Pen is mightier than the sword

[fernando]

Hi Jim,
Very interesting and rather wise reasoning on the theme of swords anachronism, as opposed to the period in which 'right swords were used in right hands', a binomial in which the gladius appears to be one of the more charismatic examples.
On the other hand, the climax of the gladius in the hands of Romans was itself an ascension of this sword, as having being copied from other peoples and adapted and regulated to their (Roman) tactical needs.
That's why they candidly called it Gladius Hispaniensis, as having faced it in the hands of Iberians and Celts, when they fought them in the Iberian Peninsula, which they called Hispania.
Actualy it appears that a common Roman practice was, like with the gladius, adopting and improving foreigner weapons.
... Not meaning at all that such practice is a demerit.

[katana]

Thank you Gentlemen for your replies

Hi GC ,
thank you for the pictures and references.I am not certain, but I think some infantry units were also equiped with this sword. However, as an artillary sword I still think, assuming that its combat effectiveness was not paramount, a machete would have been a much better option to clear 'brush' etc. The 'gadius' in this situation was neither combat effective or really that good at cutting foilage. Artillary positions were often main targets of any strategic offensive. Often with the intention of over-running a position and gaining control of the cannon ....and then using it to bombard the original 'owners'. This often meant soldiers would eventually end up fighting 'up close and personal' either defending/attacking the cannon position. After all, the quicker a cannon position is taken the better ...and a stand-off position with defenders and attackers exchanging volleys of lead would allow the cannon to be still used against your troops or alternatively give the defenders time to 'spike' the cannon, making it inoperative.

Hi Jim ,
excellent summary. Even though the sword was 'superceded' by firearms, it still had its place as a back-up weapon. Obviously with the very slow reloading times of early firearms ...bayonets were introduced, effectively making your musket a spear, previously the musket was employed as a club. In this situation, I personally would prefer to be armed with a good sword, it would be easier to parry the thrust of a bayonet. The only down side is the fact that the musket becomes an incumberance ...unless you can 'sling' it over your shoulder.

Never the less, I believe any weapon....even a back-up weapon should be the best design that 'fits' the style of combat. Feedback from the battle field should have dictated the evolution of sword design but, it seems that bureaucrats had other considerations ....cost, etc. Perhaps there was even arrogance that 'we are better..irrispective of the weapons we use'

Interestingly you mentioned the LC1796 (one of my favorite 'pattern' swords.....one day I hope to have one....but I digress ) After watching a documentary it was mentioned that the French were abhored by the wounds inflicted by this sabre. Apparently though, many of the wounds were not lethal....whereas the French 'thrusting' swords, were on balance more likely to kill, rather than wound. Perhaps, this started the 'thinking' that newer British pattern swords should be designed with the 'thrust' in mind...over the 'cut' ?

My other 'concern' of Regulation pattern swords is that fundermentally they would be identical. Blade length, hilt size etc. This would mean that a sword was not necessarily suited to an individual, making it less effective. If we look at the Tulwar, for instance......it is a sword that is easily recognised (pattern ?) but, the differing weight, blade size etc varies enormously. I appreciate that from an armies point of view the cost of variations would be prohibative, especially with 'mass production' of one type of blade which by comparision would be relatively cheap. But the military regulations prohihibiting personal modification seems shortsighted as often soldiers in India (away from government officials) made un-official mods that were 'tolerated locally'.

Hi 'Nando ,
you're right the Romans were indeed very good at adopting 'weapon technology' but, this also helps my point. Millitary input would have inflenced these 'adoptions' not 'back office pen pushers' that 'plagued' later Nations.

Originally Posted by fearn

So far as I know, the pen is mightier than the sword, but only if the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp. (Courtesy Sir T Pratchett).

Hi Fearn ,
great author, great line......but I still wouldn't take a fountain pen to a knife fight ....no matter how small the blades are.....think I'll follow Sean Connory's (Untouchables) advice....I'd take a gun

Kind Regards David

[aiontay]

If I remember correctly, the Roman short sword was primarily a thrusting/stabbing weapon and recruits spent a lot of time training with extra heavy wooden swords and shields on wooden posts to develop their technique. In addition the Romans wore body armor and frequently enjoyed tactical and technological advantages over their opponents. I don't think any of these things held true for the artillery guys issued a faux Roman short sword. No wonder it didn't work too well for them.

