Fighting with a Gladius

[Queshire]

So in fantasy heroes tend to use long swords or stupidly over sized swords, but personally roman gladiuses (gladii?) interest me more, but... I don't really enough about how you would use one to feel confident writing it. So that's what this thread is about! Any advice would be useful but the key things I'm curious about is stuff like whether they're primarily slashing or stabbing weapons, what tactics you should use with them, what are they good at, what are they bad at, how do you use them right and what would be using them wrong?

 

[Malik]

Primarily stabbing weapons. Typically used in conjunction with a shield.

The gladius has almost no handguard / quillons (some had a wooden bowl for a handguard but my understanding is that most didn't; correct me if I'm wrong on this) so the blade is generally kept behind the shield in position, and when striking, the hand remains behind the shield. When thrusted or swung, the shield will either open up along its axis or the sword will follow the curve or edge of the shield, almost like a coule along the shieldrim. The point I'm getting at is, you're keeping your hand behind the shield. Otherwise, you'll be going through life with the nickname "Lefty."

See this demonstration with a Viking Type X, a longer blade which also had no handguard. You'd use a smaller roundshield with a gladius (or a big bodyshield), but the principle holds up.

START AT 20:30.

[video=youtube_share;dkhpqAGdZPc]http://youtu.be/dkhpqAGdZPc?t=20m30s[/video]

 

[wordwalker]

Isn't the idea with short swords (as opposed to broadsword length) that they're meant more for massed formations, so you could make quick thrusts that didn't call for wider motions that endanger the shieldwall? Or as a lighter, close-quarters backup weapon because you're really relying on your spear or other weapons?

I believe the earlier swords were shorter because bronze wasn't as good for longer blades. The Greeks considered the sword inferior to the spear; by the time the Romans came around, they preferred blades, although they kept them short.

 

[Guy]

Most of them had just enough of a guard to keep the hand from sliding down the blade should a thrust come to a sudden halt. There are no surviving manuals from the period, but some commentators (Vegetius was a major one, but I'm stuck in a hotel room right now and don't have access to my books) gave some hints about its use. Like Malik said, it was a primarily thrusting weapon, the thrust preferably going into the abdomen at an upward angle so it penetrated up into the chest and was ripped off to the side as it was withdrawn, opening up a gigantic wound that eviscerated the victim while slicing through the heart and lung(s). There was also a technique in which one caught the opponent's blade on the shield, then reached with the gladius behind him to hamstring him. They tnded to have balance points that were fairly far down the blade for their length (four inches or so from the hilt), but the shield was meant to defend from enemy blows while the sword was meant to strike.

I'm convinced short swords are highly underrated weapons. Combining the speed and agility of a knife with the greater cutting power of a larger blade, I think they were wicked weapons to face.

 

[skip.knox]

Otherwise, you'll be going through life with the nickname "Lefty."

Scaevola.

This is off-thread, but it's worth mentioning. Look up the story of Gaius Mucius Scaevola. That third was a nickname.

And, honestly, if you are looking for jaw-dropping moments of drama, you will rarely do better than Roman history, especially during the Republic.

OK, returning the thread now.