THE SWORD IN ANCIENT ROME; THE LEGION AND THE GLADIATOR.
The _rôle_ played by pagan Rome on the stage of history was
twofold—that of conqueror and that of regulator. In obeying man’s
acquisitive instinct she was compelled to perfect her executive
instrument, the fighter. To her we owe the words ‘arms’ and ‘army,’
‘armour’ and ‘armoury.’[853] As _pugna_ derives from _pugnus_, the
fist, so _arma_ and its congeners derive from _armus_, the arm:
‘antiqui humeros cum brachiis armos vocabant,’ says Festus. Well
knowing that the ‘God of Battles’ favours superiority of weapons as
much as, and in select cases more than, ‘big battalions,’ she ever
chose the implements and instruments she found the best; and, following
her own proverb, she never disdained to take a lesson in arms even from
the conquered.
But Rome soon learnt that to make good soldiers she must begin by
making good citizens. She insisted upon the civilising maxim ‘Cedant
arma togæ,’ without, however, the invidious precedence which Sallust
calls ‘those most offensive words of Cicero’
——Concedat laurea linguæ.
She subordinated the Captain to the Magistrate, and she proclaimed to
both the absolute Reign of Law. The idea presented itself to the Greek
mind in the shape of Fate, Anagké, Nemesis: Rome brought it down from
the vague to the realistic, from the abstract to the concrete, from
heaven to earth. Thus, while Greece taught mankind the novel lessons
of ordered liberty, free thought, intellectual culture, and patriotic
citizenship, Rome, by her reverence for Law, in whose sight all men
were equal, preached the brotherhood of mankind. Hence Christendom
ever has been, and is still, governed by a heathen code, by that Roman
jurisprudence which flowed from the Twelve Tables, like the laws of
Jewry from the Ten Commandments. Indeed the ‘Fecial College’ which
pronounced upon the obligations of international war and peace, is an
institution which might profitably be revived in the modern world.[854]
Rome was single-minded in her objective, conquest; and unlike the
Greeks, from whom she borrowed, she was not diverted by art or
literature. All her poets for a thousand years fit into one volume.
All her art, indeed, can hardly be said to exist; history is silent
concerning any save a few exceptional Roman architects. Varro laughs
at the puppets and effigies of the gods. The triumph of Metellus
(B.C. 146) introduced Art, but the Helleno-Roman artist contented
himself with copies and with portrait-statues of the great. In the
days of their highest luxury and refinement, the toga’d people
were connoisseurs and purchasers who diffused instead of adding to
knowledge. Others, as Virgil said, might give movement to marble and
breath to bronze: the Art of the Roman was to rule the nations, to
spare the subjected, and to debase the proud. ‘Fortia agere Romanum
est.’
For the constitution of the Roman army we must consult the estimable
Polybius,[855] its early historian, Livy, and the latest of the great
authorities, Vegetius, in the days of Valentinian II. (A.D. 375–92);
not forgetting Varro,[856] who treats of weapon changings.
Whilst the militia consisted of three bodies, the citizens, the allies,
who were sworn, and the auxiliaries or mercenaries; the characteristic
of Roman organisation was the Legion—that is, _legere_ (they chose).
Emerging by slow degrees from the Phalanx or close column,[857] it
learnt to prefer for battle the _acies instructa_, haye or line, and
the _acies sinuata_, with wings; and it reserved for especial purposes
the _agmen pilatum_ or close array, and the _agmen quadratum_ or hollow
square.
The reason of the change is manifest. The Phalanx or oblong herse was
irresistible during the compact advance. The wise Egyptian inventors
made it perfect for the Nile Valley. But it lost virtue in woodlands
and highlands; it was liable to be broken when changing front, and
the long unwieldy spears which it required caused confusion on broken
ground.
The Legion consisted, strictly speaking, of heavy-armed infantry—of
Milites, from _Mil-es_, because reckoned by their thousands. They were
preceded by the Velites, Ferentarii, or Rorarii, ‘light infantry,’
_éclaireurs_, who cleared the way for action; in the first century they
were reinforced by the Accensi Velati.[858] Whilst the Auxiliaries
fought with bows and arrows, and some, like the Etruscans, with the
‘funda’ or sling, the Veles carried two to seven light throw-spears
(_hastæ velitariæ_) about three feet long in the shaft, with a
nine-inch lozenge-shaped head of iron.[859] For close quarters he
wore on his right side a Parazonium-dagger, and on the right a broad
cut-and-thrust blade of moderate size. His defences were an apron of
leather strips, studded with metal; and a Parma,[860] the small round
shield, like the Cetra, some three feet in diameter.[861]
[Illustration: FIG. 270.]
[Illustration: FIG. 271.—1, 2. HELMETS OF HASTARII (FROM TRAJAN’S
COLUMN); 3, 4. HELMETS OF HASTARII; 5. BRONZE HELMET (FROM CANNÆ).]
