On a forum dedicated to Roman stuff this question is debated. (http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=6345)
What is your take on this? Would be nise to get som detailed info on the differnces between the Gladius and the Spatha, and some educated guesses or real info on why the blades are made longer in the end of the era.
M
hmmmmm
reliance on horseback.
added non roman culture influences takeing over the "pure roman" thought.
lack of roman money as the empire stretched outwards, thus reling on non roman trade or uses of steel.
i take it you like the rat forum? hehehe
reliance on horseback.
added non roman culture influences takeing over the "pure roman" thought.
lack of roman money as the empire stretched outwards, thus reling on non roman trade or uses of steel.
i take it you like the rat forum? hehehe
Hi Martin,
The Gladius Hispaniesis was in use with the legions somewhere around 216 - 218 BC, about the time of the Second Punic War, so the Romans had swords longer than the Gladius early on. The Spatha was adopted during the early Empire and might have been a refinement of the Gladius Hispaniesis or a Celtic weapon for use in the cavalry, who would benefit from the additional length of the longer swords.
The infantry adapted the Gladius (Fulham/Mainz and later the Pompeii) to fit their tactics, namely agressive, up close and personal fighting. I don't know why the late Roman infantry switched/progressed towards a longer weapon, but it could have had less to do with a change in the Roman way of fighting (Even with the addtional length, the weapons were still believed to be intended for the use with a thrust) and may have had more to do with a change in the type of enemies they were encountering.
Here's some general ranges for comparison of blade lengths:
Gladius Hispaniesis
64 - 69 cm (25 - 27 inches) in length
Spatha
65 - 91.5 cm (25.5 - 36 inches) in length
Mainz Gladius
40 - 55 cm (16 - 22 inches) in length
Pompeii Gladius
42 - 50 cm (16.5 - 20 inches) in length
Great topic! Please share any additional info you come across.
Regards,
Matt
The Gladius Hispaniesis was in use with the legions somewhere around 216 - 218 BC, about the time of the Second Punic War, so the Romans had swords longer than the Gladius early on. The Spatha was adopted during the early Empire and might have been a refinement of the Gladius Hispaniesis or a Celtic weapon for use in the cavalry, who would benefit from the additional length of the longer swords.
The infantry adapted the Gladius (Fulham/Mainz and later the Pompeii) to fit their tactics, namely agressive, up close and personal fighting. I don't know why the late Roman infantry switched/progressed towards a longer weapon, but it could have had less to do with a change in the Roman way of fighting (Even with the addtional length, the weapons were still believed to be intended for the use with a thrust) and may have had more to do with a change in the type of enemies they were encountering.
Here's some general ranges for comparison of blade lengths:
Gladius Hispaniesis
64 - 69 cm (25 - 27 inches) in length
Spatha
65 - 91.5 cm (25.5 - 36 inches) in length
Mainz Gladius
40 - 55 cm (16 - 22 inches) in length
Pompeii Gladius
42 - 50 cm (16.5 - 20 inches) in length
Great topic! Please share any additional info you come across.
Regards,
Matt
Maybe it is to do with the enemies the Romans were fighting. At the time the gladius hispaniensis was adopted (circa 200 BC) the Romans' main enemies where "Civilised" peoples such as the Carthaginians, the Macedonians and the Hellenistic Kingdoms, many of whom used tactics based on the macedonian phalanx. In these tight formations short thrusting weapons were probably ideal.
By the 3rd century BC, i.e. the period when longer swords came into use, the Romans were encountering enemies who used looser less compact formations like the Sassanids and the various Germanic tribes, making the shorter swords redundant.
Where this argument doesn't work is that the Romans were already fighting more "Barbaric" foes, e.g. the Gauls and the Parthians, in the 1st century BC.
By the 3rd century BC, i.e. the period when longer swords came into use, the Romans were encountering enemies who used looser less compact formations like the Sassanids and the various Germanic tribes, making the shorter swords redundant.
