# How did swords change warfare? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 16, 2016, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929 "2016-05-16T19:21:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2016, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929/41 "2016-05-18T15:12:00Z")
Oh, and the reason the Marian reforms were a big change was that they revolutionized not only the Legion’s equipment, but also its composition. It wasn’t a patriotic, citizen-soldier, do-your-duty kind of thing anymore ; it became a professional fighting force. So it stopped being divided by social castes, and along with that went the necessity to pay for one’s own gear. So basically at that point the rich just stopped fighting (except as officers and similar political postings) and instead were tasked (and taxed) to subsidize the poor shmucks who got to do the dying in their stead, along with their equipment. At which point it became easier to standardize, and the principe’s chainmail won out because it’s easier to churn out, repair and size than the triarii’s heavier gear ; and ever so much better than just a couple square feet of metal attached to the chest by a couple of strings 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2016, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929/42 "2016-05-18T15:19:03Z")
> [@Martian Bigfoot](#): > > For one thing, as I sort of mentioned, having your toughest and most experienced troops as a rear guard, only for use in a crisis, seems a bit odd to start with. You’d think they’d be useful in a fight, and probably keen to get in on the action. However, that is how I always see it described, so maybe that was how it was done. And anyway, that’s really neither here nor there. I imagine their role was to hold the line as best they could so that the rest of the army could either regroup or leg it. And as I said, they were often _old_ veterans. Think Volksturm old. > [@](#): > > But having them fight as spearmen, if they were veterans from multiple campaigns, used to fighting with swords? That sounds like teaching old dogs new tricks, which doesn’t compute. Or does it? Originally they were veterans from earlier wars, back when the entire army (including hastati and principes) were spearmen. Set in their ways. You know old codgers :). As well there was a strong element of traditiioooon, i.e. “sure we’ll try a new system but if and when that fails, we oughta go back to the tried and true”. Romans put a lot of store in the “old ways”. Plus I mean, if two separate lines of swords have failed, maybe swords aren’t the way to win that one, yeah ? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Panic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/don_t_panic/32/398_2.png) [@Don\_t\_Panic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Panic)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2016, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929/43 "2016-05-18T15:39:13Z")
> [@Kobal](#): > > 1. rich guys/guys from prominent families but not prominent enough to be part of the cavalry. > 2. grizzled veterans and other men waayyy past their prime. Number 2 may be a reason not to put the triarii up front, so I guess I’ll buy that, but I don’t actually agree with number 1. > [@](#): > > […] getting the rich guys and the prominent families to back you (meaning, don’t get them killed you idiot ! See, I don’t know about this. Sure, in our society, the rich and the powerful usually won’t be found anywhere near the front lines in a war. That didn’t really seem to be the case in the Roman Republic, though. Staying away from the action wasn’t the ideal. As far as I can tell, rich and powerful aristocrats got themselves killed in battle quite a bit. A ton of them were wiped out in the Punic Wars, for instance. > [@](#): > > Originally they were veterans from earlier wars, back when the entire army (including hastati and principes) were spearmen. Well, sure, maybe, but by the time you get towards the end of the Polybian era, those guys would have to be waaaaay old for that to be relevant. Basically functionally immortal. Which I don’t think was the case. > [@](#): > > As well there was a strong element of traditiioooon, i.e. “sure we’ll try a new system but if and when that fails, we oughta go back to the tried and true”. True, that sounds like a Roman way of thinking. But, as I said, you’d think the triarii would have needed to train/fight as spearmen at some earlier time in their campaigning careers for this to make sense. Maybe that’s why they disappear with the Marian reforms: The whole concept wasn’t really a functional thing in practice. And Marius, obviously, wasn’t a guy who gave that many hoots about tradition if something wasn’t working in practice. Anyway, I dunno, I’m just throwing thoughts at the wall. I’m just sort of wondering if we’re missing something. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2016, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929/44 "2016-05-18T15:58:51Z")
Instead of having 3 echelons, using the hastati then if that doesn’t work, the principes then if that doesn’t work, the triarii, wouldn’t it make more sense to have a longer battle line that uses the additional numbers to flank the enemy? So that instead of having battle lines that look like this (E=enemy, H=Hastati P=Principes T=Triarii) EEE HHH PPP TTT You have this: EEE HHPPTT ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Panic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/don_t_panic/32/398_2.png) [@Don\_t\_Panic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Panic)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2016, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929/45 "2016-05-18T16:14:17Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > Instead of having 3 echelons, using the hastati then if that doesn’t work, the principes then if that doesn’t work, the triarii, wouldn’t it make more sense to have a longer battle line that uses the additional numbers to flank the enemy? Yeah, you’d think, wouldn’t you? Why not, generally speaking, be a bit more creative with your troop deployment, at least in certain situations? And, as I touched on earlier, the Romans did apparently get there eventually: Scipio Africanus was certainly known for doing just that sort of thing, which was apparently considered revolutionary at the time. And with the later legions, the now standardized cohorts could be shuffled around more, and used for all sorts of maneuvers. To be honest, I’m a little bit :dubious: about how strictly the triple line battle order was ever followed, even pre-Scipio. I’m guessing it would depend on the commander. But I’m no military historian, just a guy who dicks around on the internet, so take that for what it’s worth. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Panic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/don_t_panic/32/398_2.png) [@Don\_t\_Panic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Panic)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2016, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929/46 "2016-05-18T16:21:56Z")
