Can someone please provide me with the evolution of the Roman short sword. I know it evolved from the celtic leaf blade on the Iberian peninsula but what is the order of use for the different blade types (i.e. Maintz, Fulham, Pompeii).

My brother is currently reading up on Scipio Africanus and claims that Scipio was the first to equipt the Roman legion with gladius Hispaniensis (Spanish short sword) from the Maintz type short sword and that the gladius Hispaniensis was a far superior weapon. I always thought the Maintz came after the Hispaniensis?

Also, if my brother is correct (I think he has an incorrect source) - why was the gladius Hispaniensis such an improvement?

Haver you read our Feature Article on the Gladius?

http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_ironempire.html

The article looks basically right (just skimmed it). The first Roman swords were Italian derivatives of the Greek-style hoplite sword. During the Punic Wars the Romans were introduced to a Spanish sword which made a very great impression on them, so they adopted it wholesale--that's the gladius hispaniensis. This weapon started life as a Gallic straight-bladed sword, NOT a leaf-shaped one. (Those seem to have gone out of fashion in Gaul very early.) The Spanish version mainly altered some of the scabbard hardware, since the Spaniards preferred two rings on the back edge of the scabbard for suspending it, rather than a flat loop on the front face as the Gauls used. The blade was around 25 to 27 inches long, and 2 inches wide or less, with a long point.

The Roman version was very similar at first, though Polybius tells us that the Romans were not able to match the quality of the Spanish steel. The Romans also made some of their hispaniensis blades waisted, though not all. Here's my repro (by Mark Morrow) of a hispaniensis blade from Smihel, Slovakia:

http://www.larp.com/legioxx/Smihel1.jpg

We USED to think that what we call the Mainz gladius was the "hispaniensis" derived from Spanish models, but this is not the case. There is a vaguely similar Spanish sword, but it went out of use a couple hundred years before the Romans came into contact with them, and it was not nearly as similar to the Roman sword as it might look at first glance. No relation! The Mainz is a later development from the Hispaniensis, getting shorter and broader. It might not be as good a chopper as the hispaniensis, but it's a little handier in close quarters. Both are perfectly good weapons, and I wouldn't say that one is inherently better than the other.

The Fulham really seems to be just a variation on the Mainz. There are too many variations of both to draw stong conclusions about blade shape, usage, etc. The Fulham may even predate the Mainz, since it is actually more similar to the hispaniensis, just shorter.

The Pompeii is next, and really just seems to appear out of the blue! The hilt is about the same as the Mainz or Fulham, but the blade is really its own thing.

Note that this is far from the end of gladius development! In the second century AD we see the ring-hilted gladius, and several other styles through the years as well as evolution in the spatha.

Also note that there is great danger in trying to state WHY a certain type of sword was popular--FASHION is probably the greatest factor!

That what you're looking for? Vale,

Matthew

Thanks guys, this is exactly what I wanted to know - appreciate the help.