The Sarissa "kill-shot"

[Imperial Dave]

A shorter sword makes no sense for cavalry

[Chilliarch]

A shorter sword makes no sense for cavalry

And yet, Alexander's cavalry carried and fought with what we would have thought of as short swords.
Good piece here on the Aemilius Paulus monument.

[Duncan Head]

The Dionysios passage suggests that the 5th-century cavalry swords were longer than the infantry swords then in use. Assuming this is true (and not Dionysios making anachronistic assumptions based on 1st century BC cavalry spathae), remember that the gladius hispaniensis is itself longer than earlier infantry swords, so a universal change to such swords may not have meant any change in length for the cavalry.

[Imperial Dave]

Although slightly off topic. I could qualify the Statement by adding that a shorter pointed sword primarily used for thrusting makes no sense for cavalry

[DBS]

I think one can get too hung up on cavalry swords having to be long:

a) ancient horses are typically quite small, so not quite the same thing as a Napoleonic heavy cavalryman astride his mighty charger when it comes to reaching down;
b) the sword is not the primary weapon of most ancient cavalry, who either have a long pointy stick or two, or a bow;
c) Roman cavalry as late as Cannae are said to dismount in action quite frequently anyway;
d) the short akinakes suited the Persians and Scythians, far better cavalry than the Romans, quite well.  Ditto the short axes also often favoured by nomadic types.

I am not saying that, all things being equal, a longer sword is not a good idea, but it may not have been a high priority, save perhaps for cataphracts who are probably on bigger horses anyway, and may have less mobility in the saddle.

[Imperial Dave]

good points (see what I did there). The main method of use from horseback is either an overarm or underarm slash so yes the sword length is important but not exclusively so.

[aligern]

Please read the section where Mathew adduces the sharp Roman swords as evidence and see what you think. I wondered if he had attributed the savage wounds to infantry.
Roy

[RichT]

I don't think Matthew commits to the users of the swords being infantry or cavalry, and I don't think it matters either way to his argument.

"Livy describes the horror experienced by Philip V and his army upon seeing the wounds inflicted by the gladius for the first time... This then suggests that the Greeks, and probably the Macedonians as well, did not regularly target an area of the body, or strike it to a depth, which would cause such injuries." (Matthew pp. 204-5).

Matthew's argument is that Macedonians and Greeks were used to relatively minor (at least visually) penetration wounds, not deep slashing or cutting wounds. (While that argument can't really be faulted since it is what Livy says, I find the general thrust of this chapter unconvincing). Livy's comment comes in a section where the Macedonians are surprised and taken aback repeatedly by Roman excellence (cutting swords! neat camps! fierce cavalry! well-equipped light infantry!), the historical basis of which might well be real, but does read (to me) a little rhetorically embellished.

For those who can't be bothered going to Perseus, the relevant passages:

"Philip, it is true, saw that everything round about was in confusion and that the people were greatly terrified, but not knowing in which direction the consul had marched, he sent a squadron of cavalry to ascertain where the enemy had gone. The consul was equally at a loss; he knew that the king had left his winter quarters, though ignorant of the region to which he had marched. He too sent out cavalry to scout. These two cavalry forces, coming from different directions, after they had wandered long and aimlessly over the roads in the land of the Dassaretii, finally met on the same highway. Neither was unaware, since they heard the sound of men and horses from far off, that the enemy was approaching. So, before they came in sight of one another, they had prepared horses and arms for battle, nor was there any delay in charging as soon5 as the enemy came in sight. Not unequal, as it chanced, in either numbers or courage, since both consisted of picked men, they fought on equal terms for some hours. The weariness of men and horses ended the struggle without a decision in favour of either party. Of the Macedonians, forty troopers fell; of the Romans, thirty-five."
Livy 31.33.7-10

"Philip, thinking that he would do something to secure the affection of his people and increase their readiness to encounter danger on his behalf if he undertook the burial of the cavalrymen who had fallen on the expedition, ordered their bodies brought into camp, that the funeral honour might be seen by all. Nothing is so uncertain or so unpredictable as the mental reaction of a crowd. What he thought would make them more ready to enter any conflict caused, instead, reluctance and fear; for men who had seen the wounds dealt by javelins and arrows and occasionally by lances [lanceis], since they were used to fighting with the Greeks and Illyrians, when they had seen bodies chopped to pieces by the Spanish sword [gladio Hispaniensi], arms torn away, shoulders and all, or heads separated from bodies, with the necks completely severed, or vitals laid open, and the other fearful wounds, realized in a general panic with what weapons and what men they had to fight."
Livy 31.34.1-4

