled with his raised hand.

Osprey Elite 172 Roman Battle Tactics 390-110BC

The gladius and scutum

In his brief description of the gladius Hispaniensis (Greek Iberikos), Polybios writes that it was an excellent weapon 'for thrusting, and both of its edges cut effectually, as the blade is very strong and firm' (6.23.6-7). He evidently states that it was 'worn high on the right thigh' so as to be clear of the legs - a vertically-hung scabbard would normally be impractical for walking, let alone for fighting. The wearing of the sword on the right side goes back to the Iberians, and before them to the Celts. The sword was the weapon of the aristocratic warrior, and to carry one was to display high status. It was probably for cultural reasons alone, therefore, that the Celts carried the long slashing sword on the right side rather than on the left - the side covered by the shield - which meant that the weapon was hidden from view. But if, at this early date, the legionary already carried his sword on his right hand side suspended from a waist belt, it would not be for any cultural reason. As opposed to a single scabbard-slide acting as a pivot at the top, the more stable four-ring suspension system on his scabbard enabled the legionary to draw his weapon quickly with the right hand, an asset in close-quarter combat. In view of its relatively short blade, inverting the hand to grasp the hilt and pushing the pommel forward enabled him to draw the gladius with ease. With its sharp point and firm four-ring suspension arrangement, the Delos sword, confidently dated to 69 BC, shows all the characteristics of the gladius described a century earlier by Polybios. Another such example is the Mouries sword, found in a tomb in association with a group of pottery and metal artefacts; this assembly can be dated to around the beginning of the 1st century BC (Bishop-Coulston, 1993: 53; Feugere, 2002: 79).

Polybios, in an excursion dedicated to the comparison between Roman and Macedonian military equipment and tactical formations, states that 'According to the Roman methods of fighting, each man makes his movements individually: not only does he defend his body with his long shield, constantly moving it to meet a threatened blow, but he uses his sword both for cutting and for thrusting' (18.30.6). It appears, therefore, that the tactical doctrine commonly associated with the Roman legion of the Principate was already in place during Polybios' day. We know from archaeological data that the gladius of the Principate ('Pompeii' type) was an amazingly light and well-balanced weapon that was capable of making blindingly fast attacks, and was suitable for both cuts and thrusts. However, Tacitus (b. c. AD 56) and Vegetius (fl. c. AD 385) both lay stress on thrusting rather than slashing; the latter rightly says that 'a slash-cut, whatever its force, seldom kills' (1.12). Having thrown the pilum and charged into contact, the standard drill for the imperial legionary was to punch the enemy in the face with the shield-boss and then stab him in the belly with the razor-sharp point of the sword (Tacitus Annates 2.14, 21, 14.36, Historiae 2.42, Agricola 36.2).

In his near-contemporary account of the battle of Telamon (225 BC), Polybios tells us that 'Roman shields... were far better designed for defence, and so were their swords for attack, since the Gallic sword can only be used for cutting and not for thrusting' (2.30.9). Of a battle of 223 BC he writes that legionaries 'made no attempt to slash and used only the thrust, kept their swords straight and relied on their sharp points... inflicting one wound after another in the breast or the face' (2.33.6). In a much later passage (6.23.4) he implies that they were trained to take the first whirling blow of the Celtic slashing-sword on the rim of the scutum, which was suitably bound with iron (the principal weakness of a wooden shield was that it could be split in two with a well-aimed sword blow, leaving a soldier virtually defenceless).

For maximum protection the legionary scrunched up tight behind his scutum, and the use of the thrust also meant that he could keep most of his torso well covered even during weapon-play. The scutum, having absorbed the attack of his antagonist, was now punched into his face as the legionary stepped forward to stab with his gladius; much like the riot-shield of a modern policeman, the scutum was used both defensively and offensively, to deflect blows and to hammer into the opponent's shield or body to create openings. As he stood with his left foot forward a legionary could get much of his body weight behind this punch, added to the considerable weight of the scutum itself. Each legionary had about a metre within which to fight, perhaps twice as much elbow-room as a soldier of the Macedonian phalanx (who, armed with a long pike-like sarissa, depended on the mass and density of his formation to roll over the opposition). Meanwhile, the legionaries in the second rank stood behind the intervals between the men in the first, ready to protect their comrade's flanks and to step up to replace them when they tired or fell.

Ideally, the bastati fought the main enemy line to a standstill, but if they were rebuffed or lost momentum an entire second formation, the succeeding line of principes, surged forward into the combat zone, casting their pila over their comrades' heads in the melee, and the entire process of well-drilled butchery could begin anew with fresh troops. In the meantime, the triarii watched and waited at the rear. Close-quarter hand-to-hand fighting was physically exhausting and emotionally draining, and the skill of a Roman commander lay in committing his second and even third lines at the right moments. If he left reinforcement too late the fighting line might buckle and break, but if he ordered it too soon the value of adding fresh soldiers to the melee might be wasted. Obviously, the survivors of the hastati and the principes reinforced the triarii if it came down to a final trial of strength. The phrase inde rem ad triarios redisse, 'the last resource is in the triarii' (Livy 8.8.9), passed into Latin usage as the byword for a desperate situation.