Where this argument doesn't work is that the Romans were already fighting more "Barbaric" foes, e.g. the Gauls and the Parthians, in the 1st century BC.
My thought was that maybe tha sword became a sidearm instead of the first weapon. The spear or lance would be a better option agains the mounted forces and if the number of those increased the use of the sword became more that of a secundary weapon to use in man on man fighting and in skirmishes. Then a longer blade would be better when you fight with enough room around you.
| Quote: |
| Where this argument doesn't work is that the Romans were already fighting more "Barbaric" foes, e.g. the Gauls and the Parthians, in the 1st century BC. |
Actually if I remember my last read of Ceasar's "de bello gallico" correctly then he mentioned that the swords of the celts were often rather useless. They often had to fall back after their first charge to straighten their swords which had bent during their first contact with the Romans.
Maybe I'm wrong on this but weren't the swords of Celtic footsoldiers a bit shorter than those which were meant to be used from horseback.
On the longer swords:
It sounds plausible to me that the swords became longer because of changed battle-tactics and different enemies. A spatha is better against a Parthian on horseback than a shorter gladius.
Does anybody know when the Romans stopped using the pilum?
As far as I gather, the advantage of the gladius is that it forces the legionaries to fight either very defensively or very offensively.
Removing the Hasta from the front lines forces the legion to attack instead of fighting a slow war of attrition with spears. This would probably be enough to break a opponent used to that kind of intermediate range fighting.
The Spatha, on the other hand, would be a beter weapon in loose formation, or in one on one combat.
Removing the Hasta from the front lines forces the legion to attack instead of fighting a slow war of attrition with spears. This would probably be enough to break a opponent used to that kind of intermediate range fighting.
The Spatha, on the other hand, would be a beter weapon in loose formation, or in one on one combat.
| Quote: |
| Does anybody know when the Romans stopped using the pilum? |
As far as I know they never stopped using it... Alex
| Wolfgang Armbruster wrote: | ||
Actually if I remember my last read of Ceasar's "de bello gallico" correctly then he mentioned that the swords of the celts were often rather useless. They often had to fall back after their first charge to straighten their swords which had bent during their first contact with the Romans. |
This has nothing to do with the length of the sword, but rather of the material from which it is constructed: Primarily, or often entirely wrought iron, which is very malleable and ductile compared to the stifness of well-tempered steel. (or even poorly tempered steel)
In the Eastern Empire, at least, I think the longer blades is a result of the increasing reliance on horses. In Maurice's Strategikon, his example armies have huge contingents of cavalry, comprising half of the army in some cases (perhaps more, I haven't got it on hand as I write this).
He does, however, mention that his footsoldiers should use 'Herulian' swords (probably migration types).. This was during the 6th/7th century, a time at which the (now) Byzantine Empire was expanding. This effectively dismisses the theory about the 'less agressive' longer sword.
Now, my guess is that the face of warfare had changed, however slightly (in the wider scope of things). The switch to longer swords, spears, and a less-funky-looking pila (without the long iron 'neck') meant something of a more flexible, and far mobile footsoldier. That's a bit of my bias, though.
| Hisham Gaballa wrote: |
| Maybe it is to do with the enemies the Romans were fighting. At the time the gladius hispaniensis was adopted (circa 200 BC) the Romans' main enemies where "Civilised" peoples such as the Carthaginians, the Macedonians and the Hellenistic Kingdoms, many of whom used tactics based on the macedonian phalanx. In these tight formations short thrusting weapons were probably ideal.
