[Glamdring]

I have come across this underarm thrust/stabb in several novels about people using more or less Roman type fighting tactics.

I have not seen any pictures of what they mean, but I just can't visulize what they mean. Or is it just fiction bs?

Bulk of my weapons (non gun) training has been either Kali or LE (ie basics of regular baton and PR-24).

Thanks

[FPrice]

It sounds like a thrust from a low position, i.e., the arm(s) held down low and the knife/spear being thrust upwards at your opponent. This would be the opposite of an "overhand/overhead thrust" in which the arm is held over the head and the knife/spear thrust downwards at your opponent.

Does this make sense?

[Kjay]

Trying to reconstruct Roman infantry fighting tactics is a tough act - they left no contemporary manuals. The sword worked in conjunction with their large body shield. Try to picture rushing the opponent - pushing forward and upward with your shield in an attempt to creat an opening for a low thrust with the short sword. Past this initial rush, I suspect that the average legionary would hunker behind his large shield and cut and thrust at whatever came into range. Fighting up close and personal... :uhoh:

[Glamdring]

Well part of my problem is I don't understand how you can thrust to any effect with one hand when in a formation.

But I am NOT any kind of sword/spear expert.

What reconstruction I have done, and what I learned in college (Anthropology) studying the King site (Native Americans killed by spanish) it seems to me that the edge was used more than the point with swords. That spear was probably used more to keep calvery off (when using spear AND shield, not two handed use of spear/pike) than serious offensive weapon.

Do correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't thrusting with thrusting sword require footwork to be effective? If you use footwork in a formation and it isn't in time with rest of the unit you would lose formation, I think.

[Ol' Badger]

OK. Ready?

There! Hope that helped you some. :evil:

[Don Gwinn]

"Thrusting" the way the Romans did in formation was probably more the arm and upper body than anything else. They were not thrusting a rapier toward a relatively distant opponent who was free to evade with fancy footwork. They were stabbing people who were crushed up against their shields half the time in a mob.

If you look at armor in the Roman era, it's mostly cuirasses and girdles on the body. One of the larger vulnerable areas with that kind of armor, and also a difficult place to defend if you were caught while raising a sword or spear, would be the underarm area. I would venture to guess that soldiers may have been trained to watch for that area and thrust into it when possible. Thus, not a catch-all name for all rising thrusts from a low position, but a distinct technique to take advantage of a known gap in classical armor.

Of course, all this is worth as much as the paper it's printed on, and it's not printed on paper. Just my WAG.

[Don Gwinn]

Just a further note--the Spanish Conquistadors weren't the Roman legions. They were very different people with different ideas about combat. Even in the Romans' time, if you'd asked someone else how to fight you'd have gotten a different answer than you'd get from a Roman legionnaire.

When the Romans fought some of the Northern European tribes, for instance, they found that the "barbarians" used long straight swords which they swung, often round their heads, in long, powerful arcs designed to cut through an enemy entirely.

The "barbarians," to their dismay, found that to engage the Romans at close quarters they had to pack in tightly as the Romans did, and there was no room for their large, arcing cuts. The Romans, meanwhile, used short swords and stabbed from behind their tightly packed shields as they advanced. Great power in the thrust was not required for the Romans, because they could use their shields and their advance to "herd" and compact the enemy.

There's nothing very romantic or inspiring about the way the average Roman foot soldier fought, to my mind, unless it was the courage and strength of mind they displayed in not breaking their formations. Basically, he followed commands as closely as he could, stayed as close to his neighbors as he could, and stabbed whatever was moving in front of him until it fell down and he could stab the next one.

[Don Gwinn]

Ol' Badger, that's not quite it. Watch this:


See the emphasis? :D

[Jim March]

The Romans started out with bronze swords with poor edges, so the tip would have been a lot more effective. Even once they had iron and then crude steel, their metallurgy was poor.

The Spanish metallurgy you were dealing with was MUCH better.