[fearn]

Hi Aiontay,

I think we underestimate how good a gladius was as a generic sword. I've been trying to find the old video from Albion Arms showing a someone using a gladius (among other swords) to do tameshigiri mat cutting. The gladius cut every bit as well as a wakizashi, on the upstroke as well as the downstroke. The Albion arms sword was considered an accurate reproduction, so it's a good demonstration.

Sadly, I can't find the video. Anyone else seen it?

F

[A Senefelder]

Fearn, as I recall that was Jason Dingledine cutting in the video when he still worked there if i'm thinking of the same one. I've swung Albion's various gladii on one of my visits and theres no missing that the gladius was a powerfull cutter. I haven't seen the video around in a while. I'll try to remember to ask Mike, thier sales guy, if they still have it around tommorow.

[aiontay]

I'm sure it was a good cutter. I suspect though that it was the training and tactics that made it even better. I just think the artillery guys were handed a sword that frankly they didn't know how to use by people that thought it looked cool rather than really thought through if it was the best weapon for the job at hand.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks David, and the sword was of course typically a back up weapon in the case of infantry ranks and artillery if emplacement was overrun. In the case of cavalry, the charge with the sabre was characteristically de riguer even into the 20th century with Great Britain and Europe (a great book on this subject is "Charge to Glory", James Lunt). I remember years ago talking with a British brigadier who led one of the last cavalry charges in India in plains in the Northwest Frontier about 1932. Best of all was handling the M1912 officers cavalry sword he wielded in that charge, and in a place of honor over his fireplace was a portrait of his horse.

The M1796 was indeed criticized by Napoleon and his marshals for the terrible wounds these sabres caused, and absolutely right, the French did favor 'giving point' as thrusts were usually fatal, encouraging the British to try to find an effective sword for both, beginning with the M1821/29 cavalry sabres. The M1796 was developed by then Captain Gaspard LeMarchant of the British cavalry ,see "Scientific Soldier", cannot recall author but biography of him and his study of the swords he considered to arrive at the chosen form which included tulwar, shamshir and other sabre types. If you read Robson, Wilkinson and some of the books on these military swords, it is amazing how much empirical study as well as field results from actual campaigns became intensely studied. There are a number of interesting prototypes for various patterns which actually did vary in blade length later in the 19th century though.
LeMarchant was truly a cavalry soldiers voice toward developing these swords, and was killed in a cavalry charge in Spain in the Napoleonic campaigns.

Very good point about regulation swords and thier being somewhat difficult in corresponding to other ranks troops with varying physical size as these were purchased en masse and issued indiscriminately without corresponding size considerations in most of the cases. With officers of course thier swords were custom order and privately acquired so you will often see dramatic variations in size.

Naturally in colonial or campaign circumstances, as in any field situation away from the 'parade ground' environment, men will use whatever best suits the need and as required and opportunity allows.


All the best,
Jim

[fearn]

Originally Posted by aiontay

I'm sure it was a good cutter. I suspect though that it was the training and tactics that made it even better. I just think the artillery guys were handed a sword that frankly they didn't know how to use by people that thought it looked cool rather than really thought through if it was the best weapon for the job at hand.

While I honestly don't think much of the artillery swords for various reasons (I'm not fond of metal handles, for one thing), I don't think they were intrinsically a bad idea.

Short swords were used by everyone from the hoplites to the legions for a variety of types of warfare, over a variety of terrains, for about 700 years, give or take, and they were generally side arms for people who used something else as a first weapon. Versions were carried by gladiators and by civilians.

Someone with a classical education would know this. They probably did not have a good idea of what would make a good short sword (archeology being in its infancy at that point, they'd have to depend on Trajan's column and similar artworks for designs), but when they were casting around for a good side weapon for their foot soldiers, they could do much worse than copying classical short swords.

Best,

F