By the 3rd century BC, i.e. the period when longer swords came into use, the Romans were encountering enemies who used looser less compact formations like the Sassanids and the various Germanic tribes, making the shorter swords redundant. Where this argument doesn't work is that the Romans were already fighting more "Barbaric" foes, e.g. the Gauls and the Parthians, in the 1st century BC. |
Plus, the hispaniensis was apparently abandoned for the shorter gladius forms by the 1st century BC, which seems to be the opposite of what your logic would suggest (perhaps I misunderstand....)
| Alexander Ren wrote: | ||
As far as I know they never stopped using it... Alex |
It seems that sometime in the 3rd or early 4th century the traditional pilum had been replaced by a combination of weapons, mainly a standard spear for thrusting of throwing (hasta or lancea), but also a couple other interesting weapons which had some similarities to the pilum -- the plumbata and the verutum. The verutum was a shortish javelin, while the plumbata was a "dart" -- actually, think about a slightly larger version of a lawn dart and you're almost there.
Meanwhile, the Germanic folk had developed their own version of the old Roman pilum -- the Angon, which is very similar to a Roman pilum in many respects. Many Germanic auxiliaries, mercenaries, and foederatii(sp?) possibly used this weapon in Roman service.
| David Wilson wrote: |
|
It seems that sometime in the 3rd or early 4th century the traditional pilum had been replaced by a combination of weapons, mainly a standard spear for thrusting of throwing (hasta or lancea), but also a couple other interesting weapons which had some similarities to the pilum -- the plumbata and the verutum. The verutum was a shortish javelin, while the plumbata was a "dart" -- actually, think about a slightly larger version of a lawn dart and you're almost there. Meanwhile, the Germanic folk had developed their own version of the old Roman pilum -- the Angon, which is very similar to a Roman pilum in many respects. Many Germanic auxiliaries, mercenaries, and foederatii(sp?) possibly used this weapon in Roman service. |
Thanks for the info. Would anyone happen to have any pictures?
Thanks... Alex
| Alexander Ren wrote: | ||
Thanks for the info. Would anyone happen to have any pictures? Thanks... Alex |
did some google search. does anyone have a copy of page 55 of The Germanic Warrior?
I think your right, Steve. Usually, especially in the sword world, we move from simply made blades to the more complex. However, as Chuck has mentioned, the vast expansion(and subsequent ruin) of the Roman Empire put a strain on finances.
A straight bladed sword is almost always easier and thusly cheaper to make than a non-straight blade. This may also require less steel, smiths can chime in on leaf blades if they want :p
A straight bladed sword is almost always easier and thusly cheaper to make than a non-straight blade. This may also require less steel, smiths can chime in on leaf blades if they want :p
| Adam Welch wrote: |
| ...A straight bladed sword is almost always easier and thusly cheaper to make than a non-straight blade. This may also require less steel, smiths can chime in on leaf blades if they want :p |
I'm guessing that, along with easier and cheaper, the straight blade takes less time to make (not a very big leap in logic, there :D ). It has been suggested that, at some times in the Roman Empire, expedience was the driving factor in arms production. An example would be the time after the Teutoburg Forest disaster, which was very costly in terms of lost men and equipment. . Some have correlated the development of the lorica segmentata, much easier/quicker to make than maille, to that event.
| Steve Grisetti wrote: | ||
I'm guessing that, along with easier and cheaper, the straight blade takes less time to make (not a very big leap in logic, there :D ). It has been suggested that, at some times in the Roman Empire, expedience was the driving factor in arms production. An example would be the time after the Teutoburg Forest disaster, which was very costly in terms of lost men and equipment. . Some have correlated the development of the lorica segmentata, much easier/quicker to make than maille, to that event. |
Except that fragments of segmentata have been found on the battlesite, indicating it was already in use by that time. :)
in terms of losses, Teotoburg was nothing special.
Three legions lost, some 20 000 men.
To comparison, Crassus lost 30 000 men at Carhae in 53BC. Markus Antonius lost 25 000-30 000 in Parthia in 36 BC...
This was followed by a bloody civil war...
Three legions lost, some 20 000 men.
To comparison, Crassus lost 30 000 men at Carhae in 53BC. Markus Antonius lost 25 000-30 000 in Parthia in 36 BC...