Too late for edit: That said, one concept built into the triple line system was certainly sound enough, and something that the Romans did stick with: Having reserves. Keeping fresh troops back, to feed into the battle when and where they were needed the most, could certainly be a battle-winning strategy. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2016, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929/47 "2016-05-18T18:15:52Z")
> [@Martian Bigfoot](#): > > Now you’re mixing them up. The hastati were the younger and (relatively) lighter troops. They made up the first line of the three-line system. The principes were the heavier / more experienced ones, in the second line. The triarii were the oldest / most experienced ones, in the third line. The triarii were supposedly employed as a last resort, and armed with spears. > > As for who had spears or swords, when and where: My impression, as I said, was that both the hastati and the principes were primarily swordsmen from at least the Polybian era, ca. the third century BC, onwards (although at least the hastati used spears before this time, hence the name hastati, as \*\*Kobal2 \*\*said upthread). Poorly constructed sentence on my part. I should have said: “Actually, I had the impression that the Principes were more spear-oriented originally, but over time ended up being more similar to somewhat heavier armored / more experienced Hastati toward the end of their run, as by Polybius’ time, both the Hastati and the Principes were both armed with pila and gladius, just like the later legionaries.” On a different note, here’s an interesting link re: [Principes and spears.](https://books.google.com/books?id=i1rQqJo_flwC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=principes+spear&source=bl&ots=h8YxTN2VU6&sig=cJnQPPyuDvafbqRgswsP8Gx0iQk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGruqEneTMAhUHOCYKHbeyB-A4ChDoAQgbMAA#v=onepage&q=principes%20spear&f=false) ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Panic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/don_t_panic/32/398_2.png) [@Don\_t\_Panic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Panic)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2016, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929/48 "2016-05-18T18:28:03Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Poorly constructed sentence on my part. I should have said: > > “Actually, I had the impression that the Principes were more spear-oriented originally, but over time ended up being more similar to somewhat heavier armored / more experienced Hastati toward the end of their run, as by Polybius’ time, both the Hastati and the Principes were both armed with pila and gladius, just like the later legionaries.” Ah, right. I’m with you. Actually, it was also poor parsing/comprehension of what you wrote originally on my part, so sorry about that. ---
**Author:** ![Doyle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doyle/32/439_2.png) [@Doyle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doyle)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2016, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929/49 "2016-05-18T18:42:20Z")
Besides the Romans with the gladius, what other armies could boast most of their soldiers fought with a type of sword? Scythians? Don’t know, just asking. ---
**Author:** ![DudeManBro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9bd4f/32.png) [@DudeManBro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DudeManBro)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2016, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929/50 "2016-05-18T18:58:34Z")
> [@drachillix](#): > > Any battle quickly devolves into a more fluid situation as casualties are inflicted and formation cohesion tends to break down. Once that happens, shorter faster weapons dominate. Using a spear against sword/board once things get nose to nose rarely turns out well for the spearman. Not so, modern HEMA practitioners pretty much universally regard going up against a spear with a sword as very hard. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/l2YgGY_OBx8/maxresdefault.jpg "Historical fencing (HEMA) Swords vs. Spears - thoughts and experiences") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2YgGY_OBx8) A 6-7 foot spear is hard to beat. Rapiers are regarded as the epitome of non-firearm dueling weapons, and are essentially wearable spears. edit: swords are very overrated by entertainment/hollywood. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2016, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929/51 "2016-05-18T19:57:03Z")
> [@DudeManBro](#): > > A 6-7 foot spear is hard to beat. Rapiers are regarded as the epitome of non-firearm dueling weapons, and are essentially wearable spears. First, I’m confused by how a rapier is a ‘wearable spear’? Aren’t rapiers one-handed, well-balanced, and fairly light (for speed), designed for one-on-one duels against unarmored, unshielded individuals? Kind of the exact opposite of a phalanx’s spear? But again, back to the OP, there can be discussion about the advantages of a long spear versus a sword, and more particularly about a group of spearmen versus swordsmen; but there’s no question that tactically, a phalanx is very different from a gladius-armed legion. But I don’t think anyone has said that tactically, a group of swordsmen would be used any differently than a group of axe/club/short spearmen with similar armor/shield and discipline. The swordsmen would be better, but used the same way. So, I don’t think swords significantly changed warfare on a tactical level. ---
**Author:** ![DudeManBro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9bd4f/32.png) [@DudeManBro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DudeManBro)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2016, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929/52 "2016-05-18T21:38:13Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > First, I’m confused by how a rapier is a ‘wearable spear’? Aren’t rapiers one-handed, well-balanced, and fairly light (for speed), designed for one-on-one duels against unarmored, unshielded individuals? Kind of the exact opposite of a phalanx’s spear? I was implying that the two huge advantages of the spear is built into a rapier (hard to see thrust and reach) and so it has a huge advantage over other swords just like a spear has over all swords. This was in reply to a post claiming swordsman can somehow easily beat a spearman in a closer fight. Nevermind that the spear user can just choke up on his grip as the distance demands. Real rapiers are dedicated thrusting weapons that must be sufficiently stiff for that purpose, with the blade often 41" or more. They aren’t exactly light compared to many other single handed swords. You must be thinking about the flimsy bladed smallswords that are wiggled around in films like the 3 musketeers… My point remains. Generally spears \> swords in most outdoor fights, group vs group or one on one. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2016, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929/53 "2016-05-18T21:51:06Z")
> [@DudeManBro](#): > > This was in reply to a post claiming swordsman can somehow easily beat a spearman in a closer fight. Nevermind that the spear user can just choke up on his grip as the distance demands. But then he’s swinging the rest of the length around behind him. He’s working more for less maneuver of the business end. ---