Roman infantry techniques were descended from the Greek "Hoplite" formation. The Greeks used moderate-length spears as their primary weapon, stabbing in an overhead fashion one-handed (shield in the other). This was a bit like Zulu practice, 'cept that Zulu shields were relatively light (mostly arrow defense). If the Greek's spear was unavailable, their backup weapon was a short single-edged chopping sword, very "tip heavy", which was later adapted into both the Spanish Falcata and the Indian/Nepalese Khukuri (based on the swords Alexander's men used).

The Romans enlarged the shield, going from round to large rectangles, and decided to retain the "thrust and stab" of the Greek spear but in a shorter sword. I would guess that they would defensively "chop" at any incoming limb poking over the tops of their shields, crushing arms if not cutting 'em off, and then offensively stabbing either over the tops of their shields in "Greek fashion" or in lower around their own shields.

[El Tejon]

Jim, isn't the Greek short sword descended from the Egyptian kopki? You know, that sorta curved paring knife thingie.

[Tamara]

As an aside, the Greeks also used a short, broad-bladed stabbing sword, much like the later Roman gladius.

[Sir Galahad]

IIRC, the Greek short sword was the "xiphos" and used mostly by the Spartans.

[Jim March]

El Tejon: you've got it backwards - the Greek piece came first, made it's way to Egypt with Alexander. Who also made it to the base of the Himalayas where the Nepalese kept it going and Bill Martino will be happy to import one for you :).

How it got to Spain is a bit of a puzzle :).

Sir Galahad: Most of the Greek city-states contemporary with the Spartans used basically similar gear. At the Athens games, one event was a footrace in full bronze armor and the competitors from the different towns would have had to be using similar armor as basic fairness, I'd assume :).

Ditto a lot of the other events, spear-toss and the like. (Against targets, the Greeks were more civilized than the Romans, it wasn't a bloodbath.) I would guess that this tendency to compare and "race" infantry and tactics led to a lot of standardization, much like...I dunno, NASCAR or something :).

[Tamara]

El Tejon: you've got it backwards - the Greek piece came first, made it's way to Egypt with Alexander.

The Khopesh existed while the pre-Mycenaean Greeks were whacking on each other with sticks and stones.

(The earliest Egyptian khopeshes date to before the 19th Dynasty/16th Century BC.)

[FPrice]

Back to the question at hand...

I recall seeing a recreation on a history program of a single combat between a Roman soldier and some sort of Barbarian (Viking, Gaul, etc.). The Barbarian rushed the Roman soldier and tried to over-power him with a Berserker-type attack, lots of overhead sword blows. The Roman soldier just hunkered down under his shield, taking the blows on the shield as he worked his way under the Barbarian's attack. As soon as he was in range the Roman soldier used his short sword to thrust upwards and into the Barbarian's unprotected midsection and defeat him.

[El Tejon]

Jim, I don't think I do. Not really a blade guy and the system I study now does not stress weapons until I go higher. However, I do remember reading Burton who, IIRC, held that the Egyptian sword (the Khopsh) was the origin of the Greek and Gurkha blades.

However, like gun makers now, they all copied off each other and then called it "new and improved.":D

[Sir Galahad]

Some great info can be found in "Warfare In The Classical World" by John Warry. It has illustrations that show formations, weapons, tactics, and armor. For a great read on some of the ideas behind it all, check out "The Western Way Of War: Infantry Battle In Classical Greece" by Victor Davis Hanson. Thucydides "The Peloponnesian War" also has some good info. Some of the Osprey series of books give some good illustrations and discussions of tactics. "The Book of the Sword" by Richard F. Burton has some interesting info, too, and you can usually find that book pretty cheap at used bookstores.

[Sir Galahad]

Yes, the Egyptian Khopesh predates the army of Alexander. The Egyptian Khopesh probably evolved from an agricultural tool, much the same way as the halberds and billing hooks of the European Medieval period evolved from an agricultural tool. Now, the Falcata---now THAT'S what I call a sword!! :D

[Jim March]

Huh. Interesting. I guess I got that backwards?