This was followed by a bloody civil war...
| Elling Polden wrote: |
| in terms of losses, Teotoburg was nothing special.
Three legions lost, some 20 000 men. To comparison, Crassus lost 30 000 men at Carhae in 53BC. Markus Antonius lost 25 000-30 000 in Parthia in 36 BC... This was followed by a bloody civil war... |
It took the Romans up to 9 legions to beat down the Bar Kochba revolt in Palestine and large parts of the middle east.
A whole legion that was sent as backup from Egypt was totally annihilated by the Hebrews before they could do anything.
During the war they suffered losses that were in the same range (or even bigger) as in Germania.
The difference between the disaster in Palestine and Germania is that the Romans simply couldn't afford to loose Palestine. It was too important. On the other hand there was nothing in Germany except trees, swamps and unfriendly barbarians ;)
However, the losses in Germania and Palestine were seen as substantial and as a threat to the empire. The legions which were annihilated in these wars were never "refounded".
The legions XVII, XVIII and XIX didn't exist anymore from then on. They were never replaced (in the sense that they didn't use these numbers)
I hope I didn't get too off-topic *g*
Concerning the Lorica segmentata: I think they were just experimenting like the people in the middle ages.
Maybe they came to the conclusion that mail-shirts were easier to produce (were they?) and would last longer.
@ Hisham: We still can't say with certainty where the Teutoburg battle took place exactly. The battle-site at Kalkriese could be the Varus-battle, but there's still a lot of debate going on. The site fits the descriptions by Cassius Dio quite well though.
It strikes me that the change to longer swords could be as much because the romans started fighting like the germans and parthians than against them;
More cavalry, dispersed units, more mobility...
But, anyhow, longer swords are a advantage out of close melee.
And, if you end up in close, you can always dropp your Spatha and go for your Pugio instead.
More cavalry, dispersed units, more mobility...
But, anyhow, longer swords are a advantage out of close melee.
And, if you end up in close, you can always dropp your Spatha and go for your Pugio instead.
| Elling Polden wrote: |
| It strikes me that the change to longer swords could be as much because the romans started fighting like the germans and parthians than against them;
More cavalry, dispersed units, more mobility... But, anyhow, longer swords are a advantage out of close melee. And, if you end up in close, you can always dropp your Spatha and go for your Pugio instead. |
I think if they were fighting more like Germans its is because more and more of the army at this time was made up of Germans and other assimilated cultures.
Here are a couple of quotes about the Roman fighting style...(from the Albion site)
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. This was the method of fighting principally used by the Romans, and their reason for exercising recruits with arms of such a weight at first was, that when they came to carry the common ones so much lighter, the greater difference might enable them to act with greater security and alacrity in time of action.
-- Flavius Vegetius Renatus. De Re Militari Book I: The Selection and Training of New Levies, 390 A.D
..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...
--Dionysus of Halicarnassus
We are informed by the writings of the ancients that, among their other exercises, they had that of the post. They gave their recruits round bucklers woven with willows, twice as heavy as those used on real service, and wooden swords double the weight of the common ones. They exercised them with these at the post both morning and afternoon.
This is an invention of the greatest use, not only to soldiers, but also to gladiators. No man of either profession ever distinguished himself in the circus or field of battle, who was not perfect in this kind of exercise. Every soldier, therefore, fixed a post firmly in the ground, about the height of six feet. Against this, as against a real enemy, the recruit was exercised with the above mentioned arms, as it were with the common shield and sword, sometimes aiming At the head or face, sometimes at the sides, at others endeavoring to strike at the thighs or legs. He was instructed in what manner to advance and retire, and in short how to take every advantage of his adversary; but was thus above all particularly cautioned not to lay himself open to his antagonist while aiming his stroke at him.
-- Flavius Vegetius Renatus, De Re Militari Book I: The Selection and Training of New Levies, 390 A.D
[/list]
Page 1 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum