Roman Gladius

[sword-dancer]

First of all, this thread is about the Gladius, not how many Hastae Roman Legionaries carried... If you wish to argue the point, it would be best to start a new thread... Therefore; this will be my last post on the topic...



As for how many Pilae a Roman Legionary carried, and/or which forms of Hasta, neither you nor I know. We weren't there! The Lacus Curtius disagrees with you, however. It states that a heavy footman carried two pila and a lance, as well as a gladius and Pugio (dagger), into battle. He would have carried spares with his gear.

and look at the drawings of bothe the Legionaries in marching gear and parade dress, you will see that both are carrying multiple hastae...

It is also worth noting, here, however, that eight legionaries shared a tent/kitchen, and a mule. It is doubtful, however, that the mule transported their extra weapons. It is possible, however... As I said, I wasn't there.

?

I use as source Professor Junkelmanns
Die Legionen des Augustus
Der Römische Soldat im archäologischen Experiment.

With on e Pilum, arms Equipment the roman legionrie carried 47,8 kg.
And Junkelmann meant after practice studies two Pilums would in battle be to unhandy.
The mule carried the tools, the tent the muralis and such.

I don`t found the description in your first link.

 

[Aaron2]

And Junkelmann meant after practice studies two Pilums would in battle be to unhandy.

The current theory (at least as put forward by Connolly) is that the square section of the heavy pilum was meant to hook onto the upper edge of the shield, allowing the legionaire to hold the pilum with just his left hand.

I don`t found the description in your first link.

The text that was linked to was rather old (from 1875). It used Polybius as a source yet contradicted what Polybius says. Here's what he said RE: gladius and pilum.

"Along with the shield goes a sword, which the man carries around his right thigh: they call it a Spanish sword. It has a good point, and the cutting edge on both sides is strong because the blade is tough and solid. Besides these weapons, he has two throwing javelins, and a bronze helmet, and greaves. Some of the javelins are thick and some thin. ... The light javelins, which they carry along with the heavy ones, resemble moderate-sized hunting spears."

Note that he says both a light and heavy javelin are carried at the same time.

"The same style of armament also applies to the principes and triarii, except that instead of javelins, the triarii carry long thusting spears."

Here he says that the thrusting spear (hastae) was carried instead of the pilum, not with it as the linked article asserts.

Keep in mind that Polybius is describing the earlier Republic era legions. The light javelin dropped out of use, so later legionaires may have just carried the one.

Read the whole thing here:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius6.html
http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/6*.html


Aaron

 

[Zaruthustran]

D&D does a poor job of representing the advantages of a smaller weapon, the bigger the size the bigger the dice. There is no way in real life you can wield a great axe effectivley in a little 5 foot box regardless of whether you're in a tight formation or in a dungeon passage. I could continue to point out the disadvantages of larger weapons but I won't, the simple fact is d&d isn't that complex. Though it could be with a few simple changes modified to be a bit more realistic regarding the advantages of small sized weapons.

I think this thread has sparked my interest in investigating those few simple changes.

Meanwhile unless you make some additional rules give your "Romans" longswords and tough it out.

The "big weapon = big damage" thing used to upset me, but then D&D 3E came out with coup de grace rules.

That's when I realized the fact that a dagger is d4 and a greatsword is 2d6 doesn't mean that daggers are less lethal; in 3E you can kill a 20th level paladin with a knife in one round if you catch him sleeping. The differences in damage value are to reflect that fact that a man with a greatsword has a tremendous reach and mass advantage over a man with a dagger. All other things being equal and no unusual combat conditions, the man with the bigger weapon is going to kill the guy with the knife.

Which is another good thing about D&D 3E: you can't use a greatsword in a grapple, and DMs are explicitly encouraged to use conditional modifiers.

Big weapons are, as a rule, better than smaller weapons. If I have a 40 inch sword and you have a 10 inch sword, I have greater reach and, if I pay attention to footwork, I can hit you and you can't hit me. Your counter would be to move inside my guard/grapple, and D&D has rules for that kind of thing.

D&D's damage scheme takes relative combat advatnages of differing weapon sizes into account, and that's fine with me.

-z

 

[Desdichado]

I agree that the gladius may not have been anything special in a D&D sense, but in terms of weapon technology that had come before it, they were devastating. The gladius was a fairly robust blade, and when they "debuted" they quickly became infamous for their ability to inflict horrible, gaping wounds that, at the very least, thoroughly demoralized their opponents.