The Legion proper was a line or rather a triple line of Hastarii[862]
or legionary spearmen. Livy[863] briefly describes the Acies, when
it emerged from the Phalanx, as ‘drawn up into distinct companies,
divided into centuries. Each company contained sixty soldiers,[864]
two centurions, and one ensign or standard-bearer.[865] First in line
stood the Hastati in fifteen companies with twenty Velites.[866]
Behind them were the Principes with heavy shields and complete armour,
also numbering fifteen companies. These thirty companies were called
Antepilani, because there were fifteen others placed behind them
with the standards; each of the latter consisted of three divisions,
and the first division of each they called a Pilus. The first ensign
was at the head of the third line proper, the Triarii. Behind them
stood the Rorarii, whose ability was less by reason of their youth
and inexperience; and, lastly, in the rear, came the Accensi, a body
in which little confidence was reposed. The Hastati began the fight,
and if unable to gain the day, passed to the rear through the ranks
of the Principes. The latter now marched forwards to action, the
Hastati following. Meanwhile the Triarii continued kneeling behind
the Ensigns; the left legs extended to the front, the shields resting
on the shoulders; the spear-points erect with butts firmly fixed in
the ground, so that the line bristled as if inclosed by a rampart. If
the Principes failed, “res ad Triarios rediit.” The Triarii, after
receiving the Principes and Hastati into their intervals, closed files
and fell upon the enemy in a compact body.[867] This was the most
formidable attack, when the enemy, having pursued the vanquished,
suddenly beheld a new line starting up.’
[Illustration: FIG. 272.—HASTATUS (FROM TRAJAN’S COLUMN).]
Thus far Livy. I am tempted by the subject of the Roman legionaries,
those ‘massive hammers of the whole earth,’ to add, despite its
triteness, a few details.
The Hastatus or spearman, a young light-armed soldier, preceded the
colours; hence he was called Antesignanus. He wore for defence a plain
or crested helmet which varied with his legion.[868] He had a bronze
breast-plate thirty-two inches long, or a cuirass of thin metal plates
defending the chest and forming shoulder-pieces. A kilt[869] of the
same material protected his lower body; greaves or leggings (_ocreæ_)
his legs, and the Scutum or shield his flank. This article (σκῦτος,
leather, dog-skin?), a curved rectangular oblong, larger than the
Parma, measured about four feet by two and a half feet; the framework
was of wood, and the covering had a strong boss and metal platings. As
his name denotes, the Hastatus was armed with the full-sized spear, and
with a long or short ‘gladius’ or ‘ensis.’ The latter was carried on
the right, as a rule; as will be seen, it greatly varied in size and
shape. The soldier, when excited in battle, threw away his spear and
drew his Sword; the Etruscans did the same.[870] The shield-umbo was
also used in close combat to bear down the opponent.
[Illustration: FIG. 273.—CENTURION’S CUIRASS, WITH PHALERÆ OR
DECORATIONS.]
The second line, which like the third followed the standards, was
composed of the Principes or Proci, soldiers of mature age. The name
seems to denote that originally they formed the front line, as the
Greek Promachoi and our Grenadiers.[871] Lastly came the Triarii (third
line men), a reserve, so called from their position—veterans of tried
valour who were expected to retrieve the fortunes of the day. At first
they were the only Pilani[872] (javelineers), as opposed to the two
first lines (Antepilani). Their redoubtable weapon, which conquered
so much of the old world, and which descended by inheritance to the
Franks, was about six feet and three-quarters long, composed of an
iron (two feet) with oval or pyramidal head, set by a broad tang in a
wooden socketed shaft treble its length. The latter was round at the
heel and squared about the shoulders, as we learn from Livy,[873] when
describing the Phalarica or fire-missile. Both Principes and Triarii
also carried Swords, the former at the right hip, the latter above
it: as has before been noticed this is a most complicated subject.
The bandsmen wore, like the Signa-bearers, a peculiar helmet; they
consisted of tubicines (using the _tuba_, a long Etruscan trumpet), of
cornicines (the _cornu_ being a writhed horn), and of buccinatores,
blowing a short simple instrument. The Roman officers were armed like
the men.
Under the term _utraque militia_ was included the legionary cavalry
whose number varied little in proportion to the infantry. In
Polybius’ day the ratio was two hundred to four thousand. This arm
was clad in a complete suit of bronze less heavy than the Greeks
and the Gallo-Greeks;[874] the buckler of ox-hide was round, oval,
or polygonal. The horseman’s weapons were a Spear (_contus_), often
accompanied by a javelin, a waist-dagger, and a Sword worn on the
right; the latter, unlike ours, preserved the form of the infantry
weapon. The Greek cavalry in the Roman service at the siege of
Jerusalem, as we learn from Josephus, carried long Swords suspended to
the right flank.
Lastly, the Legion was followed by its massive _tormenta_ (artillery):
catapults (for darts) and _balistæ_ (for stones), escorted by the
_vexillarii_ or oldest soldiers, under their own _vexillum_, and
worked by the Sappers or _fabri_ (_lignarii_, &c.). The camp-followers
(_calones_, _lixæ_) and the baggage (_impedimenta_) brought up the rear.
