From: [c j miller] at [rs5.tcs.tulane.edu] (Chreighton Miller) Newsgroups: soc.history.moderated Subject: Re: Roman sword styles Date: 1 May 94 09:57:31 GMT Steve Kao ([REDACTED] at [hprnd.rose.hp.com]) wrote: : Steve Kao ([REDACTED] at [hprnd.rose.hp.com]) wrote: : > As described by Polybius, : This should be "hoplites." Fully armed Greek soldiers in the phalanx : were called hoplites. : - Steve Kao Well yes, fully armed Greek soldiers, at one time, were called Hoplites. But the Hoplite was replaced by the Macedonian style phalangist during the years following the reforms of Philip of Macedon. Philip's Macedonian army was arrayed in a phalanx like its predecessors, but the soldiers wore light leather protection instead of the heavy, expensive metal body-armour of the hoplite and wielded a spear that was considerably longer and could be used from an underhand position instead of the hoplites' inefficient over-hand technique. The Macedonian soldier also carried a much smaller shield than the earlier hoplite. These changes made Macedonian armies quicker, since thay were not as loaded down, and more mobile, since the soldiers could fight in a looser formation (their smaller shields wern't sufficient for a real shield-wall anyway). The changes also made the Macedonian army cheaper. Macedon did not have to rely on self- supplied citizen forces or unreliable mercenaries, instead it could afford to maintain a professional force. This army demonstrated its primacy during Philip's battles to acheive control of Greece and the amazing campaigns of his son Alexander. After Alexander's death, his successors, the Diadochi, controlled most of the lands of the Eastern Med. They expanded the use of Macedon's more efficient army throughout the Hellenized world. By the time Rome became a major power, the old hoplite was dead and burried, replaced by the new Macenonian style *phalangist*. ================================= From: scylax![t--l--h] at [uunet.uu.net] Newsgroups: soc.history.moderated Subject: Re: Roman sword styles Date: 29 Apr 94 03:04:59 GMT [s t schulz] at [informatik.uni-kl.de] (Stephan Schulz) writes: : As a related question: The roman legion was considered superior to the : greek (and macedonian) phalanx. Can anybody explain the causes of this : superiority? : The Gladius, judging from those found in Pompeii, had a double edged, tempered blade 2" thick and 18" long, with a strong point. It was a slash-and-stab weapon but Roman soldiers were intructed to mainly, but not uniquely, use it for stabbing because when using it for slashing the soldier was excessively exposed. (In battle, there were plenty of missile weapons being discharged most of the time, arrows, sling-shot, javelins, and their artillery versions). I never heard of the Gladius being handled the way you indicate. Where have you heard or read about this?. I cannot rule out, though, that it may have been deployed as you described sometime, it was extremely versatile. I have a working replica of a Gladius and it is an awesome weapon. Its light weight and good balance made it possible for the legionaire to fight with it for hours. The legionaire's training with the gladius and all his other weapons was so constant and ardous that for him training was just bloodless battle and battle was just bloody drill. Romans soldiers were trained superbly since the teenage. This fact was one of the reasons why the legion was superior to the phalanx, Once the phalangite faced the legionaire one to one, the legionaire had the upper hand, for the phalangites, by and large were not skilled swordmen, just good pikemen. To be effective, the phalanx had to be deployed on flat ground, which was a severe limitation considering the mediterranean geography. The legion was more flexible, they usually hacked at the pikes till they could breach the phalanx in a few places, then the legionaires exploited those gaps and attacked the phalanx from the side and the rear. The phalanx, once engaged was very strong on its front but very vulnerable on its sides and rear, because the men were pressed close together and had no mobility other that forward en bloc. You have to remember though, that the best phalanx never met the best legion. As it would have been the case of Alexander fighting Caesar. In most battles involving the phalanx and the legion, the former was a far cry from the formidable fighting unit that conquered Persia and beyond. ===================================== From: [REDACTED] at [hprnd.rose.hp.com] (Steve Kao) Newsgroups: soc.history.moderated Subject: Re: Roman sword styles Date: 29 Apr 1994 20:04:24 GMT [a--ci--l] at [nyx.cs.du.edu] wrote: > From my high school recollections, the main weapon of the Greek phalanx > was the "pilum", a spear about 10 feet long. This was used in tight ranks, > not thrown, rather used to prevent the enemy to crack through the unit. The pilum was actually the throwing spear of the legions. It had a long shaft made of weak iron so that it would bend upon impact; this prevented the pilum from being thrown back at the legion by the enemy. >From Polybius, each hastati and principes had two pilum, which they would throw before charging the enemy. The thrown pilum helped weaken the enemy line before the legion closed. I think that by the time of Julius Caesar, the legions stopped using the pilum, but I'm not sure about this. - Steve Kao ================================= Newsgroups: soc.history.moderated