Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > A question about romans Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next 
Author Message
Bennison N




Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Joined: 06 Feb 2008
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 416

PostPosted: Sat 16 Feb, 2008 3:35 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ok, Falcata refs... Just a quick google.

"I'm not suprised that you do not recognize me, Caesar... at the battle of Munda my eye was struck out and the bones of my skull crushed. And you wouldn't recognize my helmet either, for it was split by a Spanish Falcata." -- Seneca, De Beneficiis

Here is that quote again, along with the Sword Forum critique of Del Tin's 202-A Falcata:

http://swordforum.com/swords/deltin/dt-falcata.html

I also recommend that you read the performance review of the Gen2 IP-086-2 Celtic Falcata at imperialweapons.com. I won't post a link to it, because it's a sale page. They review it again at:

http://www.sword-buyers-guide.com/celtic-sword.html

Dr. Jim Hrisoulas' article about them, again at Sword Forum:

http://swordforum.com/swords/historical/falcata.html

"It cuts off arms from the shoulder, heads from necks with a single hit, leaves the entrails out and produces all kinds of horrible wounds". - Pliny the Elder, 'Naturalis Historia'

I have go now, but if you want some more, I'll get you some when I get back.

"Never give a sword to a man who can't dance" - Confucius

अजयखड्गधारी
View user's profile Send private message
M. Eversberg II




Location: California, Maryland, USA
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Reading list: 3 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,435

PostPosted: Sat 16 Feb, 2008 5:12 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Yes, it sounds like most cut-oriented weapons. I still have doubts that it could "cut" a helmet, though. Likely, it damaged rivets.

M.

This space for rent or lease.
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,456

PostPosted: Sun 17 Feb, 2008 2:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Avete!

Well, I'm seeing a lot of little misconceptions, here, which is not too surprising since we're dealing with a spread of over 500 years. But maybe I can help out on a few things.

Bennison N wrote:
Ok, Falcata refs... Just a quick google.

"I'm not suprised that you do not recognize me, Caesar... at the battle of Munda my eye was struck out and the bones of my skull crushed. And you wouldn't recognize my helmet either, for it was split by a Spanish Falcata." -- Seneca, De Beneficiis


This may not be an accurate translation. As I recall, the word used was not "falcata" but "machaira", a Greek word meaning simply "sword". So this isn't necessarily a description of the falcata but of the Spanish straight sword which the Romans adopted. The Battle of Munda was part of a civil war, with Romans on both sides, so it seems most likely that this legionary was simply referring to a *Roman* gladius hispaniensis or "Spanish sword", standard issue in any legion at that point. Looks like mine here at far left:

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/gladii3.jpg
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/Smihel1.jpg

I'm also not sure about the word "split", since I seem to remember it as "struck", but I'd want to see a good analysis of the original text before arguing either way about that.

The falcata was definitely an effective weapon, but it was hardly the only type of sword used in Spain (or in Greece, for that matter). There is really no evidence that I've ever run across that it could split shields, particularly since Roman shields were made of plywood.

Quote:
"It cuts off arms from the shoulder, heads from necks with a single hit, leaves the entrails out and produces all kinds of horrible wounds". - Pliny the Elder, 'Naturalis Historia'


This sounds like the description of the carnage caused by *Roman* swords in battle against Macedonians. The latter were used to neat little holes caused by pikes, and to see their buddies being chopped to pieces by the gladius hispaniensis was quite a shock to them. Obviously any good cutting sword could have a similar effect, though, but the point is that the falcata was not seen as some super-weapon in its time.

The Dacian falx is also a scary piece of ordinance, but again it was hardly "the weapon of choice"--most Dacian tribesmen were spearmen. Warriors armed with the falx couldn't use a shield, so they were in the minority, and were more vulnerable to a volley of pila. Here's what a falx can do:

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/falxcut1.jpg

I was the guy holding the other end of the test rig, so I had a good view. The fellow doing the cutting is a weight lifter, and cutting conditions were optimal. That's a heck of a cut, no mistake, but that's as far as it went and the shield is still functional. If the legionary holding this shield had survived--which is quite likely if he wasn't snuggled up against the back of it--he could gut the falxman like a fish before the latter could get his weapon unstuck. There are other photos of that test here:

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/rdays.html

The side cut was frightening since the point would have embedded itself in the Roman's hip, assuming it missed his armor.

