[Doug M]

Originally Posted by ariel

If slashing is so ineffective, Persian Shamshir would be the ultimate example of a useless weapon. The weapon most similar to the Roman Gladius (Caucasian Kindjal) was used mainly for slashing.

You are presenting a straw man argument. Who else here has claimed that "slashing is so ineffective"?

Also, whether Roman legionnaires occasionally used Gladius for slashing is not relevant: in the heat of the battle they probably smashed their enemies with sword handles

Sorry, but it is "relevant."

The point is that Gladius was constructed as a a double-edged sword. Thus, the slashing function was "built in" from the outset. With that in mind , any argument in favor of it's purely-stabbing function is plain silly.

Are you a martial artist? Have you any experience with sparring with a weapon that has both a sharp point and edge (historical, accurate training, not fencing, wushu, or anything that is sport related)? Based on a weapon's characteristics, one will find use for everything if one explores the weapon carefully. But just because a weapon has both does not mean it will be used equally for cutting and thrusting. You mentioned the shamshir: it can cut and thrust, but will it be used more to cut than thrust? How about a niuweidao? How about a grosse messer? Simply because a tool has multiple functions does not mean it will be used to operate such functions all the time or even half the time. Assuming the position of equality here "is plain silly."

Smallsword is a pure stabber, Omani Kattara (with a rounded point) is a pure slasher. Gladius was designed to do both.

You have just compared apples, oranges, and bananas, each with a different purpose. Making an assumption about any of them without knowing for certain what that purpose was is, in your words, silly. I could do half-swording techniques with a dao, but I have yet to find such a technique verified by history. Just because a gladius could cut does not mean it was always used.