Having wandered and trawled through google and various links, I have been unable to find any solid guides or articles regarding western short sword technique (preferably ancient, but beggars can't be choosers), apart from the odd vague Roman or Greek literary reference. Does anyone have any pointers?


Thanks. R.

Oh, we can help you out a good bit. How short is short? Sometimes the one handed sword is classified as a 'short sword,' and sometimes it isn't. I belive Silver referred to a basket hilt as a short sword, as opposed to a longsword.



Are you looking mostly at the roman shortsword? We (Alas!) have no manuals from then. We believe they mostly fought with the shield, bringing the sword into play after binding or sheild striking, but that's mostly an argument from ignorance since we don't really know. The best thing I can say is get a copy of Spada and spada 2 for their large shield articles. We do know they preferred stabbing to cutting.

http://www.chivalrybookshelf.com/

The OLDEST complete system we have is MSI33. The best book on MSI33 is this one.
http://www.chivalrybookshelf.com/titles/sword...shield.htm (Oh, it should be sword and buckler, but marketing won out and their called it shield.)



If you want sword used alone, you'll need to look for manuals on the falchion or the messer. These are used almost identically to single sword. Still, fightbooks, anceint art, and experimentation are our only guides to this stuff. The best are fightbooks, which started seeing use around 1300 or so. I personally suggest you spend all the money you have at
http://www.chivalrybookshelf.com/ and read until your eyes fall out. Wonderful fun.

Sword forum has an all technique forum on which many of the sword gods regularly post. http://forums.swordforum.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=15 Take a look at your pleasure.

For Roman stuff, this is a good jumping off point. There are huge roman outposts on the web. http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Write to them, and they can tell you much. There is much much more though.

One of the reasons for this could of course be that short swords where not very common in Europe after the romans.
The only example that comes to mind is the cinqueda.

As far as I can see, the short sword has no advantages that warrants its use when you have the option of carrying a longer bladed sword.
The romans used gladii for metallurgical and tactical reasons, a roman not fighting in a shield block would probably prefer a Spatha, as well.

I believe there are some picture sequences from roman artwork that show shield and Gladius fighting. As far as I remember it was mostly lead with the shield-stab stuff. It is worth mentioning that a legionaries Scutum is big, heavy, and about as maneuverable as a barn.

Here's the best source I know for manuals/texts from all periods:

http://www.thearma.org/manuals.htm

Thanks for your help guys: you are marvellous people!

George- you're right about the 'long' definition of short swords- I've been studying Silver today, and his definition of short is that it doesn't hit the ground when you rotate it. Brilliant... :)

R.

Elling,

On the subject of the uses of the short sword, it has its advantages. In the crush of men which often occurred during a battle, the short sword had the advantage where there is no room to swing a longer blade. Weapon tests conducted by a friend of mine were rather flattering of the gladius and tower shield: the shield would cover the advance to a distance where the gladius could really flourish, being so manouvreable, and where other blades, such as celtic swords, might be hampered. On might also think of the katzbalger's use in the swiss pike phalanx, where a longer sword might be all but useless.
In this light, then, we might look at culture to explain the rise of longer blades: for example indivindualist tendancies in northern europeans (the longer blade certainly has an advantage over the gladius 1v1), or the fact that it would be of greater use in the aggressive charge characteristic of, say, Gallic armies in the 1st Century BC (see Ceasar's 'Conquest of Gaul'), or of more open formations. For the rigid, close formations of the legions or any phalanx, the short sword was perhaps the natural choice. I might explain its falling out of use with the changing conditions of the Roman military system. This involved by the 3rd century increasing numbers of barbarian mercenaries/ recruits, who were presumably armed in the traditional manner, while the increasing use of heavy cavalry by the empire perhaps rendered infantry with shorter weapons more vulnerable. Discuss!!

Now all I need is a phalanx to hide from you in, Elling. :lol:

This is an interesting thread.

I haven't seen any texts on Roman short sword use either. Vegetius deals with tactics mainly I think. When we're asking whether the use of the short sword fell out of use with the end of the Roman Empire I suppose we should try to define the weapon by its use not its typology, maybe short weapon rather than short sword. Surely the gladius fell out of use but the system of the shield wall continued, different in that I understand the use of the spear was different to that of the pillum, but similar in that when the two sides met it would be short and manouverable weapons that would be very useful (I can't recall whether it was in 'de bello gallico' or elsewhere but the gallic swordsman though respected, were thwarted by the organised tactic of taking the first blow on the top edge of the shield thus sticking their blades, as the Dacians were by the reinforcement of helmet crowns and shield edges to guard against their hooked copping swords - so tight tactics and organisation did defeat longer swords I think) . The number of finds of seax, langsax and short axes in archeological sites would suggest to me that the push and thrust system of the Roman system may not have been so different to that of the Saxon or Norse. Once it was too close for long weapons I imagine people would have reached for a seax or axe for short stabbing and hacking work, so in that sense perhaps the short sword use did not die out with the Romans: simply the weapons changed. The longer blade maybe was for different uses, and a status item

Cultural influences surely would have influenced I imagine. The use of cavalry, the lack of organised training and discipline necessary for formation and short sword tactics etc.

Sorry this is not an answer to your question at all. Just thinking out loud



Daniel

Avete!

