Why Was There No Guard On A Gladius?

[Harper]

Why was there no guard on a gladius?

I realize it was primarily designed for use with a shield and not really for blade-to-blade contact, but it is a cheap enough addition and doesn't weigh anything.

Any thoughts?

[Greg]

A period witness of the Roman war machine put it this way:

“They were likewise taught not to cut but to thrust with their swords. For the Romans not only made a jest of those who fought with the edge of that weapon, but always found them an easy conquest. A stroke with the edges, though made with ever so much force, seldom kills, as the vital parts of the body are defended both by the bones and armor. On the contrary, a stab, though it penetrates but two inches, is generally fatal. Besides in the attitude of striking, it is impossible to avoid exposing the right arm and side; but on the other hand, the body is covered while a thrust is given, and the adversary receives the point before he sees the sword.”

The shield took care of most of this, but that last line rings very true, and is why western swords continued to grow more stiff, slender, and decidedly pointed; because the thrust was considered more effective/deadly while providing a safer stance for the attacker. "The adversary receives the point before he sees the sword."

If you also bear in mind that any sword when used to parry an opposing blade should, all things in ideal circumstances, use the flat to deflect the incoming strike or parry (though rather uncommon in Roman training and tactics), which would place the opponent's blade on the rather large and fat wooden spacer between the grip and blade, which functioned in this manner as a guard. It simply doesn't extend out along the edges as we are used to seeing on Western European pieces, because they simply didn't use it this way.

Lastly...if you have a grotesquely massive army like Rome to outfit, bear this in mind: wood is cheaper than metal, both to acquire and to process. Food for thought.

[Harper]

Thanks for your insights.

I understand that the gladius was primarily a thrusting weapon designed to be used with a shield and that parrying, in general, should be done with the flat of a sword (whenever possible).

I recall reading that quote in the past.

The cost aspect is one that I had considered initially and then discounted. It seems cheaper to me to equip a sword with a metal guard than to replace a trained legionary. The Romans usually weren't cheapskates (relatively speaking) when it came to kit.

Your observation about not seeing the sword might be part of the answer. I remember spending a lot of time getting the "Correct-Eye" kamae down. When done correctly, all you can see is a point--if even that--and you can't gauge the length of your opponent's blade. The thrust was a good option from that position.

[Elemmakil]

Why was there no guard on a gladius?

I realize it was primarily designed for use with a shield and not really for blade-to-blade contact, but it is a cheap enough addition and doesn't weigh anything.

Any thoughts?

Actually, ALL swords prior to c. 1100 or so did not have meaningful guards, and prior to the Migration Period were usually organic with at most a small metal face plate. This is not just Rome, but Iron Age Celt, Bronze Age swords, etc. And even after this, up to the Renaissance, the function of the guard was likely not to protect the hand, which was well protected by gauntlets. It has been speculated by John Clements (who's written a few books on WMA) that the reason guards were lengthened had to do with the introduction of gauntlets around this time, and the reason for lengthening the guards was to help keep the edge aligned on the target, by inhibiting rotation now that there was no longer skin on grip contact.

[Harper]

I knew that this was true of the Greeks, Celts, etc.

I was curious as to why this might be so.

Interesting insight on the role of gauntlets with respect to the size of the guard.

[Harper]

I found this from Matt Easton of Schola Gladiatoria:

[Eledhwen]

The thrust *is* more efficient, and more effective, and it can be 'hidden'. The human eye does not judge distance well the target is small or thin and coming straight in.

This is why I prefer a thrusting balde, a shortsword, over any other.

That said, they can indeed be used to cut...usually used very close to the body with the blade always between yourself and the target. That was not part of basic legionary training, yet it was taught to some degree since there are accounts of such.

Eledhwen

[Kortoso]

The gladius didn't have a D-hilt, or any kind of knuckle guard either.
The simple answer is that it hadn't been invented yet. They didn't have assault rifles either, haha. Although that would have been more effective.
The gladius, I think, evolved from an earlier weapon, which, uh, was evolved from a still earlier weapon, like a long dagger I think.
BTW, nobody wondered why they were putting two edges on swords. You can only cut with one edge at a time. The truth is that was how the technology was developed.

[Greg]

...they can indeed be used to cut...usually used very close to the body with the blade always between yourself and the target. That was not part of basic legionary training, yet it was taught to some degree since there are accounts of such.

Here we go:

...Holding their sword straight out, they would strike their opponents in the groin, pierce their sides, and drive their blows through their breasts into their vitals. And if they saw any of them keeping these parts of the body protected, they would cut the tendons of their knees or ankles and topple them to the ground roaring and biting their shields and uttering cries resembling the howling of wild beasts...

We can see how the cut was accepted as a perfectly viable method to dispatch an opponent, if the thrust did not prove effective. Vegetius describes how recruits are trained using wooden swords against stout posts, as though attacking different parts of the opponents body. A crippling cut against the backside of the leg was included in these techniques.

[Eledhwen]

Guards were known. The old Greek and Celtiberian falcata had a kind of guard that protected the fingers. Cross hilts I cannot speak to, although I suspect they were around before they become well known to us. It doesn't take a genius to figure this stuff out. Still, from an evidentiary standpoint, we don't see these until the Later Roman/Byzantine/Dark Ages period, if memory serves.

Given the kind of hand protection the Romans did use...as enemies often tried to lop their sword hands off while thrusting...a guard wasn't strictly necessary either. The manica could and did come down over the hand a fingers. A lot of folk are not aware that Roman Cataphracts were as fully and heavily armored as medieval knights...sometimes better, depending on period.

Infantry too had thigh and arm armor, especially during and after the wars with the Dacians.

I do love my shortswords. My Pompeii style gladius is my absolute favorite. I train with a rudis of the same weight and size daily. They make for a very lovely blend of violence and grace. Just sweet.

Eledhwen

[Eledhwen]

The earliest form of guard I have found, is on a Mycenaen sword, and on the Scythian Akinakes. These are not the quillions we know today, but they are the precedents. The Lombards and Huns both had swords with cross guards, or quillions. Shorter than the medieval sort. The Hunnish sort is sometimes called the Pontic Sword. They are the clear predecessors of the European quillions we see coming out of the 10th century, which means they were certainly around before that, we just haven't found them yet.

Interesting stuff.

Eledhwen

[Kortoso]

It's interesting that the concept of a sword-guard was known, but it wasn't used commonly for some reason. Was it because the shield could be depended on to provide protection? Interesting discussion.

On a parallel note, I notice that the Viking sword is practically without a cross-guard, from the historical period in which the center-grip round shield was the dominant protection. Then we see the kite shield introduced, which is worn and which behaves differently, and we see cross-guards evolve on swords of the period. I'm wondering if there is a cause-and-effect with sword and shield?

[Elleth]

Could simply be fashion: we could wear five point harnesses instead of simple across-the-chest seatbelts when we drive: but we don't. Even though the former could be rigged to be almost as simple to put on, and would definitely save some lives every year. But have one mounted in your car and people will think you're some kind of paranoid loon.

The cultural pressure of the status quo is stiffer that we consciously apprehend sometimes I think.

[Kortoso]

Indeed, a glance around today shows how many silly things we do out of fashion...