We *think* that the Romans added cross-bracing to their helmets, and additional bits of armor such as greaves and laminated armguards to at least some troops, in response to the falx. But we don't know that for certain, since such items show up in Britain, Spain, and Syria, where the falx was unknown. Maybe such extra pieces of protection were just thought as good things to have in general, even if they were inspired by the falx. In any case, the Romans DID conquer Dacia, so the falx didn't stop them.

Quote:
I said that when the shield comes up, attack the legs. I also said that when the shield comes up, pull it down, using your shield or shield hand, and the resulting loss of balance leaves the head wide open. The curvatures of some Roman shields leave a nice spot at the top or bottom to hook your shield or hands into for this.


Um, if you attack the legs, the shield will come down again to block, won't it? If you're trying to "hook" the top of a scutum with your own shield, up around eye level, doesn't that mean your shield is way up over your head? Won't the Roman simply stick you? If you are grabbing with your hand, either you have no shield with which to block, or no weapon with which to attack. Sorry, I have no martial arts training, so maybe I'm missing something here.

Quote:
The Falcata, therefore, is a Roman-killing machine. I can't think of anything of the same period more effective.


The Falcata was mainly used by Spanish tribesmen against other Spanish tribesmen. I'm not even sure how common it was by the time the Romans arrived. The straight swords the Spaniards used were nearly as good at cutting, but could also thrust more effectively, making a more effective weapon overall, I'd say. But clearly it was largely up to personal choice.

Quote:
The Legionary is very vulnerable in the short time (depending on experience...) between his spear being rendered useless and his trying desperately to draw his sword.


I hear things like this quite often, so I don't mean to be picking on you in particular. But aside from the fact that the gladius can be drawn very quickly, how is a man so horribly vulnerable if he doesn't have his sword in his hand for a moment? His shield is still there, after all. From what we can tell, there is plenty of time after the throwing the pilum to get the gladius out, before coming into sword range. So it's usually not a problem.

Chuck Russell wrote:
the one and ONLY thing that will stop the roman army is guerrilla warfare. attack them when they least expect it and are not ready.


Actually, historical accounts show that the Romans were able to counter "guerrilla warfare" very effectively. Their troops could be much more mobile than tribal raiders, particularly those who had to travel with women and children, etc. Numidian cavalry may fly around a battlefield like bloody low-level airplanes, but on the march they are bogged down by oxcarts, so even legionaries on foot were able to catch them and chop them up. That's how Marius beat Jugurtha. Plus the Romans had no qualms about slaughtering civilians and burning towns and crops to make an area unusable by guerillas, or just to ruin their will to fight. Darned effective.

Luka Borscak wrote:
Romans had the hardest time with cavalry armies. They never concquered Parthians. Their combination of horse archers and cataphract charges was to much for Roman legions.


Horse archers and cataphracts were too much for *Crassus*, it's true. But even his plan was not a suicidal one. The horse archers were easily chased off by Roman cavalry, who had shields and armor and were therefore able to ride into javelin-chucking range. The horsearchers had neither armor nor shields so they were defenseless. Had the Roman cavalry not pursued too far, the legions would have been safe. The Parthians were also appalled by the ability of a Roman army to march 20 miles in a day, and always were careful to withdraw out of marching range to camp. So they then had to spend a couple days scouting and catching up... Remember, Parthians were all on horseback, but they had a huge baggage train which was very slow. Good infantry can outmarch a mounted force because you can keep beating them and they'll keep marching, whereas if you abuse a horse it will simply keel over and croak out of spite.

Back to the original question, there is no single weapon of ancient times that could consitently defeat a Roman, or anyone else for that matter. Later medieval weapons might have a better chance, but there's just too many variables involved! So it kinda turns into one of those "Romans versus whatever" questions.

Enough of my babbling! Valete,

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Sun 17 Feb, 2008 3:57 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

According to Silver, most any two-handed weapon beats the sword and target. Of course, you could argue that either the Roman shield was better than Silver's target or that he was wrong. At this point, no one really knows.

I'd bet on a 16th-century armored halberdier over the Roman soldier, though.
View user's profile Send private message
Shayan G





Joined: 26 Sep 2006

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Sun 17 Feb, 2008 8:37 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matthew Amt wrote:


Horse archers and cataphracts were too much for *Crassus*, it's true. But even his plan was not a suicidal one. The horse archers were easily chased off by Roman cavalry, who had shields and armor and were therefore able to ride into javelin-chucking range. The horsearchers had neither armor nor shields so they were defenseless. Had the Roman cavalry not pursued too far, the legions would have been safe. The Parthians were also appalled by the ability of a Roman army to march 20 miles in a day, and always were careful to withdraw out of marching range to camp. So they then had to spend a couple days scouting and catching up... Remember, Parthians were all on horseback, but they had a huge baggage train which was very slow. Good infantry can outmarch a mounted force because you can keep beating them and they'll keep marching, whereas if you abuse a horse it will simply keel over and croak out of spite.



While the Romans were in consternation at this din, suddenly their enemies [Parthians] dropped the coverings of their armour, and were seen to be themselves blazing in helmets and breastplates, their Margianian steel glittering keen and bright, and their horses clad in plates of bronze and steel.
[...]
And when Crassus ordered his light-armed troops to make a charge, they did not advance far, but encountering a multitude of arrows, abandoned their undertaking and ran back for shelter among the men-at‑arms, among whom they caused the beginning of disorder and fear, for these now saw the velocity and force of the arrows, which fractured armour, and tore their way through every covering alike, whether hard or soft.
[...]
Now as long as they had hopes that the enemy would exhaust their missiles and desist from battle or fight at close quarters, the Romans held d out; but when they perceived that many camels laden with arrows were at hand, from which the Parthians who first encircled them took a fresh supply, then Crassus, seeing no end to this, began to lose heart, and sent messengers to his son with orders to force an engagement with the enemy before he was surrounded; for it was his wing especially which the enemy were attacking and surrounding with their cavalry, in the hope of getting in his rear.
[...]
Thus many died, and the survivors also were incapacitated for fighting. And when Publius urged them to charge the enemy's mail-clad horsemen, they showed him that their hands were riveted to their shields and their feet nailed through and through to the ground, so that they were helpless either for flight or for self-defence. 7 Publius himself, accordingly, cheered on his cavalry, made a vigorous charge with them, and closed with the enemy. But his struggle was an unequal one both offensively and defensively, for his thrusting was done with small and feeble spears against breastplates of raw hide and steel, whereas the thrusts of the enemy were made with pikes against the lightly equipped and unprotected bodies of the Gauls, since it was upon these that Publius chiefly relied, and with these he did indeed work wonders.

Those quotes from Plutarch's life of Crassus indicate that on the contrary, the Parthians had many armored horsemen, not just mobile horse-archers. And had the Legions not pursued too far, the horse archers would have, in typical steppe fashion, rode right back and begun the deadly rain of arrows again. Additionally, the Parthian baggage train, largely consisting of Bactrian camels, was noted for its mobility and endurance. Finally, the horse most typically recovered from Parthian-era sites is identified as what is now referred to as the "Turkmen horse." For an idea of the endurance these horses were capable of, refer to this link:
http://www.equiworld.net/UK/HORSECARE/BREEDS/akhalteke/index.htm
Twenty miles a day would hardly have bewildered men mounted on steeds capable of covering 100 miles per day, and that without water.

Back to the original question, I don't think projectiles should be discounted. Arrows, and lots more arrows, seemed to do the trick. If those aren't allowed though, I'd take a good long spear and an agile horse personally, though it's anyone's game at that point! The real strength of armies lies more in their strategies and discipline than on their individual weapons, though those too are an important factor. I suppose it's a tree and forest thing.

Best regards,
Shayan
View user's profile Send private message
Bill Tsafa




Location: Brooklyn, NY
Joined: 20 May 2004

Posts: 599

PostPosted: Sun 17 Feb, 2008 9:04 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I don't think arrow would have been much of a problem form Romans. Their shield were big enough to protect the individual, save the lucky arrow that comes down vertical. If they got into a turtle formation they would be completely safe from even high pitched arrows that came down near vertical.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Shayan G





Joined: 26 Sep 2006

Posts: 140

PostPosted: Sun 17 Feb, 2008 9:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I was half-teasing since I'd referenced the Battle of Carrhae just before--but only HALF teasing, it would seem that multiple arrows would serve well against a legionnaire, even one with a shield, at the very least being capable of maiming him.

Best regards,
Shayan
View user's profile Send private message
Bill Tsafa




Location: Brooklyn, NY
Joined: 20 May 2004

Posts: 599

PostPosted: Sun 17 Feb, 2008 11:36 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Well yeah... even in a turtle formation I can accept that a few arrows are going to find an opening somewhere. Its a given that some men are not going to survive in any war, but I don't think you can kill enough Romans with just arrows to weaken their effectiveness as a legion. From what I recall, Ceaser's armies often numbered as low as 30,000 and were able to fight effectively against Celts numbering 150,000. Of course the Celt numbers are from Roman sources so I would go with the lower estimate. Even if it was just 60,000 Celts that is still impressive.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
M. Eversberg II




Location: California, Maryland, USA
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Reading list: 3 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,435

PostPosted: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 1:45 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I'd say the best weapon would be a dagger in the dark.

M.

This space for rent or lease.
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number
Chuck Russell




Location: WV
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Reading list: 46 books

Posts: 936

PostPosted: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 4:48 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

time and a goofy emperor are the worlds worst thing to a legionaire
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 7:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote:
I don't think arrow would have been much of a problem form Romans. Their shield were big enough to protect the individual, save the lucky arrow that comes down vertical. If they got into a turtle formation they would be completely safe from even high pitched arrows that came down near vertical.


The very large shields give good coverage but what would make a great deal of difference is the degree the shields can actually stop the arrows from killing ot wounding.

Very powerful bows like the longbow were known to pierce many inches of solid oak doors: Maybe the arrow point only sticking out a small amount from the back of a thick door, but a shield would be thinner. Oh, eastern composite bows used by horse archers could also be very powerful in draw weight.

Plate armours are capable of stopping most arrows ( Or at least this has been argued about a lot here and seems to be the consensus even if not unanimous: Search other Topics about plate vs armour for all the heated arguing ).

Shields might stop or deflect arrows when the bows were weak, range high and some shield might be stronger than others like steel targets that are the same as plate armour. ( Roman shield not being made of steel/iron except of a shield boss in some periods or styles ).

So, if the Roman shield stopped most arrows then the tactical situation would be very different than if a large proportion of the arrows could kill or wound through the shields.

Anyone seen or done tests against a period style Roman shield with a powerful bow or crossbow ?

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Ken Speed





Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posts: 656

PostPosted: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 10:24 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I can't quote chapter and verse on this but somewhere I read that when the Romans first started gladiatorial combats the gladiators were armed with the big rectangular shields and short swords of the legions. The fighters would hold the shield with the bottom edge resting on the ground and then hack at each other with the short legionary swords and dodge the oppositions blows from behind the shield which was essentially a portable wall. Apparently the fights would end when one of the fighters was simply too exhausted to continue. Audiences were bored with these protracted battles and so the gladiators were armed differently to make it more "sporting". What seems relevant to this discussion is that it seems the Roman shield was an incredibly effective defensive weapon even when used in one on one fighting.

As far as I know, Roman infantry was pretty tough to beat with hand held (non-projectile) weapons even by cavalry and it seems that from what I've read that when the Romans were beaten it was generally a matter of the enemy general being a better tactician and strategist than the Roman leader and maneuvering the Romans into fighting in a place that made it impossible to use their formations and weapons effectively.

If I had to create a scenario in which an individual Roman legionnaire could be consistently defeated using hand held weapons only, I guess I would create two man teams of fast lightly armored spearmen who could outmaneuver the single legionary like wolves attacking an elk. One on one I don't know what would work not because I think the Roman legionnaires were supermen, I just think that they had developed an efficient array of armor and weapons.



Ken Speed
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,456

PostPosted: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 10:29 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Shayan, thanks very much for the quotes! In all honesty, it's been a long time since I read up on Carrhae, so the memory is a bit hazy. Yes, the Parthians did have a force of heavily armored cataphracts, and I suspect that's what the reference of armor is to. I certainly wouldn't rule out a few of the horse archers having some armor, but it's not likely to have been common. The bit about the less-armored Roman (Gallic) cavalry IS fascinating, though! As always, the situation was more complex than a short summary will show.

