Dark Jezter
First Post
Wow, I've seen plenty of posts by people who think that the katana should be an uber-weapon, but this is the first time I've seen someone who thinks the gladius should be more powerful than a regular short sword.
Roman Gladius
- Thread starter Emiricol
- Start date
Dark Jezter
First Post
Paka said:
I wasn't referring to your post, but rather the one at the start of the thread.
Bubble-bursting Roman Tactics...
The primary weapons of the Roman Empire were not Gladii, they were spears! A Roman soldier carried ONE Gladius, two or three spears (I forget the Roman name), and six of their long, soft-iron-shafted throwing spears (again, I can't recall the Roman name, right at the moment). This was in addition to their armor, tower shield, perhaps a dagger, a knife (eating implement and tool, more than weapon), pack, gear, and food...
Roman soldiers were loaded down. The Lorica Hamatta was basically chainmail, and the Lorica Segmentatta was basically a breastplate, in 3.5e terms. That, plus eight or nine spears, a shortsword, maybe a dagger, a knife, and a pack full of gear was a lot to carry!
Hence the Roman law that any Roman soldier could compel a Jew to carry his pack for one mile. The Jews hated this so much that they had one mile from their homes marked off, so that they knew exactly where to stop... Hence Christ's saying "If a man compel you to go a mile with him, go twain".
Anyway, when Roman soldiers entered battle, they formed up into their shield-wall, and advanced. Both sides threw their long, soft-iron-shafted spears at each other, until they were out. If these hit, the soldier usually was hors de combat. Even if they hit his shield, the head went through, and the soft iron shaft bent, making it nearly impossible to remove, until after the battle.
By the time the opposing sides were close enough that the order to charge was given, a soldier could have several of these long, bent throwing spears stuck in his tower, making it unwieldy. He then had the choice of abandoning it (and being less well defended than his opponents), or hanging onto it and being encumbered by all of the spear shafts sticking out... Also, note that the iron shafts could not simply be hacked off, either! They had to be turned and pulled loose (basically impossible, in melee).
So when the throwing spears were exhausted, or the order to charge came, the Roman soldiers switched to their main battle spears, with the typical wooden shafts, and charged in with spear (and, if they still had it, shield). At this point, contact was made at a distance, and the melee began.
During melee, the shafts of spears penetrating shields were grasped, and the shields pulled down, with the shield arm, while the right hand drew the gladius (which was always worn on the right side) in an overhand grip, with the tip of the blade pointing DOWN. It was then used as an oversized dagger, to thrust downward, over the tops of the opponents' shields.
This is the little-known secret of the Gladius... It was less a shortsword, and more a long dagger! It was more a piercing weapon for close-in work, while the spears were the major weapons.
This is not what Hollywood likes to show you, in the movies, I know, but this is the way that the Romans usually fought. Throwing spears, first, followed by charges with a spear long enough to have reach, followed by mop-up with the Gladius.
The only change I would make with the Gladius is to make it a Slashing/Piercing weapon. The damage is fine, as is.
The primary weapons of the Roman Empire were not Gladii, they were spears! A Roman soldier carried ONE Gladius, two or three spears (I forget the Roman name), and six of their long, soft-iron-shafted throwing spears (again, I can't recall the Roman name, right at the moment). This was in addition to their armor, tower shield, perhaps a dagger, a knife (eating implement and tool, more than weapon), pack, gear, and food...
Roman soldiers were loaded down. The Lorica Hamatta was basically chainmail, and the Lorica Segmentatta was basically a breastplate, in 3.5e terms. That, plus eight or nine spears, a shortsword, maybe a dagger, a knife, and a pack full of gear was a lot to carry!
Hence the Roman law that any Roman soldier could compel a Jew to carry his pack for one mile. The Jews hated this so much that they had one mile from their homes marked off, so that they knew exactly where to stop... Hence Christ's saying "If a man compel you to go a mile with him, go twain".
Anyway, when Roman soldiers entered battle, they formed up into their shield-wall, and advanced. Both sides threw their long, soft-iron-shafted spears at each other, until they were out. If these hit, the soldier usually was hors de combat. Even if they hit his shield, the head went through, and the soft iron shaft bent, making it nearly impossible to remove, until after the battle.
By the time the opposing sides were close enough that the order to charge was given, a soldier could have several of these long, bent throwing spears stuck in his tower, making it unwieldy. He then had the choice of abandoning it (and being less well defended than his opponents), or hanging onto it and being encumbered by all of the spear shafts sticking out... Also, note that the iron shafts could not simply be hacked off, either! They had to be turned and pulled loose (basically impossible, in melee).
So when the throwing spears were exhausted, or the order to charge came, the Roman soldiers switched to their main battle spears, with the typical wooden shafts, and charged in with spear (and, if they still had it, shield). At this point, contact was made at a distance, and the melee began.
During melee, the shafts of spears penetrating shields were grasped, and the shields pulled down, with the shield arm, while the right hand drew the gladius (which was always worn on the right side) in an overhand grip, with the tip of the blade pointing DOWN. It was then used as an oversized dagger, to thrust downward, over the tops of the opponents' shields.
