[Gene Green]

I often read that the Romans preferred way of fighting was to come up as close as possible to the enemy, and while hiding behind a large shield, attack with a relatively short gladius. This made sense, as the longer sword wouldn't fit this style of fighting well as you'd need to have some distance between you and the opponent to use it effectively. It also seems to match the way Greek hoplites fought when pressed into close quarter combat - their xyphos (sp?) looks as little more than a large dagger.

I also read that in the later Imperial days the Romans and subsequently the Eastern Romans were using the longer spatha instead of gladius. Yet they still maintained more or less the same tactics - or am I wrong ? Was this perhaps due to a large number of barbaric warriors in Roman army, who were used to longer swords ?

[Jack Savante]

You've asked an excellent question, one which i would not presume to be able to comment on definitively but i do know some facts relevant to your question.

Tacitus in his 'Agricola' notes that the Romans fought against the British rebels with the gladius while the auxiliaries fought with the spatha. At the time the Agricola is based (mid 1st century) the Roman army was not dominated by 'unromanised', soldiers or mercenaries, and Rome was not yet having trouble raising enough home grown or friendly men to fill the ranks of her armies.

As time wore on, the Romans had increasing difficulty enlisting people into their armies as regular troops. Increasingly peoples from beyond the borders and the fringes of the empire came to predominate amongst the rank and file of the army and rather than Rome putting its stamp on the way they fought, these outsiders changed the way large parts of the Army fought and were outfitted - to suit the tastes of the newcomers ancestral traditions. This, at any rate, is how I would suggest the change may have occurred.

I believe another relevant consideration in the shift to the spatha is the increasing importance of the horse in warfare, particularly with the introduction of the stirrup in the closing centuries of the western Empire.

Using a small sword, while lethal in formation fighting, does to some extent run counterintuitive to instinct. Instinct says: a bigger sword is better! So the spatha must have been an attractive weapon to soldiers who lived in fear of their lives on a daily basis. I know if were a Roman soldier doing patrols in hostile lands and fearful of the retribution of rebellious natives I would personally prefer a spatha to a gladius!

Lastly, though a spatha is bigger and would be more difficult to swing in a tight infantry formation, I imagine it would still be possible to use one effectively for stabbing and thrusting motions in formation fighting; in fact it would allow for a longer reach. Perhaps this was observed by the commanders of the day?

So, not quite an answer I know, but I do hope I have contibuted some useful information to the subject.

[Rebekah Leib]

From what I've read, the fighting tactics differed in Roman history depending on what formation they were using. When using the tight formation of the Greek phalanx (very early on), about the only direction you could attack in was 'forward' so there may well have not have been much room to be swinging a large blade; when they switched to the manuple system/formation there was more maneuverability, so after the pilum were thrown, you engaged with your pugio, or your gladius (which, IIRC, came later after the Romans encountered different sword styles) and had more room to do so. The spatha was longer and heavier, and used primarily from horseback where you'd both need something longer and the bigger blade would give you an additional advantage as a cavalryman.

The latest issue of Ancient Warfare highlights cavalry, and has some info on the spatha. Hope this helps!



Rebekah

[Stephen Curtin]

Hi Gene. This is a question that has been asked many times before over at Romanarmytalk. Here are two threads which you might find interesting.

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/17-roman-mil...a-why.html

www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/17-roman-military-h...patha.html

My take on it is that it had nothing to do with the increased use of barbarian troop (who adopted the spatha from the Romans, not the other way around, as many believe), but that it was part of a bigger change in tactics and equipment. The old semi cylindrical scutum was replaced with a round or oval shield, and the sword was no longer the primary melee weapon, the spear taking it's place.

[Kurt Scholz]

The spear was the Late Roman stabbing weapon and the sword didn't stay a redundant stabbing weapon. It put a stronger emphasis on the cutting and slashing role with slight changes over time. This development had been pioneered by the auxiliaries in the Roman army and goes back to the La Tène influenced Gallic warriors (copied as thureophoroi and thorakitai in Hellenistic warfare).
The gladius is part of a combination with the scutum, a very heavy shield that became increasingly lighter in combination with an ever longer sword. Switching names in Late Roman times can make it sound more dramatic than the shift in substance.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Michael Curl]

You have any books or articles to recommend about gaulish tactics?

[Kurt Scholz]