Oh well.

:)

[hso]

If the chest and shoulder are armored the armpit is one of the few "soft" targets to get a killing thrust into the chest.

[Tamara]

Do you have Peter Connolly's Greece and Rome at War and Adrian Goldsworthy's Roman Warfare? If not, you should get them... ;)

[Sir Galahad]

Thanks, Tamara! I shall look for them. I'm a sucker for books on warfare in the Classical World. :D

[Sunray]

In days of old when knights were bold.. Never mind, hso, has it right. When full plate armour, as oppposed to part plate and part mail, mostly to defeat arrows, came to pass(15th century, 1400's), the only way of killing an opponent was to put your thin bladed sword or more often something else into a less armoured spot. The armpit would have had mail armour so, that, would not have been the spot of choice for a dagger. That's what eye slits were for. The sword of the day, however, would have gone in like stink. Long and pointy made for just that purpose. The other plan was a mace, war hammer, falchion(a big heavy sword) or a morning star(your ball and chain). Surf over to http://www.arador.com/discforums/index.php
for much more info on Medieval weapons and armour.

[gun-fucious]

ask these doods:
http://www.romanarmy.net/
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/gladius.html
http://www.mcbishop.co.uk/
http://www.romanempire.net/romepage/
http://www.novaroma.org/main.html
http://www.legion-fourteen.com/romans.htm

http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public/content/special/James_Hurst/THE_ROMAN_SWORD_IN_THE_REP.htm :

STYLES OF FIGHTING

The size and style of a sword is a reflection of how it is used, so that we can draw some inferences concerning use from the nature of these blades. The gladius Hispaniensis was single-edged and always pointed. It was still a long blade, however. From this it can be deduced that the gladius Hispaniensis was almost exclusively used for stabbing the enemy, rather than hacking at him. This reflects the skill of the professional Roman soldier over most of his enemies. There is much evidence that this was the popular way of fighting against the longer Celtic swords. The Roman Livy tells of a duel he heard of between a barbarian and a Roman. The Roman was armed with a shield and a sword, as was the barbarian. The Roman caught the bottom of the barbarian’s shield with his own, and lifted the barbarian’s shield out of the way. He then stabbed him in the stomach and groin, killing him (Evangelista 507). The spatha was also used by cavalry, as stated above. The mounted cavalry needed the extra reach that the spatha afforded to reach the infantry from the top of a horse.

The double edge of the "Pompeii" sword also gives evidence to the fact that the Romans valued the ability to cut at an enemy, rather than just thrust at him. The semispatha was also in use at the same time for another reason. A short blade is much better suited for fighting against a long sword, when in the hands of a skilled soldier. The quick delivery of a stab to the face or stomach was still a favored method of executing the enemy. The warrior just had to step inside of the enemy’s guard and kill him. Short swords are also less tiring when used in conjunction with a shield.

http://abacus.bates.edu/~mimber/Rciv/training/TRAINING.HTM :
The Romans' logic on this manner of sword fighting was that a hit with the edge of the sword rarely killed whereas a sharp stab will almost always be fatal. Another reason they fought this way was that when stabbing, the arm and side of the body are not exposed. However, when striking or cutting, the arm and side are exposed making the soldier more vulnerable to his enemy.

[Correia]

Anybody have a picture of a Spanish Falcata? Never heard of it before.

[Jim March]

The Falcata is a distant cousin to the Khukuri:

http://www.mwart.com/product.asp?pid=847&cat=41

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

http://swordforum.com/swd/dt/dt-falcata-largesand.jpg

[Correia]

Thanks Jim. That is a pretty good looking sword. :)

[Andrew Wyatt]

actually, i think it's classified as an ax.

[Correia]

Hell Andy, I don't care what they call it! I want one. :D You've seen me, you have got to admit that that Falcata would be a good match.

[Andrew Wyatt]

if anything, it'd be too small. :)