Roman vs Scottish fighting styles?

G

Glamdring

New member
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).
 
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.
 
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.


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.

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.

fd1e301d.jpg
 
Last edited:
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
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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. :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
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).
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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).
 
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.
 
Re: Hadrians Wall

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?
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top