Roman vs Scottish fighting styles?

[Glamdring]

Can anyone point me to sources on "Scottish model" of sword fighting? I read somewhere that Scottish model used longer swords and smaller shields vs the smaller swords and larger shields of the Roman style.

Would like to do some study of it for ideas about weapon retention (thinking shotgun, rifle/carbine, or riot gear).

[STEVE M]

Paladin Press has a book for sale titled: Highland

Swordsmanship by Mark Rector. I haven't seen any reference

material on Roman styles. WWW.Paladin-Press.com

Hope this helps.

[David Scott]

An old document, handed down from my Scottish ancestors, translates as follows:

Instructions for Battle:

1. Strip.

2. Paint yourself blue.

3. Get Mel Gibson to lead you -- Costner can't do accents.

4. Moon the enemy.

5. Slash, stab, and maim.

6. Drink enemy's blood to wash down the haggis.

7. Play golf.

[Snowdog]

The Romans deployed an ingenious method of warfare.
The unit functioned as a whole, with their 3/4 shields (scutum), segmented armor (lorica segmentata) and lobstertail helm offering tremendous protection. The Roman short sword (gladius) was intended to be used as a thrusting sword, never intended to be used in a slashing fasion, though fully capable in this mannor if need be.


http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid37/pcc9ccef5629084817694916f53fd996b/fd1e301b.jpg


From my understanding, it was common for the first row in the phalanx to throw their spears (pilum) and for the second row and on to use the pilum to jab the opponent while they're busy dealing with the first row. The shaft of the pilum was of mild steel and would bend after impact with a hard object such as a wooden shield. This both rendered the spear inoperable so as not to be thrown back, and rendered the shield in which it may have hit and stuck into unwieldly until it was removed.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid37/p7a616630eb6742bab2d5f94447ed2a07/fd1e3019.jpg

The Celts were notorious for their long swords. Their greatest flaw in combat was that they fought as individuals, relatively independant, without any serious discipline and strategy.

However the longer their swords were, the more they worked against them. The Celts (and others) would swing their mighty swords only to have them blocked by the scutum of the legionnaire, followed by a pig stick from either the first row's gladius or the second rows pilum.

For its purpose, the robust gladius was both extremely effective and incredibly lethal sword.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid37/pa053c20b20461d453b2899f04933ef8e/fd1e301d.jpg

[LawDog]

The Romans used primarily thrusting attacks by short sword and pilums. This allowed them to stand practically shoulder-to-shoulder, whereas the Celts using the long sword and swings naturally needed considerably more room.

Somewhere in the dusty vaults of the old mind, I seem to remember that a Celt swinging a long sword needed a minimum of six feet on either side to avoid pinking his buddies in the attack.

When attacking a massed Roman formation, each Celt warrior (and the room necessary to use his weapon efficiently) wound up having to face Roman soldiers standing shoulder-to-shoulder, which probably winds up with each Celt dealing with three to five Roman soldiers at a time. Not the best of odds.

Strategically speaking, this meant that in head-to-head battles the Roman front line always outnumbered the Celt front line.

Just as important as far as strategy went, the Celts favoured the classic 'scream-and-leap' school of warfare, while the Romans took a more, shall we say, scientific approach, using discipline and fighting as a unit, rather than the individual style of the Celts.

As to your initial question: a typical Celtic sword on display at the Imperial War Museum has a blade about 31 inches +/- in length and one inch wide. Total sword length is in the neighborhood of 37 to 40 inches. Weight, if I remember correctly, is in the 2 pound range. While it has a point, it is primarily a chopping and slashing weapon, and was no doubt used in that fashion.

Roman swords, on the other paw, ran an overall length of about 28 inches +/-, with a blade of 19 inches lengthwise and 2 inches in width, weight ~ 2.5 pounds. The Roman gladius, particularly the Maintz pattern, had a pronounced point for thrusting, although the later styles were just as effective.

http://www.thehaca.com/ can either help you with your question, or point you to someone who can help you.

LawDog

[Glamdring]

So Roman tactics and equipment was designed around unit fighting. And the Celts tactics and equipment around individual fighting. Would Celt model make more sense then for self defense?

[Erich]

Man, first I go out to the range and find that one whole range has been overrun by old geezers dressed up like it was 1880, and now I log onto TFL and find . . . this thread!

I just feel like there's no place in this big ol' world for me and my black guns. :)

[scotjute]

The Roman style of fighting, using coordinated troop movement proved more effective as long as it maintained it's formation order. Once they broke ranks, the wild melee style of the Celts would have been more effective.
Not sure you can say it was more effective or not for defense. However, in a one-on-one situation, would expect the Celt style to dominate.