From: [ric h p] at [clark.net] (Rich Puchalsky) Subject: Re: Roman sword styles Date: Sat, 30 Apr 1994 17:30:57 GMT In article <2prp88$[g 4 d] at [news.u.washington.edu]>, Steve Kao <[REDACTED] at [hprnd.rose.hp.com]> wrote: >The pilum was actually the throwing spear of the legions. It had a long >shaft made of weak iron so that it would bend upon impact; this I have often heard about the features of the Roman throwing spear, or pilum -- that it was designed to bend on impact with a shield, so that it would stick in the shield and hamper the shield user, and so that it could not be thrown back. With the recent discussion on this group, I decided to go back and check my sources. My translation of Polybius (_The Rise of the Roman Empire, Penguin Edition, trans. by Ian Scott-Kilvert 1979) gives on pgs 320-321 several descriptions of throwing spears. This description probably is of the Roman setup at around 150 BC. First, the spear carried by the velites (young, light-armored troops) is described: "The wooden shaft of the javelins they carry is about three feet in length and a finger's breadth in diameter. The head is a span ( about nine inches) in length and is hammered out thin and so finely sharpened that it is inevitably bent at the first impact, thus making it useless for the enemy to hurl back; otherwise the weapon would be equally useful for both sides." A bit later, the hastati and principes (the heavy-armed bulk of the army) are described as carrying two pila each. "The spears are of two kinds, the slender and the thick. Of the thicker kind some are round and a palm's breadth in diameter, others are a palm square. The slender spears which they carry as well as the thicker variety are like medium-sized hunting spears, the length of the wooden shaft being about four and a half feet. The iron head is barbed and is of the same length as the shaft. They take great pains to ensure the utility of this weapon by attaching the iron firmly to the shaft. It is fastened into the shaft half-way up its length and riveted with a series of clasps, so that in action it will break rather than come loose, although its thickness at the socket where it meets the wood measures only a finger and a half." (i.e. the breadth of the shaft was about three inches, and that of the iron head fitted into it about one inch.) >From this description, it seems to me that the pila used at this time did not have this "bend on impact" feature. However, this seems to have been a later modification adopted by the famous Roman general Marius. My translation of some of Plutarch's Lives (_Fall of the Roman Republic_, Penguin edition, trans. by Rex Warner, 1958) states that Marius made the modification in preparation for a battle with the Cimbri and Teutons about 101 BC (pg. 37): "They say it was in preparation for this coming battle that Marius first altered the construction of the javelin. Before this time the shaft was fastened into the iron head by two nails of iron; now Marius, leaving one of these nails as it was, removed the other and put in its place a weak wooden pin, the idea being that on impact with the enemy's shield the wooden pin would break and, instead of the javelin sticking straight out, the shaft would twist sideways and trail down, though still firmly fixed to the iron head." ================================= Newsgroups: soc.history.moderated From: [j c f] at [csn.org] (John C. Flesner) Subject: Re: Roman Phalanx Date: Sat, 30 Apr 1994 22:33:08 GMT Brian Pickrell ([p--kr--l] at [netcom.com]) wrote; : Andrew J. Anderson ([a--nd--s] at [strauss.udel.edu]) wrote; Mr. Pickrell is quite correct in his observations. Mr. Anderson makes some basic assumptions that are, perhaps, mistaken. The Roman legion was not any less loose in frontage per soldier than the Greek phalanx. It was, however, much more flexible. The basic manuver element of the phalanx was the phalanx, in the legion it was the cohort. Moreover, the Romans noted that the phalanx can attack in only one direction, that being forward. The Romans, therefore used a number of cohorts to engage the phalanx frontally. Thus engaged the phalanx is locked to fighting to it's front, the Romans then manuvered the cohorts from the rear of the legion to attack the phalanx on one or both of it's flanks. Engaged to the front it(the phalanx) was in capable of turning part of itself to fight in a second or third direction and maintaining the critical cohesion vital to successful phalanx warfare. I urge you to read "The Westren Way of War" by Victor Davis Hanson and/or the 4 vol. work by W.K. Pritchett " The Greek State at War" for a fuller explanation to your questions. I hope this helped, JCF ===================================================== From: [c j miller] at [rs6.tcs.tulane.edu] (Chreighton Miller) Newsgroups: soc.history.moderated Subject: Roman Phalanx Date: 1 May 94 21:29:39 GMT The posts here so far have been interesting, but I think you are all missing one point. The weapon of the phalanx was a long spear. this spear was very useful against another phalanx, because the members of the phalanx could not maneuver around the spear point, they were limited by their need to maintain the shield wall which protected them. Further, if they maneuvered individually while in line, they disrupted the wall of spears that comprised both their most effective defense and their only offensive potential. Thelegion, on the other hand, was armed with a short sword (gladius). This sword simply could not be used in a tightly packed formation; swords require room to be weilded, even when used for stabbing (see the discussion on the subject in soc.war.misc). This forced the Romans to fight in a looser (though still not really "loose") formation. The advantage of such a formation was that it allowed the individual to maneuver on his own to a small degree. Thus, the Roman soldier had the ability to maneuver around individual spear points. One can't deny the advantage this gave him. Think about it, the spear of the phalanx was 15-18 feet long; it maust have been almost impossible to effectively maneuver and strike with this weapon. The spear was really useful only in formation with other spears against foes who could not maneuver against it. Once a Roman soldier got within the spear wall, he was virtually undefeatable. The swiss, in the late Middle Ages, overcame the deficiency of a similar pike formation by stationing halberdiers within their formations to take care of those who avoided the spear wall, but the Greeks had no such secondary tactical group to fall back on. Once their wall was breached, their only alternative was to draw their swords, and they simply could not compete with the extraordinarily well trained Romans in swordsmanship -- they were dead. C.J. ================================= Newsgroups: soc.history.moderated From: [j c f] at [csn.org] (John C. Flesner) Subject: Re: Roman Phalanx Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 03:11:35 GMT Chreighton Miller ([c j miller] at [rs6.tcs.tulane.edu]) wrote: : for stabbing (see the discussion on the subject in soc.war.misc). This forced : the Romans to fight in a looser (though still not really "loose") formation. The : advantage of such a formation was that it allowed the individual to maneuver on : his own to a small degree. Thus, the Roman soldier had the ability to maneuver I don't know where these assertions about the legion being a looser formation than the phalanx come from. The fact is that the legion fought closed up just like the phalanx. Please check your sources. Polybius, Livy, Plutarch, Tacitus, Delbruck, Grant, Hackett all state unequivocally that the legion fought closed up. If I may quote: "When the heavy infantry had been drawn up in its three lines and were ready to engage, the trumpets sounded to recall the velites who had been skirmishing between the two armies. The light armed troops through the gaps left in the maniples and retired to the rear of the army. The posterior centuries of the hastati moved up, pay attention now, to close the gaps in the line." Read accounts of the battle of Cynoscephalae (197 BC) . It clearly describes how Flamininus after engaging the Macedonians to the front led 20 maniples of the triarii across the hillside, around the Macedonian flank and struck them from the rear, "underlining superiority of the new flexible Roman system..." Let us recap. The Romans fought in a legion formation that was just as closed up as the phalanx. The differance was that the legion had maneuver elements (cohort, maniple) capable of independent action that the phalanx did not have, thus the ability to defeat the phalanx on a fairly regular basis. It was not, I repeat, not a looser formation. It was a more flexible formation. Thank you, JCF ================================= Newsgroups: soc.history.moderated From: Michael Plumb <[Michael Plumb] at [mixcom.mixcom.com]> Subject: Roman Sword Style Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1994 17:01:05 GMT Stephan: Your question regarding Roman sword style is interesting because there is a similar debate going on about how the classical Greek hoplite carried his spear. (the shorter srear used before Phillip of Macedonia came along) Whether it was carried over hand or under hand. In terms of the Roman legionaire I believe your discription of the soldier holding the sword like a tennis racket is correct. The Roman method of fighting was more geared toward individual fighting than either the Classical Greek or Macedonian styles. I don't mean that they fought on their own without any organization. I mean that individual skill and bravery was utilized more. The soldiers were stationed farther apart than their Greek counter parts. This allowed them to fight and maneuver more as individuals. After throwing his pella he would draw his gladius with his right hand and using his huge shield (it's alot bigger than the ones shown in those cheap Italian movies you mentioned) as a battering ram charge the enemy. That poor Celtic warrior would probably be still trying to dislodge the broken pella from his shield when he would be hit by that little charging Italian rhino. The Roman shield unlike the Greek shield had a single horizontal hand hold. This would inable him to use it as a ram while being totally protected. If a Roman soldier was attacking you all you would see of him was the top of his helmet and maybe his feet. The rest of his body would be completely covered by his shield. While using his shield as a ram he would be slahing at you with his sword. I read somewhere that the Greeks were horrified by the devastation created by the Roman sword. Their doctors were mostly use to dealing with injuries caused by projectile points, spears and arrows. They were shocked by the number of amputations, decapitations, and gruesome slashing wounds. -- [Michael Plumb] at [mixcom.com]