This is the little-known secret of the Gladius... It was less a shortsword, and more a long dagger! It was more a piercing weapon for close-in work, while the spears were the major weapons.
This is not what Hollywood likes to show you, in the movies, I know, but this is the way that the Romans usually fought. Throwing spears, first, followed by charges with a spear long enough to have reach, followed by mop-up with the Gladius.
The only change I would make with the Gladius is to make it a Slashing/Piercing weapon. The damage is fine, as is.
Last edited:
Amal Shukup
First Post
Roman effectiveness
I'm definitely in agreement with most posters here - the Gladius was nothing more than a straight up short sword. I'd even object to its characterization as 'fancy' - compared with the beautiful, leaf shaped (originally bronze)shortsword of the Iberian penninsula that the Gladius evolved from, it was an inflexible and unaesthetic weapon...
No good for defence, no mechanical augmentation to cutting power (which the leaf shape provided), horrible characteristics with respect to maintaining a good edge etc...
BUT. Very easy to mass produce (of vital importance). It was also perfectly adapted for the Roman style of 'swordplay' (or vice versa...) - which is basically a straight, powerful thrust that resembles a Karate punch...
1. Sword held palm up at side at about short-rib height, pointing forwards
2. Thrust forward low, rotate wrist for power
3. Return to start position
4. Rinse. Repeat...
Sword isn't used for defence - that's what the honking huge shield is for. And why wound 'em with the edge when you can kill or disable 'em with the point? Also, unlike swinging some huge bar of steel, this economical little stab can be done all day every day... The infantry's answer to the food processor...
Anyway, swordplay and sword technology (except mass production) wasn't what made these guys stunningly effective. It was their training in group tactics, conditioning, discipline, infrastructure (weapons/armor manufacture, those roads!), medicine, engineering, and logistics (not glamorous but what actually wins wars).
Also, each and every Roman soldier was SERIOUSLY well equipped with armor - enough to bankrupt your average barbarian chieftains, never mind the poor iron age rabble following them. Not neccesarily as pretty or as uniform as movies tend to show, but serious ironmongery...
The ancient world wasn't huge on archery (except Persia), but the Gladius is a really 'up close and personal' weapon for it to be responsible for much wholesale slaughter. I'd be thinking spears as a likely culprit, but I have no source to back that opinion..
Amal
I'm definitely in agreement with most posters here - the Gladius was nothing more than a straight up short sword. I'd even object to its characterization as 'fancy' - compared with the beautiful, leaf shaped (originally bronze)shortsword of the Iberian penninsula that the Gladius evolved from, it was an inflexible and unaesthetic weapon...
No good for defence, no mechanical augmentation to cutting power (which the leaf shape provided), horrible characteristics with respect to maintaining a good edge etc...
BUT. Very easy to mass produce (of vital importance). It was also perfectly adapted for the Roman style of 'swordplay' (or vice versa...) - which is basically a straight, powerful thrust that resembles a Karate punch...
1. Sword held palm up at side at about short-rib height, pointing forwards
2. Thrust forward low, rotate wrist for power
3. Return to start position
4. Rinse. Repeat...
Sword isn't used for defence - that's what the honking huge shield is for. And why wound 'em with the edge when you can kill or disable 'em with the point? Also, unlike swinging some huge bar of steel, this economical little stab can be done all day every day... The infantry's answer to the food processor...
Anyway, swordplay and sword technology (except mass production) wasn't what made these guys stunningly effective. It was their training in group tactics, conditioning, discipline, infrastructure (weapons/armor manufacture, those roads!), medicine, engineering, and logistics (not glamorous but what actually wins wars).
Also, each and every Roman soldier was SERIOUSLY well equipped with armor - enough to bankrupt your average barbarian chieftains, never mind the poor iron age rabble following them. Not neccesarily as pretty or as uniform as movies tend to show, but serious ironmongery...
I've read an analysis of battlefield wounds conducted at an archaelogical site in Japan - everyone went in assuming that the famed Katana was going to be the butcher o' choice, but arrow wounds apparently outnumbered sword/spear etc wounds by a massive factor.
The ancient world wasn't huge on archery (except Persia), but the Gladius is a really 'up close and personal' weapon for it to be responsible for much wholesale slaughter. I'd be thinking spears as a likely culprit, but I have no source to back that opinion..
Amal
sword-dancer
Explorer
Depends what you mean with barbarian warrior?Dogbrain said:
The free farmer-warrior, i don`t think so.
The imperal Legions had daily weapon exercises.
OTOH the Henchmen or truchts of the Jarls, Ethelings etc were i think handpicked as the best available fighters, and then had no other thing to do as to fight with their Lord.
I doubt this a little.
The Knights of the Temple, the mongols, the bycantean Army(which i would prefer over every LEgion night and day),
Steverooo said:
You are AFAIK wrong.
The Roman legionaries carried 1 Pilum to battle.
In the premarian legions the triarier were equipped wih a spear or lance the hasta.
When The legionaries came to combat reach, tehy chraged the enemi with a hail of pilas, and then folowed with scutum and gladius.
Thresher
First Post
I think its somewhat unfair to say that the roman leigonaire was any 'less' of a fighter than his barbarian counterpart, from a romantic point of veiw he may have admired and respected his enemies freedom, wildness and ferocity.
But it ends at the battlefield.
A roman soldier was a professional soldier, he wasnt a part time farmer, hunter-gatherer or family man, all he did in the 20years of service was learn how to:
-Kill people in close combat
-Follow orders
And after enough years the roman veteran has far more experience in actually gutting someone in close combat, drills every day with his companions to keep his reflexes up to speed and lets not forget that he carries at the time of Marius' reforms in around 100BC around 80-100 pounds of equipment. These where not weak, small men of the Asterix comics, they where formidable professional soldiers who made their living by killing other men and did it very well.
Also on the side of the soldier was the fact that Rome had a lot of very good generals in charge of her armies who learnt a lot from the Greeks in terms of tactics and added to it by gaining the reputation of being utterly ruthless when aroused to fight. People didnt like fighting Romans for the simple fact that if you did cross them and annoyed them enough they where going to kill every single living thing that got in their way and anyone captured ended up in a life of bondage as a slave.
Now, back your Gladius.
While the Romans carried a lot of different types of swords, the cavalry making use of what we would term a light lance and longsword, their heavy infantry's primary weapon was the gladius and his shield which we would use in game as being a tower shield. In combinaition with his fellows the unit unleashes its Pila at 20-30ft and closes with the enemy. The enemy assuming he isnt killed by the pila moves in, often having to discard his own shield which has been disabled by the spears heavy weight.
It is at this point the real killing begins.
The best way to describe this would be to have a rugby scrum and give them knives and you'd probably have much the same result, pressing the enemy back.
Also while the pressure was applied at the front line the enemy's own weapons where typically longer and he couldnt bring them to bear, let along swing or stab at someone who was less than a foot away and very heavily armoured, all the time slashing away at things like the enemies legs, groin and stomach.
The Gladius works much the way that a contempory bayonet does, it only takes a few inches to kill or disable someone when the blade goes in.
Ive done a bit of work doing up some feats for this fighting technique but most people have a bit of trouble understanding the tactics involved in bringing them in line with a 'relative' combat system like D20, so its a project thats sitting on the backburner for awhile.
But it ends at the battlefield.
A roman soldier was a professional soldier, he wasnt a part time farmer, hunter-gatherer or family man, all he did in the 20years of service was learn how to:
-Kill people in close combat
-Follow orders
And after enough years the roman veteran has far more experience in actually gutting someone in close combat, drills every day with his companions to keep his reflexes up to speed and lets not forget that he carries at the time of Marius' reforms in around 100BC around 80-100 pounds of equipment. These where not weak, small men of the Asterix comics, they where formidable professional soldiers who made their living by killing other men and did it very well.
Also on the side of the soldier was the fact that Rome had a lot of very good generals in charge of her armies who learnt a lot from the Greeks in terms of tactics and added to it by gaining the reputation of being utterly ruthless when aroused to fight. People didnt like fighting Romans for the simple fact that if you did cross them and annoyed them enough they where going to kill every single living thing that got in their way and anyone captured ended up in a life of bondage as a slave.
Now, back your Gladius.
While the Romans carried a lot of different types of swords, the cavalry making use of what we would term a light lance and longsword, their heavy infantry's primary weapon was the gladius and his shield which we would use in game as being a tower shield. In combinaition with his fellows the unit unleashes its Pila at 20-30ft and closes with the enemy. The enemy assuming he isnt killed by the pila moves in, often having to discard his own shield which has been disabled by the spears heavy weight.
It is at this point the real killing begins.
The best way to describe this would be to have a rugby scrum and give them knives and you'd probably have much the same result, pressing the enemy back.
Also while the pressure was applied at the front line the enemy's own weapons where typically longer and he couldnt bring them to bear, let along swing or stab at someone who was less than a foot away and very heavily armoured, all the time slashing away at things like the enemies legs, groin and stomach.
The Gladius works much the way that a contempory bayonet does, it only takes a few inches to kill or disable someone when the blade goes in.
Ive done a bit of work doing up some feats for this fighting technique but most people have a bit of trouble understanding the tactics involved in bringing them in line with a 'relative' combat system like D20, so its a project thats sitting on the backburner for awhile.
Dark Jezter
First Post
Amal Shukup said:
Well, as the old prussian military axiom says: "Amatures worry about tactics, professionals worry about logistics."
Roman legionares were very well-paid. They had to be; since they were required to pay for and maintain their weapons and armor.
That dosen't surprise me very much. Although most people think of samurai as guys who charge into combat cutting everything down with their katanas, IRL katanas were rarely used on the battlefield. Mostly they were used in duels (which didn't happen very often), and cutting down peasents who didn't show proper respect. In battle, most samurai used bows or polearms (and, after the Dutch introduced firearms to Japan in the mid-1500s, many samurai started using rifles).
In fact, I read an article not too long ago that stated only about 5% of samurai were swordsmen, and only about 5% of that 5% would be considered "master" swordsmen. Samurai were highly-trained, professional soldiers, but the vast majority of them were not sword fighters.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
