(no subject)

[timelets]

Despite being hacked to pieces, they stood their ground and matched the Romans for courage; only their weaponry let them down, both individually and collectively. The Romans’ shields were as superior in defence as their swords were in offence: their shields, unlike those of their opponents, covered the entire body, and their swords were made for both cutting and thrusting,† while the Gallic sword was good only for cutting.

...
The tribunes had noticed in their former encounters with the Gauls that they were par- ticularly formidable while still fresh, in their first charge, and that this was due not just to the fact that they were still fired up, but also to their swords. The way the Gauls’ swords were made, as already mentioned, meant that they were potentially lethal only on the first cut. After that, they were bent right out of shape, with their blades so distorted both lengthwise and sideways that, unless a swordsman had time to rest his sword on the ground and straighten it with his foot, his second blow would be completely ineffective. So the tribunes gave the first ranks the spears of the triarii, who occupied the third rank from the front, and told them to turn to their swords only after using their spears. Then they formed up opposite the Celts, and battle was joined.

The Gauls rendered their swords unusable with their first cuts against the spears, and then the Romans came to close quarters. Gauls normally fight with a slashing motion (since their swords lack sharp tips), but the Romans had made this method ineffective. There was nothing the Celts could do, and the Romans, wielding their swords straight on (with a thrusting rather than a cutting motion, since their swords have effective tips), managed to kill most of their adversaries by striking again and again at their chests and faces. They had the foresight of the tribunes to thank for this victory, while Flaminius is thought to have mismanaged the battle.

--- Polybius, The Histories.