[wingnutx]

Self defense where? I'd hate to try and swing that longsword inside my house(or in a forest), where it would get imbedded in all sort of things. Out in an open field might be another matter.

[Hard Ball]

Both types of swords were lethal. As the samurai proverb goes "He who is strick once with a good sword will seldom need striking again."

[SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI]

A "barbarian" swinging a sword is vulnerable both when drawing back the weapon and after the blow is fully delivered since their side is completely exposed. This vulnerability is greater against shield-carrying Roman opponents, who can use the shield as a battering ram to pin their opponent before stabbing under or around it.

[4V50 Gary]

What Sic Transit Gloria Mundi (And so passes glory from earth) says. The Legionnaire would push his shield against his opponent. The opponent would have to fight "around" the shield to get to the armored Legionnaire, and in the meantime, the Legionnaire would be thrusting into the side or exposed armpit of his foe. It wasn't great swordfighting, but it conquered an empire. Kinda fell short when fighting horse archers (Scythians & Parthians) though and when units became demoralized and disorganized (Arminius in Germany defeated three legions under Varsus).

[MacMakarov]

Just a few clarifications:

Picts were NOT Celts. They, like the Bosques of northern Spain, were an indigenous people later suplanted by Celtic people. In the case of the Picts they were subsequently subsumed by Irish Gaels (Celts) around the 6th century and do not survive as a distinctive population either genetically or linguistically.

While much Romance has been imbued to the Scots in such movies as Braveheart, such fare has also had the negative effect of creating false images in the minds of the public. As if the real true story of William Wallace had anything to do with the story in Braveheart.

While the Roman Infantry sword was the Gladius they also utilized the Roman "Ensis" which is more in line with what we think of as a "long sword". This was the weapon favored by cavalry. Additionally, two types of spear were used, the pilum for throwing and the hasta for thrusting.

Qunitillius Varus' destruction by Arminius is not a reflection on Roman tactics as much as it was a reflection of Varus' arrogance and cupidity as well as German subtlety and cunning. Had Varus acted as Roman military thinking required he would never have led his troops into the Teutoberg Forrest.

I've very much enjoyed the discussion and found it refreshing to have a change of subject to read and kick around on TFL.

As to the original post, I'll use the old Roman saying:

"Praeceptum primum in certamene gladio, gladium habet!"
(The first rule in a sword fight - have a sword!):D

[BigG]

The Roman infantry was very scientific compared to the competition by and large. Most movie depictions show hacking while the sword was used for stabbing.

Echo MacMakarov's comments RE: Braveheart (fantasy) and the Quinctilius Varus debacle (real). Varus would have been crucified had he survived as he violated every tenet of Roman military doctrine and tradition. His defeat was the exception rather than the rule.

Can't add a lot because of the excellent coverage but just want you to know that I enjoyed the discussion! :D

[Gomez]

An excellent book on the Roman style of fighting is "The Western Way of War" by Victor Hanson. Can't think of any really good book on Scottish, Celt or Pictish traditions off hand. I'll see what I can dredge up.

[pbarrick]

Here's a good book on Scottish swordsmanship. It's a collection of two manuals by two Scottish fencers. Very interesting.

Highland Swordsmanship: Techniques of the Scottish Sword Masters by Sir William Hope, Donald McBane (Editor), Mark Rector (Editor), Paul Wagner

[kantuc2]

You all need to remember the Romans never did conquer what is now Scotland, in fact they hid behind Haridans wall (built to keep the Picts out).

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

Correct; the only reason the Scots have been 'conquered' is because they were sold out. My ancestry is Lowland Scot, from the western marches around Dumfries; for grins, my ancestors would take 3 day weekends killing English and stealing cattle...or was it the other way around? ...I forget.

Anyway, the main problem with swords is that you have to have reasonably terrific upper body strength to use one for any extended period of time in an engagement, whereas a knife or dirk, poinard, etc. is much more maneuverable. Get inside an opponents defenses and neutralize the threat. A mace (or flashlight) is much like a sword in that it requires a greater degree of upper body strength and determination to flail it around. With a crossada or parrying dagger a short sword (or blade) can get inside and do the deed while you've got the flail tied up. 2 hands are better than one.

for examples, see http://www.museumreplicas.com

Too bad there aren't any tech jobs around Scotland; rainly weather agrees with me. A summer home would be nice.

Regards,
Rabbit.
Jamais Arriere.