The Roman infantry was carefully drilled. Vegetius tells us that
recruits were exercised with osier-bucklers and stakes double the
weight of the normal Swords. There were also regular _champs de Mars_,
‘sham-fights’ with wooden Swords and with javelins whose points were
sheathed in balls.
In the effeminate days of the Empire, shortly after Constantine,
military discipline was relaxed, and the decay of the Legion became
complete. Instead of shouldering their packs the men carried them in
carts. The Hasta was given up, and the helmet and the cuirass were
dispensed with as too heavy. Vegetius[875] had reason to ascribe the
defeat of the Legion by the Goths to the want of its old defensive
armour.
It was not only when campaigning that the Romans studied the use of
arms. In the Campus Martius and the other seven ‘parks’ of the Capital,
crowds of young men practised riding, swording, and athletics. Another
mighty _Salle d’Armes_ was the Amphitheatre. To a purely military
nation, gladiatorism had great merits. ‘C’estoit, à la verité,’ says
Montaigne,[876] ‘un merveilleux exemple, et de tresgrand fruict pour
l’institution du peuple, de veoir touts les jours en sa presence
cent, deux cents, voire mille couples d’hommes, armez les uns contre
les aultres, se hacher en pieces, avecques une si extreme fermeté
de courage, qu’on ne leur voit lascher une parole de foiblesse ou
commiseration, jamais tourner le dos, ny faire seulement un mouvement
lasche pour gauchir au coup de leur adversaire, ains tendre le col à
son espee, et se presenter au coup.’
It appears to me that the nineteenth century wastes much fine sentiment
upon the ‘detestable savagery of the Lanista,’[877] and upon the
wretches
Butchered to make a Roman holiday.
The _ludus gladiatorius_[878] began as a humane institution amongst the
Etruscans, who, instead of slaughtering, upon the funeral pyre, slaves
and war-captives, like Achilles and Pyrrhus, allowed them to fight for
their lives. The _munus_ at Rome, moreover, was originally confined
to public funerals, and it was an abuse which allowed it at private
interments, at entertainments, and at holiday festivals in general.
According to Livy[879] ‘when Scipio exhibited gladiators at Carthage’
(B.C. 546) ‘they were not slaves or men who sold their blood, the
usual stuff of the Lanista’s school.’[880] The service was voluntary
and gratuitous. Combatants were often sent by petty princes to show
the courage of their people; others came forward in compliment to the
General, and some decided their disputes by the Sword. Amongst persons
of distinction were Corbis and Orsua, cousins-german, who determined
to fight out their claims to the city called Ibes, and they ‘exhibited
to the army a most interesting spectacle,’ the elder swordsman easily
mastering the artless attacks of the younger.
[Heading: _THE ROMAN GLADIATOR._]
Even when the gladiators at Rome were condemned criminals and captives
whose lives were forfeited by the old laws of war, some humanity
remained. Although the malefactors doomed _ad gladium_ were to be
slain within the year, those sent only _ad ludum_ might obtain their
discharge within three years. And under the Empire to join the shows
became ‘fashionable:’ Severus was compelled to forbid freeborn
citizens, knights, senators, and even women from entering the arena.
The life of the gladiator was one to make the ‘honest poor’ curse
their lot. He was trained in the best climates, and fed with the most
succulent food (_sagina gladiatoria_): hence Cicero[881] calls rude
health and good condition ‘gladiatoria totius corporis firmitas.’ He
became one of a _familia_ or brotherhood after taking the oath, which
Montaigne gives from Petronius (117):—‘Nous jurons de nous laisser
enchainer, brusler, battre et tuer de glaive, et de souffrir tout ce
que les gladiateurs légitimes souffrent de leur maîtres, engageant
très-religieusement le corps et l’âme à son service.’ In other words,
he had plenty of society and he was disciplined. Under the Lanista he
practised daily at the schools, and the _ludus matutinus_ near the
Cœliolus or little Cœlian Hill was frequented by all classes.[882]
Here he ‘fought the air’ (ἀέρα δέρειν), a Σκιαμαχία like our fighting
the sack; he contended with the _rudis_ (rod or wooden Sword); he cut
at the Palus, the ‘post-practice’ of German universities and modern
regiments, and he strengthened back and shoulders with the Halteres
(dumb-bells, _dombelles_), and with other artifices. Thus a wound,
fatal to a man out of training, would only disable one in such splendid
condition.[883] Pliny,[884] indeed, makes light of his danger. Speaking
of C. Curio’s two pivot-theatres, which during representations could be
wheeled inwards or outwards, this model grumbler declares: ‘The safety
of the gladiators was almost less compromised than that of the Roman
people, which allowed itself to be thus whirled round from side to
side.’
If worsted in combat and sentenced to receive the Sword (_ferrum
recipere_), the gladiator, prepared for his fate, met it with manly
firmness. When the down-turned thumbs granted mercy, the vanquished
got his _missio_ or discharge for the day. Augustus humanely abolished
the barbarity of shows _sine missione_, where no quarter was given.