Roman shields seem to have been made of plywood between 1/4 and 3/8 inch thick, being thinnest at the edge, with a covering of leather (possibly rawhide) or linen or felt. They are quite tough, but certainly not impenetrable. So I wouldn't be at all surprised to see an arrow shot from close range sticking through enough to spike the guy behind it. Makes sense if you're ducking close behind the shield during an arrow storm--just 4 or 5 inches of penetration and you've got a new nostril... And as folks have said, there will always be a few gaps between shields.

One problem with the testudo is that it's not very mobile. You can advance up to a wall or gateway that you're attacking, but crossing miles of open country under close arrow fire just won't work well. For one thing, all your baggage and cavalry animals are exposed. Crassus had his troops in an open square, as I recall, so was probably possible to shoot all the way across and hit the farthest ones in the back. Even with mail, enough will hit exposed flesh to be a bad problem. It's very clear from the descriptions that arrows very much WERE the problem at Carrhae!

I like the knife in the dark suggestion! Never fight fair.

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bennison N




Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Joined: 06 Feb 2008
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 416

PostPosted: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 3:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I had remembered the term Falcata being a fairly recent development so I looked it up. Luckily, Wikipedia stopped my search short, because I had expected to be looking for a while. Wikipedia credits the naming of the Machaera Hispana as a Falcata to Fernando Fulgosio in1872. This is taken from the Latin Ensis Falcatus (sickle sword), which generally refers to the Greek Harpe.

Falcata was apparently used by Fulgosio to keep the Spanish tradition of using feminine terminology in reference to swords. They were previously known simply as Machaera Hispana.

Machaira Hispana is the exact term used in Seneca's De Benificiis. The recently quoted passage is widely thought to refer to the Falcata, not the Gladius.

This is the name by which Alexander's Macedonians knew the Falcata. It was the standard cavalry sword for them ,and indeed Alexander himself, who nearly always rode Bucephalus into battle, and therefore required cavalry armament. The Machaira also seems to figure prominently in Macedonian religion of the time. The development of the Turkish Yataghan, and the Nepalese Khukri are credited to the contact made with Alexander's advancing troops.

Having seen test cuts performed by a spring steel Falcata, I can safely say that this "axe in sword's clothing", when made of iron and used against bronze or iron armour, is capable of creating a rift in the softer plate, and the cut will be dented inwards. The shape of the blade pulls it deeper into draw-cuts and stabs, and the handle shape prevents the loss of grip caused by jarring impacts

If indeed the Falcata was derived from the Kopis, as is often suggested, and the Kopis from the Khopesh, again often said, this sword has a very long history of usage, especially by European and Mediterranean standards. In fact, if we mark the Khopesh as the beginning, and the Falcata as the end of the evolution of the same sword, it is the longest history of a single sword type in European history, isn't it?

"Never give a sword to a man who can't dance" - Confucius

अजयखड्गधारी
View user's profile Send private message
Jesse Eaton





Joined: 15 Feb 2008

Posts: 34

PostPosted: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 3:59 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Getting back to the question at hand. In a one on one fight with a Roman, I'd prefer to use spatha and buckler with lorica segmentata and a Roman helm. It might sound strange, but a buckler is a much more versatile weapon in a one on one fight. With a long steel spatha I could keep the Roman at range and flank him on his shield side. I've used this tactic many times in sparring many times. It even works well in SCA combat, except that the lower legs are off limit, but this actually makes it a more appropriate equivalent since the Roman shield was large enough to easily cover the legs. The idea that Romans fought with their shields as mobile walls (thus the term 'shield wall') makes sense in terms of mass combat. But, in 1-1 fights, a 15lbs.+ shield is liability. It is restrictive of vision, relatively slow and heavy. In mass combat, where mobility is limited, it is superb. In single combat it is quite cumbersome. It should be noted here that skirmishing troops did not use the large scutum, and preferred other lighter shields, including bucklers. My preferred fighting style is buckler and back sword, but barring that, the spatha would be my next choice. Though I agree that heavy axes, or the Dacian falx would be effective, I think it would put too much emphasis on the first strike. If the ax hit home or at least wound on the first swing, it may be lodged in the shield or caught on the edge. In which case the Roman can and make short work of me. With a long sword, my strikes can out range the shorter gladius and recover quicker than the ax. With the buckler I can parry without loss of vision and without being weighted down. To be fair, I'm not saying this tactic is fool proof, but I think it is a good bet, one that I have used successfully. I admit that most of sparring partners are not legionnaire quality, but neither am I.
View user's profile Send private message
M. Eversberg II