Unfortunately, you aren't likely to find many details of Roman (or Greek) swordsmanship. The training methods used by the Romans were probably at least a little more involved than "smash with shield, stab with sword", but we don't know. Soldiers did practice against wooden posts using double-weight wooden shields and swords, and against each other with swords (presumably wooden) with padded tips.

The question of why swords of certain lengths became popular or went out of style is much more tangled. Bear in mind that Republican swords after the Punic Wars were actually longer than the Imperial gladius. Some of the latter show rather sophisticated construction and good steel, too, so it wasn't simply a matter of metallurgy. Late Republican and Imperial cavalry were all using longer blades, anyway. And there are some short swords still in use through the 3rd and 4th centuries, right alongside the longer swords.

Legionary formations weren't really very cramped, at least they weren't supposed to be. There was an allowance of 3 feet to 6 feet per man, depending on which source you consult. (May have varied over time, like everything else.) Certainly the gladius could be used in very close quarters more easily than longer weapons. The scutum is at least a LITTLE more maneuverable than a barn, and it also protects like a barn.

It's possible that the Romans liked the shorter gladius partly because it's just easier to tote on the march--the late Republican and Imperial legions did a lot more marching than fighting! The length may also have encouraged a more aggressive fighting style, similarly to the short sword used by the earlier Spartans. The simple fact that the Romans trained their troops to get in that close and personal made opponents less willing to get near them!

It's a heck of a timespan--a lot could have happened simply through changes in fashion.

Valete,

Matthew

Steven;

My copy of Spada II is in transit in the mail and I'm looking forward to reading it.


Randolph;

It is hard to give a strict definition of what a short sword is or what size makes it " short ".
Also the distinction between a very long knife or dagger is hard to pin down.

My totally personal way of deciding which is which is as follows: Between 20" and 24" we are in the grey zone between short and longsword. Between 12" and 20" we have a long dagger or short sword, at equal lenght I will consider a heavy blade capable of heavy amputating cuts closer to a sword and a slim light blade closer in function to a dagger.

An Anelace or Cinquedea is also a grey zone between knife and sword. Even a heavy 12" bowie can function as a short sword while a Rondel Dagger with a slim 18" blade would seem more dagger like to me.

Maybe I could start the " Thibodeau " Typology of daggers and short swords. :p :eek: :lol:

The Up-close-and-personal combat that result from clashing formations can be handled as well, or better by a dagger. This also leaves you with a longer sword for less close up fighting. Your primary weapon would be a spear or polearm.
So, yes, a short sword is effective. A coice of sword and dagger is more so.


I tend to see the Gladius as the Rock to the scissors of spears. The (imperial) roman legionary's weapons forces him to favor attack, but also teamwork. The short gladius and heavy shield does not favour individual hot-shoting. (I have fought with/against legion reenactors in a forest skirmish setting, and can testify that Romans do not like to chase barbarians throug the shrubbery... :p )

As far as I gather, the "Idividualistic combat style" of the scandinavians are a myth. Norwegian armies, at least, fight in tight formations, using spear and shield walls on the deffensive, and vedge formations for attack.

Bring you phalanx ;) My Fylking will be waiting.
But, since we are norwegian, we want to fight on ships.
More manly that way.

Greek fire is cheating.
Axing your way through the hull of the galley is not. (this was done, at least once; http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/...ap36.html)

Daniel- thanks for you thoughts on the seax and axe- the comparison seems pretty apt. Could short weapons of that nature ever be compared to the gladius in terms of primary use, though?


George- (off topic I know, but...)what would Machiavelli's swords do to a phalanx? Presumably it involves flanking?


Stephen- I expect you're right about the need for a shield when wielding a short sword. My love of the (Mainz) gladius is aesthetic and cultural rather than practical, and a shield would be a little much for me, so I'm trying to see what I could do without one! At the moment I'm relying a little too much on brawling.
Your timing with the book is portentous. I joined this sight a few weeks ago looking for a classical sword, and because of Silver, I can't help but imagine other possibilities! This sword thing creeps up on you doesn't it? Side swords, Mortuary swords and poverty loom large on the horizon...


Elling- If I can't have my Greek fire, you can't have your beards of power. Or Mead. :)

If you are looking for something to use without a shield, you'd be best served with a longsword or sidesword. Otherwise you would get hit over the head or hands to much...
Or you could get you or your friend a roundel dagger, and start practicing the Liberi or Tahoffer dagger stuff, wich incidentaly also involves a lot of brawling. (And, is cheap!)

Randolph Howard wrote:

Elling- If I can't have my Greek fire, you can't have your beards of power. Or Mead. :)

Sure. We don't need 'em. We are Medevial people now. Beards are, like, so 200 years ago... Now we have bushy hair and sideburns instead...
Rock&Roll!

Hello Randolph,

I think you'd need to clarify what you mean by primary use for the Gladius to answer your question. Making an asumption about what you'e asking though, I would think re the longer seax , yes to a degree. Though in your proposed battle with Elling involving Greek fire and mysteriously powerful facial hair any short weapon might be an afterthought.

PS where's your Thucydides quote from , something from the Sicilian wars ?

Daniel

One other thought about short swords without shield: It might be interesting to look into messer techniques. These are, of course, single-edged, but included fairly short weapons as well as bastard sized monsters. There is material such as Duerer on the use of the messer. As I recall from glancing at the stuff, there is a lot of cutting as well as thrusts, and this may be somewhat like the way earlier double-edged short cut/thrust swords were used.