The victor was presented with palms, whence _plurimarum palmarum
gladiator_; and with cash, which doubtless commended him to the other
sex. We read of old gladiators, showing that the career was not
necessarily fatal. These veterans, and sometimes novices who had
fought only in a few _munera_, were, at the request of the people,
discharged the service by the Editor or Exhibitor of the games. They
were then presented with a Rudis (_rude donati_), and, as Rudiarii
lived happily ever afterwards.
We have also notices of distinguished gladiators. Diogenes
Laertius[885] does not disdain to mention as the fourth Epicurus,
‘lastly, a gladiator.’ Spartacus, Crixus, and Œnomaus broke out of
Lentulus’ fencing-school, escaped from Capua, and made a camp at
Vesuvius; they used the Swords made out of iron plundered in the
slave-houses to such effect that Athenæus declares, ‘If Spartacus had
not died in battle, he would have caused no ordinary trouble to our
countrymen, as Eunus did in Sicily.’[886]
Gladiatorial shows were first exhibited (B.C. 246) in the Forum
Boarium by Marcus and D. Brutus at their father’s funeral, during the
Saturnalia (our Christmas) and the Minerva feasts.[887] They were
abolished by Constantine ‘the Great’ (A.D. 306–33), but the edict
seemed to give them fresh life; Frank prisoners were slaughtered by the
hundred in the arena of Trèves. They were finally suppressed (A.D. 404)
by Honorius, who made a martyr of the monk Telemachus. I need hardly
relate how this meddling ecclesiastic rushed into the amphitheatre to
separate the combatants, and was incontinently stoned by ‘the house.’
But the time had come for abolishing these glorious _spectacula_; as
mostly happens, long custom and familiarity had merged the use into
the abuse, and caused Lactantius to exclaim ‘tollenda est nobis!’ The
misuse had begun under Divus Cæsar, who collected so many gladiators
for the fights that his enemies became alarmed, and restricted the
number. Caligula, the ‘Bootling,’ was devoted to the sport, and
made some gladiators captains of his German guards. He deprived
the ‘Mirmillones’[888] of certain weapons. One Columbus coming off
victorious in a fight, but slightly hurt, he caused the wound to be
infused with poison, which got the name of Columbinum. The nervous
Claudius (‘Caldius’) assisted at the _spectacula_ ‘muffled up in a
pallium, a new fashion!’ Having spared, at the intercession of his
four sons, a conquered prize-fighter, he sent a billet round the house
reminding the spectators how much it behoved them to get children,
since these could procure favour and security for a gladiator. In later
years he became savage. If a combatant chanced to fall, especially one
of the Retiarii, he ordered him to be butchered that he might enjoy
the look of the face in the agonies of death. Two combatants happening
to kill each other, he ordered some little knives to be made of their
Swords. He also delighted in seeing Bestiarii, and he made the sport
most brutal and sanguinary. Nero, during his ‘golden quinquennium,’
ordered that no gladiators, even condemned criminals, should be slain;
and he persuaded four hundred senators and six hundred knights, some
of unbroken fortunes and unblemished fame, to fight in the arena.
He espoused the cause of the Thraces or Parmularians, and often
joined in the popular demonstrations in favour of the Prasine or
‘green faction,’ without, however, compromising his dignity or doing
injustice. In his later and crueller days,[889] hearing the master of
a family of gladiators say that a Thrax was a match for a Mirmillo,
but not so for the exhibitor of the games, he had him dragged from the
benches into the arena and exposed to the dogs, with this label, ‘A
Parmularian guilty of speaking blasphemy.’ And, as ‘Mero’ scandalised
the world by his passion for singing and harping, so Commodus degraded
himself by amateur gladiatorship. He was cunning of fence, but in
the most cowardly way. A powerful man and a practised gymnast, he
wore impenetrable armour and fought with a heavy Sword, whereas his
antagonists were allowed only blades of tin and lead. Even the humane
Trajan[890] exhibited after his victories some ten thousand Dacian
‘monomachists.’ The militarism of the Romans, however, made them
familiar with butchery. Thus Tacitus[891] says: ‘The Germans gratified
us with the spectacle of a battle in which above sixty thousand men
were slain.’ This ‘gladiatorial show’ took place near the canal of
Drusus, where the Roman guard on the Rhine commanded a view of the
other shore.
The gladiators used both forms of Swords, the straight two-edged blade
and the curved.[892] The Dimacheri carried, as the name denotes, two
weapons: these may have been either two Swords of the same size, as
carried by the Japanese,[893] or possibly Sword and dagger, a practice
long preserved on the shores of the Mediterranean. The same may be
said of the _duos gladios_ borne by the Gaul whom Torquatus slew.
The Hoplomachi, armed _cap-a-pie_, must also have been Swordsmen.