**Author:** ![DudeManBro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9bd4f/32.png) [@DudeManBro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DudeManBro)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2016, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929/54 "2016-05-18T22:02:03Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > But then he’s swinging the rest of the length around behind him. He’s working more for less maneuver of the business end. Still a viable strategy and far from leaving him helpless. Of course a smart spear user wouldn’t just willingly hang out where he doesn’t have the advantage. A step or more backwards and he regains the upper hand again. Watch the video, it’s good. He teaches historical fencing and speaks from experience. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2016, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929/55 "2016-05-19T13:09:02Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Now if you’re talking about the post-Roman / early-Medieval era of warriors across Europe, then we actually don’t know. These were inheritors of both ROman and Germanic martial traditions, but they didn’t write down much that survived. While we have a good idea of their armament, we know very little about how they deployed on the field and fought with those arms. Well, when I said “later”, I meant more along the lines of 6th-10th century Western Europe- Vikings, Saxons, Normans, and so forth. It’s pretty conclusive that they DID fight in shield walls, or so I thought. No one really knows about say… Romano-British soldiers of the 5th-6th century BC, although everything I’ve read implies they likely tried to fight like the Romans had, because they likely considered themselves Romans. ---
**Author:** ![DeptfordX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@DeptfordX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DeptfordX)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2016, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929/56 "2016-05-20T23:01:16Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > I imagine their role was to hold the line as best they could so that the rest of the army could either regroup or leg it. There’s actually a Roman expression \*Rem ad Triarios rediss \*or ‘It’s down to the Triarrii’ which is cognate with our own ‘It’s down to the wire.’ ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2016, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929/57 "2016-05-21T00:04:22Z")
> [@DudeManBro](#): > > I was implying that the two huge advantages of the spear is built into a rapier (hard to see thrust and reach) and so it has a huge advantage over other swords just like a spear has over all swords. I do not agree. Rapiers are fine weapons, for a particular time and place. They are not universally better than other swords. I certainly would not have taken one to the battlefield, and indeed no one really did. It was a civilian weapon of self defense, not really a weapon of war. It’s pretty useless against someone with armor, where as a longsword of the period, or early would have been a much more versatile weapon. I agree that the Spear \> the sword. There are quotes from fencing masters of the period that attest to this. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2016, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929/58 "2016-05-21T01:08:04Z")
> [@DeptfordX](#): > > There’s actually a Roman expression \*Rem ad Triarios rediss \*or ‘It’s down to the Triarrii’ which is cognate with our own ‘It’s down to the wire.’ I’m not sure what the origin of “Triarrii” is, but the Latin cognate of “wire” is “viere” which does not look anything like “Triarrii”. Furthermore the phrase “down to the wire” is a reference to the finish line of a race being marked by wire. Nothing to do with the reserves of an army bring deployed. So, the phrases are idiomatically equivalent, but not cognates. ---
**Author:** ![Chihuahua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dec6dc/32.png) [@Chihuahua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chihuahua)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2016, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929/59 "2016-05-21T02:17:06Z")
> [@Kinthalis](#): > > I do not agree. > > Rapiers are fine weapons, for a particular time and place. They are not universally better than other swords. I certainly would not have taken one to the battlefield, and indeed no one really did. It was a civilian weapon of self defense, not really a weapon of war. Agreed. Rapiers were hardly the apex of sword technology. In the Napoleonic Wars, for example, officers carried the heavier cavalry sabers. By the end of the 18th century the rapier had seen it’s day and was replaced. ---
**Author:** ![DudeManBro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9bd4f/32.png) [@DudeManBro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DudeManBro)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2016, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929/60 "2016-05-21T16:44:49Z")
> [@Kinthalis](#): > > I do not agree. > > Rapiers are fine weapons, for a particular time and place. They are not universally better than other swords. I certainly would not have taken one to the battlefield, and indeed no one really did. It was a civilian weapon of self defense, not really a weapon of war. > > It’s pretty useless against someone with armor, where as a longsword of the period, or early would have been a much more versatile weapon. Agreed that it was a poor choice for a weapon of war, especially against armor. It would still be my first choice over any other swords in a one on one duel though, even though I like other, earlier designs more. And now I wait for someone to post, “But bigger swords can snap a rapier in half!”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-swords-change-warfare/754929.md?page=4)