Location: California, Maryland, USA
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Reading list: 3 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,435

PostPosted: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 9:04 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jesse Eaton wrote:
Getting back to the question at hand. In a one on one fight with a Roman, I'd prefer to use spatha and buckler with lorica segmentata and a Roman helm. It might sound strange, but a buckler is a much more versatile weapon in a one on one fight. With a long steel spatha I could keep the Roman at range and flank him on his shield side. I've used this tactic many times in sparring many times. It even works well in SCA combat, except that the lower legs are off limit, but this actually makes it a more appropriate equivalent since the Roman shield was large enough to easily cover the legs. The idea that Romans fought with their shields as mobile walls (thus the term 'shield wall') makes sense in terms of mass combat. But, in 1-1 fights, a 15lbs.+ shield is liability. It is restrictive of vision, relatively slow and heavy. In mass combat, where mobility is limited, it is superb. In single combat it is quite cumbersome. It should be noted here that skirmishing troops did not use the large scutum, and preferred other lighter shields, including bucklers. My preferred fighting style is buckler and back sword, but barring that, the spatha would be my next choice. Though I agree that heavy axes, or the Dacian falx would be effective, I think it would put too much emphasis on the first strike. If the ax hit home or at least wound on the first swing, it may be lodged in the shield or caught on the edge. In which case the Roman can and make short work of me. With a long sword, my strikes can out range the shorter gladius and recover quicker than the ax. With the buckler I can parry without loss of vision and without being weighted down. To be fair, I'm not saying this tactic is fool proof, but I think it is a good bet, one that I have used successfully. I admit that most of sparring partners are not legionnaire quality, but neither am I.


As an I.33 fencer, I regret to inform you that your buckler is less than useful.

The buckler is used to bind an opponents shield and weapon, as well as to protect your sword arm from a counter cut while you execute an attack. The large tower shield is not going to be bound by your smaller buckler, and you're in a bigger risk from the thrust to your gut from behind the tower shield than a cut to your attacking arm.

Additionally, a back sword refers to two things: a sword with only one edge, or a type of 16th / 17th century cavalry weapon. These are not used in sword and buckler fighting.

This aside, welcome to the forums.

M.

This space for rent or lease.
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number
Bill Tsafa




Location: Brooklyn, NY
Joined: 20 May 2004

Posts: 599

PostPosted: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 9:57 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have fought some damn good buckler fighters with my heater shield. A person can certainly be defensible with a bucker & sword and he certainly posses a respectable threat. Particularly if he is quick on his feet and can constantly change the range and movement of a one on one fight. I would not say he has an advantage. I would say that he must be much better then the shieldman just to keep the match even. I think the buckler's advantage is in convenience. You would not walk over to the tavern with a full shield strapped on your arm or slung over your back. You can conveniently hang a buckler on your belt along with a sword and walk through town.

I agree with M. Eversberg II, that there is no need to bother with sword arm. If it happens to be hit it, fine, but there is a whole lot of head, body and leg available to hit. In I.33 both people have bucklers, so they are both mindful of there distance. Legs are safe if you are fighting from the edge of your range. A shieldman, especially a scutum has no such concern. If he can, he will get right on top of you and start pounding away with combinations from different direction. You will need both your sword and bucker committed to defense. Movement and distance is key for the buckler in that situation.

Again, I'm not saying the buckler is not an effective defense. I fight against one every week and I get a run for my money. I also think that most buckler fighters fight much better with larger shields. Of course that is a matter of who I have happened to cross swords with. Its a big world out there.

No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Ross Tippin




Location: Philadelphia
Joined: 23 Oct 2006

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 10:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I would expect that medieval pole weapons like bills and halberds would be very effective against a legionary in single combat as the force that can be generated from the leverage provided by a 7' haft is enormous and, given the thickness of roman scuta (only 1/4" to 3/8" as Matthew Amt pointed out), such weapons would probably do quite a job on it. Also, even though a scutum is thin, its size made it quite heavy (16 to 22 pounds depending on whether your talking about the big 4'+ earlier oval ones of the later, smaller rectangular ones of the imperial period) and would probably be rather akward in single combat where there is a lot of room to move. A man armed with a pole weapon unencumbered by heavy armor could probably probably do quite a job on a legionary's shield and armor (and the legionary behind them) and stay out of range someone encumbered by 15 to 25 lbs of armor (either lorica segmentata or hamata). Also, a halberd would probably be quite good from range at either delivering quick blows to the head or unprotected legs of the legionary and hooking his shield and pulling it so as to expose him. Additionally, a late medieval/Renaissance full plate harness would be relatively impervious the the legionaries gladius.

Also, on a somewhat unrelated topic, above someone repeated the myth that the Romans were very short (5'3"). Skeletal evidence shows that this is simply not true and that they were, in fact, better nourished and taller on average than Englishmen in the Victorian period, who averaged only 5'5 1/2" (167cm). A study by Sarah Bisel of the long bones of ancient Italians who Perished in Pompeii and Herculaneum when Vesuvius errupted in the late 1st C. shows that the males averaged 168 cm (5'6"), which was taller than Italians living in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Other, smaller excavations from Italy in the Bronze Age through Imperial times gives similar figures. A study of the logistics of the Roman army, the name of whose author escapes me at the moment, notes that the roman army had height requirements, so the actual height of the legionaries was probably even taller (at least 170cm/5'7" by the author's estimate). Other studies from the ancient world show that Italians at the time were not markedly shorter than most peoples of the time (and note that as time progressed, the Army was recruited from peoples all around the Empire). Angel's study of skeletal remains from Greece and Western Anatolia shows that Greeks averaged 170 cm (5'7") in Classical Times, 172 cm (5'7 3/4") in Hellenistic Times and 169 cm (5'6 1/2") in the Imperial period. The Celts of Gaul and Britain, despite Roman tales of their great stature, only appear to have averaged around 170 cm (5'7"), whereas the Germanic tribes were truly a bit taller (in the 172-174cm range; i.e., about 5'8"). The Egyptians appear to have been around 167cm (5'5 1/2") and a study of skeletal remains of Scytho-Sarmatian peoples over a period of many centuries yielded an estimate of 169cm (5'6 1/2") for males. In the Dark Ages and medieval times, things don't seem to have changed much. Koepke and Baten showed that the average height for European males generally was within a few cm of 170 from the 1st C. through early modern times (with a small NE to S gradient). Another study (don't remember author's name) showed that the average medieval englishman was about 5'8" (173 cm) in the Anglo-Saxon Period and 5'7 1/2" (171.5 cm) in the high Medieval Period. Stature depends on nutrition to a large extent and the Ancient and Medieval world appear to have enjoyed higher standards of health and nutrition than the early industrial period. It is only with the advent of modern medicine, nutrition and sanitation from the mid-20th C. onwards that people in developed countries began to greatly exceed their ancient and medieval ancestors in average body size.
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 10:57 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
As an I.33 fencer, I regret to inform you that your buckler is less than useful.


I wouldn't be so sure. Silver gave the sword and buckler the advantage over the sword and target. It's again a matter of how different the Roman shield is a from a 16th-century target. And whether you trust Silver.
View user's profile Send private message
M. Eversberg II




Location: California, Maryland, USA
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Reading list: 3 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,435

PostPosted: Mon 18 Feb, 2008 11:10 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
Quote:
As an I.33 fencer, I regret to inform you that your buckler is less than useful.


I wouldn't be so sure. Silver gave the sword and buckler the advantage over the sword and target. It's again a matter of how different the Roman shield is a from a 16th-century target. And whether you trust Silver.


I still don't believe it would be of much general use. The stab-knock might be a possibility, but you may be at a loss trying to bind his shield due to mass. This would further relegate you to attacks against his right side, and he will know this. You may be able to bind his sword against his shield, but I'm not so sure he would allow this so easily.

Though, given that these are professional warriors, he may simply opt to drop the shield.

M.

This space for rent or lease.
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > A question about romans
Page 2 of 5 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum