Gladius Techniques

Seat, missed this topic a year ago!

Lots of good info, lots of really bad info/comparisons.

I have been a Roman reenactor since 2001 and have been doing combat since 2006. We have tried a lot of experimental archaeology and can confidently make a few points.

First, you never ever lead with your right leg, unless you want to lose it. There is simply little to protect it if it is forward. Your right side is also heavily exposed if thrusting in such a manner as to require the right leg to be forward. You are also extremely vulnerable to a counter push of shield on shield. If your right leg is forward and you get hit hard on your shield you won't have a good stance to brace it with, never mind being exposed.

Next issue is the idea of what the thrust looks like. Think of a boxer throwing a straight right hand if he or she is a righty. The difference being is that the guard, and therefore your hand on the gladius does not extend past the edge of your scutum. If you do, your unarmoured hand becomes exposed.

Combat is generally done extremely close, with the scutum even closer to the enemy to allow the gladius to hit it's target without exposing the soldier holding it.

Hope that gives some insight!

Most of the reproductions I've seen average out to about 12lbs, including steel versions; I imagine a properly made scutum would be a bit lighter, but still not exactly lightweight.

As for how the Romans survived with such a short blade, keep in mind that while the gladius may have been the legionnaire's primary weapon, it was by no means his only one:

For armor, they typically wore the lorica hamata (sleeveless chainmail tunic) and later the lorica segmentata (the classical banded plate armor), supplemented by the galea (their iconic helmets), a pair of greaves, and during later periods, the lorica manica (a banded arm guard). Much like the Greeks, with the addition of the scutum, this turned each legionnaire into a walking tank.

In addition to the gladius, each legionnaire also carried two pila; these were 6ft long javelins with a 2ft iron pyramidal head, called a shank. When thrown through a target, the shank, being of soft iron, would bend, rending them impossible to pull out (at least, quickly). Pila tended to weigh between 4 and 11lbs, with the heavier versions being a product of the earlier empire. Say your shield weighs about 6lbs and you get a heavy pilum stuck through it. You now have something more than double the weight dragging your arm down with a 4ft bit of would protruding from the front. A very awkward burden to try and carry into battle; and that's if you only got one pilum lodged in your shield. Further, the pilum could be used as a regular spear and achieve the same results, since a legion often only launched a single volley.

Second, there were the later plumbata; these were basically the pilum in miniature, albeit with a barbed head and weighted with lead. Vegetius' Re De Militari says that each legionnaire carried five in the hollow of his shield and two different legions, each consisting of 6,000 men, were so skilled in their use that they were honored by two different emperors upon their ascension; imagine five volleys of six thousand lead darts falling into a cavalry charge or even an infantry rush. Nasty to think about.

A spear thrust might pass through an opening in the shield wall in the moment a legionnaire moved to attack, but that gap could be closed in a flash, so you may wound one soldier if you're lucky only for you could be disarmed and become easy prey in return. At which point, the legion would just march right over you. Because of this, I think it highly unlikely that the Romans used their shields in a very proactive way beyond the occasional shield smash into the face of an enemy or perhaps pinning a shield that aimed for an exposed foot; doing anything even remotely close to the buckler or the Viking style shield would not only quickly tire them out, but would open so many gaps into their formation as to render it useless.

The most important thing to remember about the Roman legions is that they were, well, legion; they never fought alone, but always had their brothers to support them, which is why they could utilize a primary weapon as short as the gladius and be as successful as they were.

Mind, this is all supposition based on what little I know of Roman equipment that I could find with a little bit of research, but I think it's a well grounded one.

Here's a paragraph from Wikipedia on the subject:

"The iron shank was the key to the function of the pilum. The weapon had a hard pyramidal tip but the shank was made of softer iron. This softness would cause the shank to bend after impact, thus rendering the weapon useless to the enemy who might throw it back. However, there are many cases where the whole shank was hardened, making the pilum more suitable as a close quarters melee weapon, which also made it useful for enemy soldiers to pick it up and throw it back. More importantly, if the pilum struck a shield it might embed itself and thus the bending of the shank would force the enemy to discard it as they might waste time trying to pull it out in the middle of combat. Even if the shank did not bend, the pyramidal tip still made it difficult to pull out." - The source is listed as Ross Cowen's "Roman Legionary: 58 BC - AD 69", with a link to the exact page on Google Books (page 25), but I can't seem to view it at the moment. He also mentions that the rectangular shield we immediately think of when we hear "scutum" weighed about 12.1lbs based on a surviving example.

Ah, my post went through several revisions as I tried to get the wording nice and concise, meaning I lost a bit in the meantime; I thought I'd typed up a bit about how they would use the heavier pila as regular spears, but apparently I changed the wording on it, only saying that they could be used as such, rather than that they apparently were.

The gladius actually wasn't a dedicated stabbing weapon; it was indeed a cut-n-thrust blade. While contemporary Roman generals advocated the thrust for a variety of reasons (it exposed less of the legionnaire, a thrust could penetrate armor and bone where a slash could not, etc.), soldiers were trained to take any opportunity that presented itself, including slashing at the knees below a shield wall or what have you. In fact, as I mentioned in my very first post in this topic last year, I recalled seeing a video that dealt with the basic strikes of the gladius: a diagonal cut down, a cut to the abdomen, a cut to the thigh, and then a stab to the belly from below repeated on the left and right sides.

As for the rest, remember that Rome had its fair share of defeats, but had the habit of throwing men at the problem until it was solved. They also had a habit of adopting tactics and weaponry they found to be superior. I found a reference saying that Roman soldiers known as the Hastati were originally equipped with the hasta, a thrusting spear, but it was gradually phased out in favor of the pilum and gladius; if that's true, then perhaps using pila to soften and disrupt the enemy, followed by a wedge formation driven into their center where their gladii can hack and stab with abandon, was a superior tactic for the Romans. Considering their reputation for being more disciplined than contemporary armies and that such tactics would demand such discipline, it kinda makes sense.

The reason the Romans were so good they fought as a well unit, not individuals. They beat the Greeks phalanx early in their conquest, so much for a spear formation being able to beat them. No they didn't use thier pilums for stabbing, just throwing. Come at them with a spear formation it will get broke up by large projectile weapons, ballistas, capalaputs. On the flanks will be slinger, and bowmen.

Most the time they won by flanking action. If the emeny is armed with spears just need to march a shield in close enough the spears are useless, knock the spears to the ground step on them move forward hiding behind your shield strike at the goin or head. A spear formation has a hard time regrouping to meet a flanking movement all those long weapons get in the way.

Well of course they DID use hastae, esp in the early eras when Greece was being conquered. The notion that they woodenly shuffled in, threw their soft-shank pila, and then crept toward victory under a wall of shields seems to be based on only a handful of references in the sources. No detailed fighting manuals survive from any Roman era to my knowledge.

As far as spears being great, history speaks for itself I think. With the sole possible exception of Rome, every major power has relied primarily on spears or other pole arms, from ancient times through the Viking era and right up through pike formations and bayonet mounted muskets. That's why the idea of Romans fighting with javelins and short swords doesn't seem to fit. Every unit is vulnerable to flanking, but that's a macro tactic that doesn't really explain how each soldier would be using his weapons. That remains a mystery here. I just strongly suspect they were using methods far more complicated and multi-layered than the traditional image of stiff formations shuffling around behind huge shields. I think your suggestion that there were archers and skirmishers being used for offense around the formation makes some sense, though. It might have been a proto pike formation of sorts, though I still doubt they just threw away their heavy pilae with such abandon.

Well, before Marian reforms, triarii used regular spears for holding the line if front lines weren't doing well... Imperial army had plenty of auxiliaries with spears... Late romans used spears... People speak of romans as if whole history of roman military is an imperial legionary with lorica segmentata, large quadrangular scutum, 2 pila and a mainz or pompei gladius... That picture has relatively short history...

Also let's not mix up our historical periods here when discussing Greeks and Romans.

The period of Greek military power that we associate with the Battle of Thermopylae against the Persians as depicted in the movie "300" was way back in 480 BC.

Greece was annexed to the Roman Republic in 146 BC, over three centuries later.

Romans were directly influenced by the Greeks, and early in their history fought as hoplites in the same style as the Greeks.

In the 4th century BC, Romans abandoned the hoplite formations as they moved to the familiar legionary warfare that they became known for.

Around the same time the Greeks abandoned the hoplite formations and adopted the Macedonian phalanx, which is more of a pike formation system of warfare.

Interesting discussion. Unfortunately I agree with Cosmoline on the gladius grip. It's a fine idea, a short bladed and fine pointed, primarily, stabbing weapon, but useful for cutting as well. That's why I find the Qama/Kindjal/Kindjahal so fascinating. It eliminates that horrible, limiting grip. I ordered the Devils Edge Damascus one from KoA. I think it will be my first review.