[MacMakarov]

Regarding kantuc2's post - the Romans actually built two walls across Scotland. The famous Hadrians Wall which was of timber and stone, and the second northerly wall built by the later Emperor Antoninus Pius - the Antonine Wall. This consisted of a earthen ditch and embankment and is still extant in many places along ints original course.

The Romans never subjugated Caledonia (Scotland) or Hibernia (Ireland). Alas for the Picts, the Hibernians did invade Scotland in the 6th Century and supplanted the Picts. Throw in a good leavening of Norsemen in the 9th to 12th century and viola! Scots!

The Scots were betrayed as much by their fellow Scots and Clan Chiefs as they were by the English and their sheep. Being a rabid Scot myself I also have to be candid - the English are often abused and blamed for the many failures and depredations of the Scots but too often this is a convenient cover used to ignore or gloss over what the Chief's did to their Clans - which was to sell us out to the English and mercantile interests.

If you have an interest in Scottish history following Culoden and through the Highland Clearances (my own Highland ancestors were transported as indentured servants into North Carolina in the 1760s). I can recommend no better works than those by John Prebble (Culoden, The Highland Clearances, & Glencoe - he also wrote a very good General History of Scotland). I seem to recall some sword discussions in there too!:D


Quis ipsos custos custodiet -
Who will guard the guards themselves?

[DC8-73]

From 'The Art of Blacksmithing, 3rd Edition', Alex W. Bealer, ISBN 0-06-015225-7

"Many of the ancient Roman swords, however, as well as Merovingian, Indonesian, Indian, and Japanese swords, were made of iron and steel welded together.
One may suspect that many of the Roman swords were made from old horseshoes, which were straightened and drawn out by an apprentice, would have served admirably for twisting together into sword cores. ...
The twisted mass of iron is then welded together and drawn out into a sword shape with the edges drawn out., ready to be welded to the steel blades. Welding must be done with care. A shallow groove is cut with a hot set along the iron edge, as with the edge of an ax. Steel scarfed on one edge is inserted into this groove. When assembled, by hammering the lips of the groove tightly over the scarfed steel, the two metals are welded together in as many heats as necessary. ...
After welding, the steel edge is dressed on the anvil face by drawing down to the final edge with glancing hammer blows, which mold and pack the steel. They are finished with a flatter and polished aith a file and emery. Often the twist of the core is apparent in the finished sword. These techniques...are speculative as no exact record exists."

The Romans didn't fight with junk.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword

[Bahadur]

The Roman weapons such as Pilum and Gladius (originally of Spanish origin) were no objects of art, but were well-suited for Roman warfare, which gradually evolved from a Greek-style phalanx into manipular tactics and then cohort tactics.

In contrast, Picts and Scots largely fought as tribal warbands, neither unified nor independent in a coordinated sense. Such warbands were no match for a phalanx in a pitched battle, let alone armies using manipular or cohort tactics. After the Romans withered the initial shock of a Pictish (Celtic or Germanic) charge, they usually isolated and overwhelmed the warbands in turn.

As with the Germans of the Teutoberg Forest, what these tribal warbands instead excelled in were ambushes on their own territories. Being small and locally mobile, they made very good bushwackers. Unfortunately, when such bushwackings occurred too often, the Romans had a habit of coming back in force, annihilating the warbands, enslaving the women and children and burning the villages - a prospect that often swayed the would-be bushwackers.

Even then, the Roman legions always dug in when on unfriendly territory at the end of a day's march. Such entrenching served as a fortress at nights and a place of refuge during a retreat. Matter of fact, it can be said correctly that the Roman legions conquered an empire with their entrenching tools, not their swords or spears. One exception where this was not done was in Teutoberg Forest when Varus thought all that digging was "unnecessary."

During the Augustan period, the Romans largely relied on barbarian client kingdoms to provide "outer perimeter security" while the Roman legions were held back for punitive expeditions over rebellious or unruly client states.

As for the Scottish boast that the Romans never conquered Scotland/Caledonia, what did Caledonia have in the way of things the Romans were interested in? A bunch of sheep and a few screaming naked warriors on poor and remote mountains were not very interesting to conquerors who were used to the wines of Italy, grains of the Nile Delta, dyes of Phoenicia, rugs of Cappadocia and other riches.

BTW, an odd historical fact about the name "Scotland": it comes from, obviously, the "land of the Scots." The word "Scot" comes from the tribe of Scotii, which originally inhabited Hibernia/Ireland during Roman times. So, in a bizzare historical twist, Picts, who were original inhabitants of Scotland were conquered by a people from Ireland called "Scots." Then later, Scots, now from Scotland (along with the English), colonized Ulster/Northern Ireland and became Ulster Irish. Odd, isn't it?

