Is the Xiphos or Roman Legion Sword the Ultimate All-Around Combat Blade?

[St33L]

From what I understand, wars and battles that have been chronicled state testimonies of various blades and their results.

Curved swords tended to be used as slashing weapons (e.g. saber), and they tended to badly maim the opponent more often than killing them (at least not right away). Whereas, swords meant to thrust (e.g. rapier) tended to kill the enemies, but were not as versatile.

Given that very general trade-off, would the Xiphos or Roman Legion sword be an optimal balance of design? It's double-edged, has a recurve for slashing, and a sharp point for thrusting. Perhaps if it was single-edge, the spine could be used to more effectively block blows from another sword or blade, without damaging the cutting edge and experiencing less force felt by the wielder. In which case, perhaps a falcata would be more optimal (?), though I'd imagine a dulling blade was common so a double edged sword may have been preferred.

Comparing this ancient Western sword to the katana, I understand that the katana wasn't used to block, or the samurai would risk breaking the sword. Instead, they'd dodge or redirect the opponent's attack. However, it was excellent at slashing and had much lighter weight than them.

A chopper such as a battle axe seems to be "one" dimensional in combat, meaning that it would deal a very powerful, slashing blow, but lacks the thrust and reach of longer blades. A more balanced version I believe would be a kukri, which is very similar to a falcata in its blade profile, but is on the other end of the spectrum in that it tends to be more for slashing than thrusting.

Does this make the Xiphos or Roman Legion sword optimized as an all-around combat blade? I also understand that spears were typically the infantry men's primary combat weapon, but as far as "longer steel blades" are concerned, how would the Xiphos or Roman Legion sword compare to other combat blade profiles?

Let me know if there are any more details, corrections, etc.

Thanks in advance!

 

[BitingSarcasm]

There is no optimal sword. Both the xiphos and the gladius were parts of a weapon system that involved a large shield and usually teams of similarly-armed combatants. The xiphos had to be short because it was intended for use in the crush of phalanx vs. phalanx and was made of bronze. Romans used the gladius paired with the scutum, and they didn't bother fencing the man in front, their classic target was the enemy trying to engage the man to the right. It's much easier to stab the man who isn't actually looking at you. Katanas have a cult-like following, but the primary weapon of the samurai was the bow and spears were preferred for hand to hand.

Weapons arise as a reaction to the tactics of the combatants and the resources available. Would the katana as we know it even exist if Japan had large amounts of easily available iron ore? There would have been no need to beat out the impurities with folded layers, and there wouldn't have been much point in putting that much work into a cutting sword if people were running around in full plate. The Iberians, for whatever reason, liked the falcata, so the Romans reinforced their helmets. The Marines were taking too many casualties from Moro blades, so they re-introduced leather neck armor and ditched the .38 for the .45. In China, the Red Boat resistance fighters would ambush Ching officials in alleys where twin butterfly swords had the advantage over the spears and longer swords of their bodyguards.

And what is the "ancient Western sword?" There are dozens of different types, in a full spectrum of lengths, blade shapes, and so on. If a weapon is good at one task, it frequently has to trade off with a disability. Nobody wants to be on the business end of a 2-handed Highland blade, but it is hardly ideal indoors or in an obstructed environment. Axes are not resource intensive (they can often thrust, too), but require room to use and can be broken at the haft easier than an all-metal weapon. The xiphos and gladius are fine blades for close quarters, but with no shield for defense their length becomes a problem. What can you afford to arm your troops with, what can they use effectively, and wil they work against enemy defenses? The weapon that has probably effected the most battles and regime-change through history might just be the sharpened and hardened bamboo pole.

 

[St33L]

There is no optimal sword. Both the xiphos and the gladius were parts of a weapon system that involved a large shield and usually teams of similarly-armed combatants. The xiphos had to be short because it was intended for use in the crush of phalanx vs. phalanx and was made of bronze. Romans used the gladius paired with the scutum, and they didn't bother fencing the man in front, their classic target was the enemy trying to engage the man to the right. It's much easier to stab the man who isn't actually looking at you. Katanas have a cult-like following, but the primary weapon of the samurai was the bow and spears were preferred for hand to hand.

Weapons arise as a reaction to the tactics of the combatants and the resources available. Would the katana as we know it even exist if Japan had large amounts of easily available iron ore? There would have been no need to beat out the impurities with folded layers, and there wouldn't have been much point in putting that much work into a cutting sword if people were running around in full plate. The Iberians, for whatever reason, liked the falcata, so the Romans reinforced their helmets. The Marines were taking too many casualties from Moro blades, so they re-introduced leather neck armor and ditched the .38 for the .45. In China, the Red Boat resistance fighters would ambush Ching officials in alleys where twin butterfly swords had the advantage over the spears and longer swords of their bodyguards.