The note to the Sage 1935 translation (on Perseus) says for 'gladio Hispaniensi': "The long and heavy sabre, adapted to slashing blows, carried by Roman cavalry: cf. Dion. Hal. VIII. 67. The short infantry weapon, used for both cutting and thrusting, was called gladius Hispanus in XXII. xlvi. 5"

"The Gauls and the Spaniards had shields of almost the same shape; their swords were different in use and in appearance, those of the Gauls being very long and pointless, whilst the Spaniards, who attacked as a rule more by thrusting than by striking, had pointed ones that were short and handy."
Livy 22.46.5

So Sage seems to make a distinction between a 'gladius Hispaniensis' (a long cutting cavalry sword) and a 'Gladius Hispanus' (a short thrusting infantry sword). I don't think this is a sound distinction at all.

Polybius says:
"With the shield they also carry a sword [machaira] hanging down by their right thigh, which is called a Spanish [Iberiken] sword. It has an excellent point, and can deal a formidable blow with either edge, because its blade is stout and unbending."
Pol. 6.23

The Dionysius passage - which applies to some time in the 5th Century, so the relevance of which is at best doubtful - is:

"Accordingly, the legionaries of the two armies [Romans and Volscians] continued fighting the greater part of the day with equal success; and the unevenness of the terrain afforded each side many advantages against the other. The Roman horsemen having divided themselves into two bodies, one of these attacked the enemy's right wing in flank, while the other, going round the hill, stormed across it against their rear. Thereupon some of them hurled their spears at the Volscians, and others with their cavalry swords, which are longer than those of the infantry [τοῖς ἱππικοῖς ξίφεσι μακροτέροις], struck all whom they encountered on the arms and slashed them down to the elbows, cutting off the forearms of many together with the clothing that covered them and their weapons of defence, and by inflicting deep wounds on the knees and ankles of many others, hurled them, no matter how firmly they had stood, half dead upon the ground."
Dion. Hal. Rom. Ant. 8.67.4-5

τοῖς ἱππικοῖς ξίφεσι μακροτέροις - tois hippikois xiphesi makroterois - 'bigger cavalry swords'

I don't think any especially firm conclusions can be drawn from these passages about Roman cavalry swords. The implication of Livy 31.34 to me is that they used (in the early 2nd C) the same Spanish sword as the infantry, but who knows? Not I, that's for sure.

[Keraunos]

Interesting stuff on cavalry swords, but what about the sarissa?  What is the earliest evidence for their use?

[Ian61]

Interesting stuff on cavalry swords, but what about the sarissa?  What is the earliest evidence for their use?

If we assume by sarissa you mean the long Macedonian pike then the usual answer, and one I think Richard also refers to in his book, is that longer spears had been experimented with, notably by the Thebans under Epaminondas - Philip II was a hostage at Thebes for a while. It is then Phillip who really takes this on gets his professional soldiers armed with them and then drills them in their use so as to be the effective fighting force they became. For more do read Richard's excellent 'Macedonian Phalanx'.

[Imperial Dave]

Ditto re the book recommendation

[Duncan Head]

If we assume by sarissa you mean the long Macedonian pike then the usual answer, and one I think Richard also refers to in his book, is that longer spears had been experimented with, notably by the Thebans under Epaminondas - Philip II was a hostage at Thebes for a while. It is then Phillip who really takes this on gets his professional soldiers armed with them and then drills them in their use so as to be the effective fighting force they became. For more do read Richard's excellent 'Macedonian Phalanx'.

I don't think that it is "the usual answer" that the Thebans had experimented with long spears. As far as I can see there is no evidence for this at all, and it is very much a minority view.

What is closer to "the usual answer" is that Philip may have been inspired by the "Iphicratean reform", if that is Iphicrates of Athens really did equip his peltasts with longer-than-usual spears, as Diodoros and Nepos suggest. 

[Ian61]

If we assume by sarissa you mean the long Macedonian pike then the usual answer, and one I think Richard also refers to in his book, is that longer spears had been experimented with, notably by the Thebans under Epaminondas - Philip II was a hostage at Thebes for a while. It is then Phillip who really takes this on gets his professional soldiers armed with them and then drills them in their use so as to be the effective fighting force they became. For more do read Richard's excellent 'Macedonian Phalanx'.

I don't think that it is "the usual answer" that the Thebans had experimented with long spears. As far as I can see there is no evidence for this at all, and it is very much a minority view.

What is closer to "the usual answer" is that Philip may have been inspired by the "Iphicratean reform", if that is Iphicrates of Athens really did equip his peltasts with longer-than-usual spears, as Diodoros and Nepos suggest. 

I stand corrected. Guilty of mixing up who Philip was taking the ideas from for what.