The Mirmillo[894] was weaponed with a curved blade, cutting inside
(‘gladio incurvo et falcato’): in Montfaucon, he carries a long convex
shield and a Sica or short-Sword.[895] Opposed to the Mirmillo was
the Retiarius, armed with net and trident: Cortez found net-soldiers
in Mexico, as was natural to fishermen. Winckelmann shows a fight
between the two: Retiarius has netted his fish and proceeds to use the
_fuscina_ or _tridens_, while a toga’d Lanista, rod in hand, stands
behind him and points out where to strike.
The Samnites were distinguished by the oblong tribal _scutum_[896] and
the leaf-shaped Greek Sword: so says the Comte de Caylus; but on the
monument erected by Caracalla to Bato, the weapon is straight up and
down. The Thræces or Threces (Thracians proper)[897] had round shields,
and instead of the huge Swords noted by Livy, the short knife called
by Juvenal _falx supina_.[898] The Thracian’s Sword closely resembles
that used in the Isle of Cos. Winckelmann[899] gives a combat between
two Thracians, each backed up by his Lanista. We find also a naked
Gladiator, with Sword and shield, fighting another in breast-belt,
apron (_subligaculum_), and boots, with a shield and a three-thonged
_flagellum_ or scourge.
The Gladiators were an order distinct from the Bestiarii (θηριομάχοι)
who fought against wild beasts; these were exhibited in the Forum,
those in the Circus. Again, Bestiarii, who can boast that St. Paul once
belonged to them, must not be confounded with the criminals thrown
_ad leones_, without means of defence, like Mentor, Androclus, and
early Christian communists.[900] The beast-fighters had their _scholæ
bestiarum_ or _bestiariorum_ where they practised weapons, and they
received _auctoramentum_ or pay. The arms were various: mostly they are
shown with a Sword in one hand, a veil in the other, and the left leg
protected by greaves. Under Divus Cæsar criminals for the first time
encountered wild beasts with silver weapons. The modern survival is
the Spanish bull-fight. Gladiatorism lasted in England after a fashion
till the days of Addison; amongst professional Swordsmen, the highest
surviving name is that of
——the great Figg, by the prize-fighting swains
The monarch acknowledged of Mary’bone plains.[901]
To conclude this discursus on gladiatorism. Most popular sports are
cruel, but we must not confound, as is often done, cruelty with
brutality. The former may accompany greatness of intellect, the
latter is the characteristic of debasement. Every nation is disposed
to ‘fie-fie’ its neighbour’s favourite diversion. The English
fox-hunter and pigeon-shooter[902] are severe upon bull-fighting and
cock-fighting—the classical and Oriental pastime preserved in Spain
and in Spanish South America.[903] The boxer, who imitates, at a humble
distance, the Cestus-play of the Greeks and Romans, looks scandalised
at _la boxe Française_, with its garnishing of _savate_; and at the
Brazilian _capoeira_, who butts with his woolly head. And so _vice
versâ_. Absence or presence of fair play should, methinks, condemn
or justify all the various forms of sport which are not mere or pure
barbarities. And, applying this test, we shall not harsh judge the
gladiatorial games of Rome.
I now proceed to describe the Sword amongst the Romans, a simpler
subject than in Greece.
As the so-termed founding of Rome took place during the early Iron
Age of Southern Europe, it is probable that the citizens, like their
predecessors the Etruscans, originally made their blades of copper and
bronze, the leaf-shape being borrowed from the Greeks, as we see it
retained by the gladiators. The material would last into the Age of
Steel, but even in her early years Rome must have preferred the harder
metal. Pliny expressly tells us that Porsena, after his short-lived
conquest, prohibited the future masters of the world from using iron
except in agriculture; it was hardly safe to handle a stylus. Polybius
notes that in his day bronze was entirely restricted to defensive
armour—helmets, breast-plates, and greaves. All offensive weapons,
swords and spears, were either made of, or tipped with, steel. To this
superiority of material we may attribute the Roman successes in the
second Punic war (B.C. 218–201), and their conquest of the gallant
Gauls, when their foes could oppose nothing better than bronze. They
had reason to call a Sword _ferrum_.[904]
[Heading: _THE SWORD IN ROME._]
The Romans called the Sword Ensis, Gladius, and Spatha. The two former
are used as synonyms by Quinctilian,[905] but the first presently
became poetical. The derivations are eminently unsatisfactory. Voss
would find Ensis in ἔγχος, _hasta_; Sanskritists in _Asi_, a Sword, the
Zend _Anh_. Gladius is popularly drawn _a clade ferenda, quasi cladius_
(Varro and Littleton); Voss prefers κλάδον (_ramus_), a young branch,
the earliest Sword: to others it appears a congener of the Keltic
_Clad_, the destroyer. Of the derivation of ‘Spatha’ I have already
treated: Suetonius[906] makes it equivalent to Machaira; but this word
and its diminutive Machærium are loosely used.