And what is the "ancient Western sword?" There are dozens of different types, in a full spectrum of lengths, blade shapes, and so on. If a weapon is good at one task, it frequently has to trade off with a disability. Nobody wants to be on the business end of a 2-handed Highland blade, but it is hardly ideal indoors or in an obstructed environment. Axes are not resource intensive (they can often thrust, too), but require room to use and can be broken at the haft easier than an all-metal weapon. The xiphos and gladius are fine blades for close quarters, but with no shield for defense their length becomes a problem. What can you afford to arm your troops with, what can they use effectively, and wil they work against enemy defenses? The weapon that has probably effected the most battles and regime-change through history might just be the sharpened and hardened bamboo pole.

I see your point of relativity.

Let's say you get any and all if these blades in your collection. Someone breaks into your home. You don't have a firearm handy, but these swords are in front of you. As you brainstorm (consciously and/or unconsciously) through all of the possibilities that may happen when you confront the intruder in your home environment, which blade do you grab? And, of course, this is hypothetical, but the question remains.

As an aside, I really dig this Filipino Janap below. It's got a nice recurve with a hint of a scimitar, while looking beefy and has a nice handle profile that many modern and contemporary Bowie knives have.

 

[horseclover]

Does this make the Xiphos or Roman Legion sword optimized as an all-around combat blade? I also understand that spears were typically the infantry men's primary combat weapon, but as far as "longer steel blades" are concerned, how would the Xiphos or Roman Legion sword compare to other combat blade profiles?

While somewhat similar to each other and other swords through history, swords did evolve for various reasons. Both optimized for their time and purpose. Swords were secondary weapons through much of history. Towards the end, more relegated to cavalry use or fascine work (19th-20th centuries). In the 18th century, before wider spread of uniform bayonets, short swords often slimmer and more oriented for the thrust.

The counter question would be if the xiphos and gladius were the epitome of form, why didn't they prevail through the centuries following them?

The French issuing their 1831 to infantry troopers the last large scale use of a gladius type and resserved much more for camp work and fascine work than combat. The US 1832 foot artillery sword little carried and again, for wood work more than a weapon. Capable of last ditch combat but much discarded by the great gun battles. Most countries by that time going with a briquet sabre as a sword for troopers or various engineer/artillery falchions and sawback short swords for fascine work and utility.


Far more machetes and the like have been used as weapons since then..Ask any modern soldier about cqb blades and few opt to carry the extra weight. Some do but the majority don't.

If it is zombies you are worried about they might be a favorite for some.

Context is everything

GC

 

[Mecha]

Without any context, the question ultimately comes down to, "If you had to pick one sword, just one sword to take into battle, then what would you pick?" So I guess it all comes down to which one's your favorite!

 

[JParanee]

All cultures developed blades that fit their criteria

All depends on what is your criteria

I have respect for all cultures and That extends to their blades also

My preference is the Japanese style blades when it comes to swords

 

[shaw11b]

If I'm in bed and awake and only could grab a sword it would actually be my rapier. Due to narrow hallways, quickness of point and a 40 inch blade. It has been proven that the thrust is greater than the slash or cut as it pertains to a killing blow. I would have my rapier.

 

[crimsonfalcon07]

Well, I'd reach for the shotgun, or another firearm first. Otherwise, if I need a blade for self-defense, I'm reaching for whichever one is closest to hand.

 

[oolong dao]

There is no optimal sword. Both the xiphos and the gladius were parts of a weapon system that involved a large shield and usually teams of similarly-armed combatants. The xiphos had to be short because it was intended for use in the crush of phalanx vs. phalanx and was made of bronze. Romans used the gladius paired with the scutum, and they didn't bother fencing the man in front, their classic target was the enemy trying to engage the man to the right. It's much easier to stab the man who isn't actually looking at you. Katanas have a cult-like following, but the primary weapon of the samurai was the bow and spears were preferred for hand to hand.

Weapons arise as a reaction to the tactics of the combatants and the resources available. Would the katana as we know it even exist if Japan had large amounts of easily available iron ore? There would have been no need to beat out the impurities with folded layers, and there wouldn't have been much point in putting that much work into a cutting sword if people were running around in full plate. The Iberians, for whatever reason, liked the falcata, so the Romans reinforced their helmets. The Marines were taking too many casualties from Moro blades, so they re-introduced leather neck armor and ditched the .38 for the .45. In China, the Red Boat resistance fighters would ambush Ching officials in alleys where twin butterfly swords had the advantage over the spears and longer swords of their bodyguards.