Bahadur, formerly known as Skorzeny

[LawDog]

Heh. I had a bumper sticker once that said:

Caledonia For The Picts!
Scots Go Home!

I thought it was funny. Nobody else ever got it. :(

LawDog

[Bahadur]

LawDog:

That was a hoot!

[Bahadur]

LawDog:

Having been a HUGE Rosemary Sutcliffe fan in my childhood, what about the slogan:

Britain for Celts!
Anglo-Saxons go home!

Or, more narrowly,

Cymru for Celts!
Anglo-Saxons go home!

[LiveWire]

The Roman short sword was not standard issue until the 3rd or 2nd century B.C., when the Roman infantry adopted the Iberian weapon they called the 'Gladius Hispaniensis ' or 'Spanish sword', which is what we commonly see in movies about the period (e.g., "Gladiator"). This basic design, with various modifications, continued through to the 2nd century A.D.

The cavalry used a longer, narrower, sword that followed Celtic types. The reason for having a longer sword when mounted on a horse necessitates no explanation.

A later version of the infantry sword was the so-called Pompeii sword, in good use by the 1st century A.D., with straight parallel edges and a short stabbing point.

About 100 A.D. an even shorter sword known as a Pugio was used.

The Romans were always keen on such weaponry as was functionally superior to their own, and never hesitated to adopt other people's ideas if they knew it would give them an edge. Sort of like WWII Germany, who "borrowed" the Russian blueprint for the T-34, upon which the Panzer IV and Tiger I were modeled.

[LawDog]

:D@ Bahadur.

I like 'em.

LawDog

[Bahadur]

The Romans were always keen on such weaponry as was functionally superior to their own, and never hesitated to adopt other people's ideas if they knew it would give them an edge. Sort of like WWII Germany, who "borrowed" the Russian blueprint for the T-34, upon which the Panzer IV and Tiger I were modeled.Oh, you were doing so, so well until that last sentence.

Panzer IV and Tiger were both independent designs. General Heinz Guderian, the father of the Panzer Division concept, upon inspecting captured T-34's, urged the German High Command to essentially reverse-engineer them and put them into production as rapidly as possible.

That idea WAS considered, and one of the two major competing Panther designs was mostly a copy of the T-34 (that is to say, a very simple, but rugged design) while the other contender was a much more Teutonic ("over-engineered" and complicated) design. In the end, because of various politico-economic reasons, the more complicated design was adopted as the production model.

[Bahadur]

LawDog:

Yr Widdfa! Yr Widdfa!

[tgace]

The strength of the Roman Legion was first and foremost an almost modern method of military organization (units, ranks, supply, pay and food etc.) and training. Second was their tactics and weapons.

[Bahadur]

Superior Roman military organization was a function of a higher level Roman societal-political organization. This in turn allowed for many of the manifestations of a "modern" military organization, such as discipline, training, supply and so forth.

"Barbarian" tribes with their more primitive societal organizations could not match the Roman politico-economic-military mobilization.

[Glamdring]

Hmm...you mean agriculute => food surplus + alphabet + numbers => logistic (and training) advantage? I don't think the "societal-political organization" is what gave them an advantage. Rather it was a result of their advantages.

[MrAcheson]

Right Roman society revolved around the military and conquest, especially in the early years of the republic. Wealthy families were expected to provide their sons with the equipment needed to field them as heavy infantry units. As the empire grew older it began mass producing items needed for the war machine like armor. Rome also reduced the logistical burden on their armies by creating their excellent road systems which allowed quick communications and troop transportation (for the time).

This is all a function of Roman socio-political structure. Roman advantages didn't appear from nowhere, the romans created them gradually over the centuries through organization.

[Bahadur]

Well, it can seem something like "a chicken and an egg" problem, but it is not. I like Jared Diamond's ("Guns, Germs and Steel") term auto-catalytic in describing the relationship between the political organization and the military advantages, meaning they tend to reinforce each other in an upward spiral.

Reading Delbrueck ("Geschichte der Kriegskunst im Rahmen der politischen Geschichte"), it becomes pretty clear that the main Roman military advantages were two-fold: 1) overwhelming numerical advantage (both in men and weapons) in most cases and 2) superior discipline of the soldiers, which allowed superior tactical formations (first the phalanx, then the manipular phalanx, echelons and then cohorts).

Both were essentially products of a superior political-economic-social civilization, which I acknowledge, were continually reinforced by the resultant superior military capacity.