The Roman Sword was, like their other weapons, longer and larger,
heavier and more formidable than that of the Greeks.[907] The earliest
form, the ‘hero’s arm’ of Virgil and Livy, was a short single-edged
cutting weapon of bronze, also called the ‘Gallic Sword,’ because
long preserved by that people. It is shown in the arm of the Roman
Auxiliary (fig. 276). Another very early, if not the earliest, shape
was the leaf, which varied in length from nineteen inches (the blade
found at Mayence) to twenty-six inches (the Bingen find). The latter is
peculiar; the hilt is ornamented with bronze, and it has a cross-guard.
Upon another blade (fig. 277), of which a cast is in the Artillery
Museum, Paris, appears the armourer’s mark, _Sabini_ (_opus_).
[Illustration: FIG. 274.—1. ROMAN SWORD (19 inches long); 2. GLADIUS.]
[Illustration: FIG. 275.—BRONZE TWO-EDGED EARLY ROMAN ENSIS.[908]]
[Illustration: FIG. 276.—SWORD OF ROMAN AUXILIARY.]
[Illustration: FIG. 277.—ROMAN SWORD (Musée d’Art.).]
The third form, which is most generally identified with the Roman
soldier, greatly resembles that which was introduced into the French
army by, not without financial benefit to, Marshal Soult. The average
length may be assumed at twenty-two inches, with a grip of six inches
and a cross-bar (not always present) four inches and a half long and
four lines thick. Some specimens show a distinct hilt-plate (fig.
274, 2). A mid-rib ran along the blade, which was either straight or
slightly narrowing, and it ended in the bevelled point (_langue de
carpe_).[909] This thick heavy blade, used _cæsim et punctim_, was
most efficient for hand-to-hand work, and the Roman soon mastered the
truth, unknown to most Orientals, that ‘the cut wounds and the thrust
kills.’[910] Accordingly they soon learned to despise the old Sword,
short and crooked. The national weapon must have been used by Æmilius
at the Battle of Telamon (B.C. 225), for Polybius notes that the Roman
blade could not only deliver thrust but give the cut with good effect.
Shortly after that fight the Romans, during their earliest invasions
of the Spanish Peninsula (B.C. 219), intended to subvert Carthaginian
rule, adopted the Gladius Hispanus, including the _pugio_ (fig. 280);
and the change from bronze to steel became universal after the battle
of Cannæ. The superior material aided them not a little in conquering
their obstinate rivals. The Roman Proconsul M. Fulvius captured
(B.C. 192) Toledo (Τώλητον), Toletum, ‘a small city, but strong in
position;’[911] and the superior temper of the steel, attributed with
truth, I believe, to the Tagus-water, recommended it to the conquerors.
A later conquest of the Regnum Noricum[912] (Styria, B.C. 16) gave
them mines of equal excellence. From Pliny and Diodorus Siculus[913]
we know perfectly how the Celtiberians prepared their iron ores. Of
this material was made the Spatha[914] or Iberian blade, a name adopted
under the Empire, especially under Hadrian (A.D. 117–138). Long,
two-edged, and heavier than the short Xiphos-Gladius, it added fresh
force to the _impetus gladiorum_.
[Illustration: FIG. 278.—SWORD AND VAGINA (SHEATH).]
[Illustration: FIG. 279.—DITTO.]
[Illustration: FIG. 280.—THE PUGIO.]
In Cicero’s time the Sword must have been of full length to explain
the joke against his son-in-law; and Macrobius expressly tells us
that Lentulus was wearing a blade which justified the ‘chaff.’ During
the days of Theodosius (A.D. 378–394), the straight and strong weapon
of Hadrian’s time again shortened till it was not twice the size of
the hilt; in fact it became a ‘Parazonium.’ The General’s Sword (says
Meyrick) was called Cinctorium, because carried at the girdle that
surrounded the lorica, just above the hips; ‘it greatly resembled the
Lacedæmonian Sword.’
The Parazonium, _pugio_[915] or dagger, accompanied the Gladius under
the later Empire, and was carried in the same, or in another, belt,
generally on the opposite flank. It is the Greek ἐγχειρίδιον, and we
have seen its origin in Egypt. The metal was successively pure copper,
bronze and steel. The shape of this two-edged stiletto is either
lanceolate (fig. 280 _b_),[916] showing its descent from the spear,
or the straight lines converge to a point (_ibid._ _a_). It has a
notable resemblance to the daggers found in Egyptian tombs (_ibid._
_c_), and the weapon with the Z-section, still used in the Caucasus
and in Persia.[917] The tang is usually fitted to receive a wooden
plate on either side: a favourite substance was the heart of the Syrian
_terebinth_ (the ‘oak’ of Mamre).
[Illustration: FIG. 281.—TWO-EDGED ROMAN STILETTOS.]
The bronze hilt of the Gladius was retained long after the blade was
made of steel. The common grip was of wood set with metal knobs or
rivets; the richer sorts were of bone and ivory, amber and alabaster,
silver and gold. The heft ended in a _capulus_; this metal pommel[918]
was, in its simplest state, a plain mound or a stepped pyramid. But
presently the ‘little apple’ became the seat of decoration;[919] Pliny
moans over it, and Claudian speaks of _capulis radiantibus enses_.
This fashion lasted deep into the Middle Ages. The haft was often
capped with the head of some animal after Assyrian fashion, and that
of the eagle recurved was a favourite in Rome. In the Armeria Reale
(Turin)[920] there is a fine Roman chopper-blade with a peculiar
handle, and a ram’s head for hilt. The handle was usually without
guard-plate, and at most it had only a simple cross-bar or a small
oval.[921]
The original _vagina_ (sheath) was of leather or wood, ending in
a _fibula_ or half-moon-shaped ferule of metal. Some scabbards on
the monuments, where the Sword, like the helmet and the _pilum_, is
conventionally treated, show the scabbard with three opposing rings
on either side; and, as the belt had only one or two, it is not easy
to explain the use of the other five.[922] In the luxurious days of
the Empire, the sheath, like the heft, the pommel, and the ferule, was
made of gold and silver reliefs, _repoussée_-work, and incrustations
of precious stones disposed upon every part, made it a _chef-d’œuvre_
of art. Such is the ‘Sword,’ or rather ‘Parazonium, of Tiberius’ dug
up at Mayence in 1848, and now in the British Museum. The scabbard,
the mouth, the rings on either side, and the ferule are strengthened
and beautified by reliefs in gold and silver, and the central field
bears the portrait of the beautiful ‘Biberius.’ Another Parazonium
(Anglo-Rom. Coll.) has an iron blade and a bronze scabbard.
[Illustration: FIG. 282.—SWORD OF TIBERIUS.]
A reform of this over-luxury ensued under Constantius II. (A.D. 350),
and under the noble and glorious Julian[923] ‘the Apostate.’ The
latter took a lesson from the Eastern Persian, Parthian, and Sarmatian
(Slav?); moreover, he adopted the iron face-guard known at Nineveh,
and the mail-coat found upon the Trajan column. These revivals and
improvements extended deep into the Age of Chivalry.
The Sword was carried in the _balteus_, an Etruscan word applied
indifferently, it would appear, to the bauldric (τελαμών), or to the
waist-‘belt’ (ζώνη or ζωστήρ, _cingulum_). Both were of cloth or
leather, either plain or decorated with embroidery, with metal plates,
splendid and elaborate rings and fibulæ, and buckles and brooches of
the most precious material. It is generally said that the Gladius, and
its successor the long cut-and-thrust Spatha, were worn belted to the
right, as amongst the Persians. The old Ensis, on the other hand, was
slung to the left, like the Egyptians, Assyrians, Hindús, and other
‘barbarians.’[924] The latter fashion enabled the Swordsman to draw
his weapon safely by passing hand and forearm across his body under
the shield. He would also in this way grip the hilt with the thumb at
the back of the blade, where it should ever be held, especially when
delivering the cut. I believe, however, that the Sword was worn by the
Romans, as amongst the Greeks, on either flank.[925]
We have no knowledge, except from books, of Roman fancy-Swords. Such,
for example, was the _Cluden_ or juggler’s ‘shutting’-Sword, which ran
up into the hilt. ‘So great is your fear of steel,’ says Apuleius in
his defence, ‘that you are afraid to dance with the “close-Sword.”’
Roman blades of iron are not often found, and yet they must have been
made by the million. Captain Grose[926] figures a leaf-shaped blade,
like that of the modern Somal, taken from the Severn near Gloucester.
Meyrick tells us[927] that Woodchester produced an iron Sword-blade
resembling a large and broad knife (the oldest form of Gladius?) and a
dagger (_pugio_), nearly one foot long, and much resembling the modern
French bayonet. He mentions another iron Gladius nineteen and a half
inches long, with a fibula of brass. Rev. T. Douglas, in his ‘Nænia
Britannica’[928] shows the find in a Kentish barrow. The Sword measures
thirty-five and a quarter inches from pommel to point; the iron blade,
thirty inches by two inches broad, is flat and two-edged. The wooden
grip had decayed; the scabbard was of wood covered with leather and
the weapon hung by a leather strap to the left side. Excavations at
South Shields produced, says the Rev. J. Collingwood Bruce,[929] five
Roman Swords, two to three feet long, with wooden scabbards and bronze
crampets or ferules.
If Greece produced the golden youth of European civilisation, Rome
bore the men of antiquity. She taught by example and precept the
eternal lesson of individual and national dignity, of law and justice,
and of absolute toleration in religious matters. She had no fear
of growing great, and scruples about ‘territorial aggrandisement’
were absolutely unknown to her. The _quondam_ Masters of the World
effected their marvels of conquest and colonisation with these arts,
urged by a forceful will, a will so single-viewed and so persistent
that it levelled every obstacle. A similar gift of determination and
perseverance made the Turks and Turcomans of a former generation, mere
barbarians on horseback, bear down all opposition: hence the Arab still
says: ‘Mount your blood mare and the Osmanli shall catch you on his
lame ass!’ In virtue of an equal obstinacy, the Kelto-Scandinavian (I
will not call him an ‘Anglo-Saxon’), the modern Englishman, has trod
worthily in the footsteps of the old Italian, and from his ‘angle of
the world,’ his scrap of bleak inclement island, has extended his sway
far beyond the orb known to his Cæsars. May he only remember the word
‘Forwards!’ and take to heart the fact that to stand still is to fall
back.