And what is the "ancient Western sword?" There are dozens of different types, in a full spectrum of lengths, blade shapes, and so on. If a weapon is good at one task, it frequently has to trade off with a disability. Nobody wants to be on the business end of a 2-handed Highland blade, but it is hardly ideal indoors or in an obstructed environment. Axes are not resource intensive (they can often thrust, too), but require room to use and can be broken at the haft easier than an all-metal weapon. The xiphos and gladius are fine blades for close quarters, but with no shield for defense their length becomes a problem. What can you afford to arm your troops with, what can they use effectively, and wil they work against enemy defenses? The weapon that has probably effected the most battles and regime-change through history might just be the sharpened and hardened bamboo pole.

Everything you said is the reason i avoided the mediterranean swords when everyone was tacticooling them a few years back. It's a simple mistake to assume that just because the romans dropped alot of people they fought using the gladius that it's somehow better than the 2000 years worth of swords it evolved into. To answer the OP the best all around sword is in my opinion a heavy saber or cutlass. it's single edge and design make it more fearsome in a fight against a unarmored opponent, which how many people will you find wearing functional plate nowadays? If someone decides to wear a shark shirt or any kind of mail, a good heavy saber usually has a point for punching through it with ease. It doesn't require a shield but can work with one, and the saber has many cousins who unlike gladius family, still have living martial traditions teaching their use all across the world, not to mention military saber fencing being properly recorded unlike all those old medieval weapons with their secret italian techniques, spanish circle math, and german dueling shields.

I mean or you could just get a bayonet and put it on a AK then you have the 2 deadliest weapons ever in one a spear and a gun.

 

[Triton]

There is no optimal sword. Both the xiphos and the gladius were parts of a weapon system that involved a large shield and usually teams of similarly-armed combatants. The xiphos had to be short because it was intended for use in the crush of phalanx vs. phalanx and was made of bronze. Romans used the gladius paired with the scutum, and they didn't bother fencing the man in front, their classic target was the enemy trying to engage the man to the right. It's much easier to stab the man who isn't actually looking at you. Katanas have a cult-like following, but the primary weapon of the samurai was the bow and spears were preferred for hand to hand.

Weapons arise as a reaction to the tactics of the combatants and the resources available. Would the katana as we know it even exist if Japan had large amounts of easily available iron ore? There would have been no need to beat out the impurities with folded layers, and there wouldn't have been much point in putting that much work into a cutting sword if people were running around in full plate. The Iberians, for whatever reason, liked the falcata, so the Romans reinforced their helmets. The Marines were taking too many casualties from Moro blades, so they re-introduced leather neck armor and ditched the .38 for the .45. In China, the Red Boat resistance fighters would ambush Ching officials in alleys where twin butterfly swords had the advantage over the spears and longer swords of their bodyguards.

And what is the "ancient Western sword?" There are dozens of different types, in a full spectrum of lengths, blade shapes, and so on. If a weapon is good at one task, it frequently has to trade off with a disability. Nobody wants to be on the business end of a 2-handed Highland blade, but it is hardly ideal indoors or in an obstructed environment. Axes are not resource intensive (they can often thrust, too), but require room to use and can be broken at the haft easier than an all-metal weapon. The xiphos and gladius are fine blades for close quarters, but with no shield for defense their length becomes a problem. What can you afford to arm your troops with, what can they use effectively, and wil they work against enemy defenses? The weapon that has probably effected the most battles and regime-change through history might just be the sharpened and hardened bamboo pole.

One of the better posts I've seen on here in a while. Of course it doesn't hurt that I agree with it....

 

[abbydaddy]

I think biting sarcasm gave you about the best answer that you are going to get on the topic.

If you are asking what would be best for home defense, then you might be getting more into practical tactical type questions.

All that said, if it were up to me to decide what type of sword I would want for home defense/fighting, I would probably go with that classic American short sword, the Bowie Knife. Because really, they are essentially short swords, and they are designed for fighting. It might not be what comes to mind when you think of a sword, but a big Bowie seems like a good all around sort of bladed option, and short enough to use indoors.

 

[Ladams19]

interesting discussion. Thank you all for your insight. I was actually thinking of the same general question.

 

[Ed E]

I thought about swords in the home or outside in a modern urban environment and bought into all the recent "tactical" swords.
Ultimately decided that a 2 handed short sword was the way to go.. total length 28".

 

[Schmoopy]

I don't think there is a "one perfect sword", it would heavily depend on the scenario.

A "Roman legion sword" is quite generic, their empire lasted hundreds of years. Their tools and military doctrine changed many times throughout this period.

Regarding the Xiphos, it looks quite short and heavy for what it is. There are longswords that exist in that weight range. Another nitpick is that it lacks a guard. However, it does seem to be a very well made and sturdy sword.


With that said, if you are in an ideal scenario where there are no space limitations, and weren't allowed anything in your offhand, a large 2 handed sword would probably be the best bet. They were one of the few notable swords that could be carried out onto the field as a primary weapon without a supplemental tool in the other hand. Too bad the technology to make them effectively only came around the 16th century, the time period where most hand to hand weapons were phased out by firearms.

(I am biased towards big swords though, so take everything I say with a grain of salt )


edit: just read one of the above posts. Going to have to agree the best all-round bladed weapon is an AK with a bayonet attached.

 

[Ladams19]

edit: just read one of the above posts. Going to have to agree the best all-round bladed weapon is an AK with a bayonet attached.

Yep, I agree on this one too. This is about the best all around. It is tough, can withstand a pure hell beating and still fire. May not be the most accurate but sure keeps on ticking. With bayonet attached you got reach and crowd control measures installed.

 

[cchu518]

I thought about swords in the home or outside in a modern urban environment and bought into all the recent "tactical" swords.
Ultimately decided that a 2 handed short sword was the way to go.. total length 28".

I'm embarrassed to say that I keep one of these by my bedroom door as a defense of last resort. In close quarters like a hallway I feel that I could successfully wield it.

 

[BitingSarcasm]

Aww....the topic goes from xiphos and gladius to home defense and nobody says Smatchet? Every thread needs some Smatchet, it's like cowbell. I think my favorite rifle with bayonet (and one of its bayonets is a small sword) is the Garand, it lobs some damn big bullets. Unfortunately, Dad isn't about to give me his. I admit to checking out odd noises with a BK 9 in hand, but my home "sword" is a bian, hard whip. 5 pounds of steel in a short club that won't bite and bind into drywall or all the oak trim I put in. Once I can trust the kids to not use them to redecorate the house, the swords can come back from the garage.

 

[abbydaddy]

Aww....the topic goes from xiphos and gladius to home defense and nobody says Smatchet? Every thread needs some Smatchet, it's like cowbell. I think my favorite rifle with bayonet (and one of its bayonets is a small sword) is the Garand, it lobs some damn big bullets. Unfortunately, Dad isn't about to give me his. I admit to checking out odd noises with a BK 9 in hand, but my home "sword" is a bian, hard whip. 5 pounds of steel in a short club that won't bite and bind into drywall or all the oak trim I put in. Once I can trust the kids to not use them to redecorate the house, the swords can come back from the garage.

Oh NO! I forgot

The answer is always SMATCHET

 

[horseclover]

Aww....the topic goes from xiphos and gladius to home defense and nobody says Smatchet? Every thread needs some Smatchet, it's like cowbell. I think my favorite rifle with bayonet (and one of its bayonets is a small sword) is the Garand, it lobs some damn big bullets. Unfortunately, Dad isn't about to give me his. I admit to checking out odd noises with a BK 9 in hand, but my home "sword" is a bian, hard whip. 5 pounds of steel in a short club that won't bite and bind into drywall or all the oak trim I put in. Once I can trust the kids to not use them to redecorate the house, the swords can come back from the garage.

Patience and stockpile '06 while you can. I had sent my 03 A3 off to pasture in Wisconsin and miss it. It had been sporterized in a beautiful Remington stock, Redfield peep. A favorite offhand plinker. An irony one day after the range and shopping in NH. Not one round of '06 but six loads for 7mm Mauser. That 7mm carbine another I miss at present. With the street price of the Garands right now, I am more looking to something new in 7.62/.308.

Cheers

GC

PS

Where is the smatchet when we need it? I finally found an article on the Fair sword in a book of magazine articles. Worth the price of admission.

Military Knives
A Reference Book
From the pages of Knife World Magazine
ISBN 0-940362-18-X

 

[Rey HRH]

There is no optimal sword.

Weapons arise as a reaction to the tactics of the combatants and the resources available. Would the katana as we know it even exist if Japan had large amounts of easily available iron ore? There would have been no need to beat out the impurities with folded layers, and there wouldn't have been much point in putting that much work into a cutting sword if people were running around in full plate. The Iberians, for whatever reason, liked the falcata, so the Romans reinforced their helmets. The Marines were taking too many casualties from Moro blades, so they re-introduced leather neck armor and ditched the .38 for the .45. In China, the Red Boat resistance fighters would ambush Ching officials in alleys where twin butterfly swords had the advantage over the spears and longer swords of their bodyguards.

The xiphos and gladius are fine blades for close quarters, but with no shield for defense their length becomes a problem. What can you afford to arm your troops with, what can they use effectively, and wil they work against enemy defenses? The weapon that has probably effected the most battles and regime-change through history might just be the sharpened and hardened bamboo pole.

Wow, that's a very information dense and insightful post. Thank you for sharing your view.