That doesn't mean that they were anything special in terms of later longsword technology that debuted, starting in the East actually.

Also, the individual battle prowess of the barbarians vs the legionnaires is fairly well documented in reports of the period, so why anyone would contend against that, unless you think the opinions of first-hand witnesses, such as Julius Caesar, for instance, are just flat-out wrong.

 

[Krieg]

I agree that the gladius may not have been anything special in a D&D sense, but in terms of weapon technology that had come before it, they were devastating. The gladius was a fairly robust blade, and when they "debuted" they quickly became infamous for their ability to inflict horrible, gaping wounds that, at the very least, thoroughly demoralized their opponents.

I am curious as to what led you to this conclusion.

The gladius was the perfect instrument for the job for which it was employed, outside of those paramaters it wasn't particularly special.

In a one on one engagement an early celt armed with a La Tene style blade (as would a Greek Hoplite with his long cut and thrust sword) certainly would have had the advantage) over a period legionaire & his gladius.

Similarly the Falcata was far more devestating in it's wounding ability & the Romans had great respect for it.

The Gladius was an effective weapon but IMO was not revolutionary.

 

[Null Boundry]

I am curious as to what led you to this conclusion.

The gladius was the perfect instrument for the job for which it was employed, outside of those paramaters it wasn't particularly special.

In a one on one engagement an early celt armed with a La Tene style blade (as would a Greek Hoplite with his long cut and thrust sword) certainly would have had the advantage) over a period legionaire & his gladius.

Similarly the Falcata was far more devestating in it's wounding ability & the Romans had great respect for it.

The Gladius was an effective weapon but IMO was not revolutionary.

There are several Greek sources that describe the terrible wounds inflicted by the Gladius during their various wars with Rome. Unfortunately all my old lecture notes are safely stored in the attic but I'll have a search on google to try and find the authors.

 

[Desdichado]

I am curious as to what led you to this conclusion.

The gladius was the perfect instrument for the job for which it was employed, outside of those paramaters it wasn't particularly special.

In a one on one engagement an early celt armed with a La Tene style blade (as would a Greek Hoplite with his long cut and thrust sword) certainly would have had the advantage) over a period legionaire & his gladius.

Similarly the Falcata was far more devestating in it's wounding ability & the Romans had great respect for it.

The Gladius was an effective weapon but IMO was not revolutionary.

A number of primary sources, mostly written by the Greeks, but I don't remember them off-hand, as I haven't read them in years. I did a quick google, but mostly it turned up some video game named Gladius, so I abandoned the search without really delving very deeply into it.

 

[johnsemlak]

A number of primary sources, mostly written by the Greeks, but I don't remember them off-hand, as I haven't read them in years. I did a quick google, but mostly it turned up some video game named Gladius, so I abandoned the search without really delving very deeply into it.

A greek historian of the Roman Military would very likely be Polybius, who was the most prolific. There were, of course, many such historians.

Here's some relavent quotes:

(from here)114. The armor of the Libyans was Roman, for Hannibal had armed them with a selection of the spoils taken in previous battles. The shield of the Iberians and Celts was about the same size, but their swords were quite different. For that of the Roman can thrust with as deadly effects as it can cut, while the Gallic sword can only cut, and that requires some room. And the companies coming alternately---the naked Celts, and the Iberians with their short linen tunics bordered with purple stripes, the whole appearance of the line was strange and terrifying.

 

[Deadguy]

Drusus?

Sorry for breaking into this discussion, but whilst we are discussing Roman swords, perhaps the clever people of ENWorld can help me. I have seen several references elsewhere to the Drusus, e.g. Arms & Equipment Guide wherein it says 'treat it as a masterwork shortsword'. But what exactly is a Drusus? When and where, and by whom, was it used?

Cheers

 

[Null Boundry]

Sorry for breaking into this discussion, but whilst we are discussing Roman swords, perhaps the clever people of ENWorld can help me. I have seen several references elsewhere to the Drusus, e.g. Arms & Equipment Guide wherein it says 'treat it as a masterwork shortsword'. But what exactly is a Drusus? When and where, and by whom, was it used?

Cheers

It was a gladiatorial weapon designed by either Tiberius' brother or son (depending on the source) called suprisingly Drusus. It was supposidly a superior design and manufacture of the Gladius which would cause more bloody wounds.