The Roman of the Republic was incomparably the first soldier of his
age; and he equalled the best of the moderns in discipline, in loyalty
to his loaders, and in enduring privations, hardship, and fatigue.
But a glance at any of his campaigns—the famous ‘Commentaries’
suffice—shows how completely dependent he was upon the quality of his
commander. Handled by second- and third-rate men, such as generals
mostly have been, are, and will be, he was ignobly defeated, in
his most glorious days, by the barbarous Gauls of Brennus; by the
half-servile hordes of Hannibal; by the degenerate Greeks of Pyrrhus
with their ‘huge earth-shaking beasts,’ and by the armed mob which
the Cheruscan Arminius (Ormin or Hermann) led against the incompetent
Varus. His campaigns, invariably successful in the end, were marked
by many reverses; and in cases of sudden and sinister emergencies he
was too often scared and put to flight. In fact, he could not fight a
‘soldier’s battle’; nor has any race done this effectively in modern
days except the English and the Slavs.
But when following military genius, the Roman soldier performed
prodigies of gallantry and valour. A Julius Cæsar, a conqueror in fifty
pitched battles, whose practice was to order _venite_ not _ite!_ whose
military instinct could cry at the spur of the moment in the Pharsalian
fight, _faciem feri, miles!_ and who could reduce mutineers to reason
by one word, _Quirites!_ never failed to point the way to victory.
We learn from the Great Epileptic[930] himself the secret of his
unexampled success; the care with which he cultivated the individual.
‘He instructed the soldiers (when exposed to a new mode of attack), not
like the general of a veteran army which had been victorious in so many
battles, but like a Lanista training his gladiators. He taught them
with what foot they must advance or retire; when they were to oppose
and make good their ground; when to counterfeit an attack; at what
place and in what manner to launch their javelins.’[931]
His very arrogance was effective in making him a ruler of men, as when
on receiving bad tidings he struck his Sword-hilt, saying, ‘This will
give me my rights!’ And of his ‘politiké’ (as the Greeks call it) we
may judge by what Polyænus[932] tells us of him. ‘The Romans had been
taught by their commanders that a soldier should not be decorated with
gold or silver, but place his confidence in his Sword,’ says Livy.[933]
But Divus Cæsar encouraged his men to decorate their weapons with all
manner of valuables for a truly soldier-like reason, that they might
be the less ready to part with their property in flight. And though he
plundered freely and rifled even the fanes of the gods, according to
Suetonius, he was careful, like a certain modern Condottiere, to see
that his men were well fed and regularly paid by means of the ‘loot.’
[Heading: _THE ROMAN SOLDIER._]
The Roman soldier had another valuable gift, which has not wholly left
the Latin race. He knew the ‘magic of patience,’ and was aware that
‘le monde est la maison du plus fort.’ So in the Napoleonic days the
Spaniards believed chiefly in General ‘No Importa’ (no matter), and
made little of defeat, hoping it might lead to victory. Nor did the
Roman soldier degenerate till the citizen set him the example. Velleius
Paterculus dated the decline of Roman virtue after the destruction of
Carthage, when civil disputes were decided by the Sword; others to
the invasion of luxury with Lucullus. Yet Pliny could boast of his
fellow-countrymen: ‘They have doubtless surpassed every other nation in
the display of valour.’
But the Roman soldier generally prevailed against races whom he
excelled in size, weight, and muscular strength. His superiority in
arms, like that of the Greek, was not conspicuous when he came into
contact with the ‘barbarians,’[934] especially with the northern
barbarians, after they had learned the moral training and confidence
of discipline and the practical art of war, as well as, if not better
than, himself. For the man of the higher European latitudes has ever
surpassed the Southron in strength of constitution, in stature, in
weight, in muscular power, and in the mysterious something called
vitality. Hence it is a rule in anthropology that the North beats the
South; in the Southern hemisphere the reverse being the case, as we see
in the wars of the Hispano-American republics, Chili _versus_ Peru. In
Europe I need only point out that the Northmen of Scandinavia conquered
Normandy and that Norman-French conquered England. The only exceptions
are easily explained. The genius of Divus Cæsar made his Romans
overcome, overrun, and subjugate Gaul. Napoleon the Great found the
road _à Berlin_ open and easy. But intellectual monsters like these two
are the rare produce of Time; and human nature requires a long period
of rest before repeating such portents.
Those who read history without prepossessions and prejudices are
compelled to conclude that the life and career of a nation are mainly
determined by its physical size and its muscular strength. We have only
to learn how many foot-pounds a race can raise and we can forecast its
so-called ‘destinies.’[935]