+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why? (/showthread.php?tid=4513)
The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why? - Thiudareiks Flavius - 01-16-2006
I'm observing a discussion of this question elsewhere and find most of the arguments presented unconvincing. They include:
(i) The Late Roman Army was on the 'defensive' and so abandoned the more 'aggressive' gladius for the more 'defensive' spatha.
(ii) The Late Roman Army was heavily barbarised and so gradually adopted the spatha because it was preferred by 'barbarian' troops over the gladius.
Any better ideas than these? Both of them strike me as deeply flawed or just plain silly.
Re: The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why? - Theodosius the Great - 01-16-2006
Well, I don't know if this relates to the second argument, but Connolly says that the gladius was designed for the use by a smaller man (e.g. Italians) against a bigger man (e.g. Germans).
So when you have two men in the same height range, isn't the man with the gladius left at a disadvantage ?
And besides, by the late second century I think the barbarians would've learned by now to change their fighting techniques to compensate for the Roman technique of thrusting into exposed abdomens. This is in part because (I think) some barbarians were recruited by the army and later went back to their homes to share what they've learned about how the Romans fought. The other part is, you can only do the same trick so many times before the enemy catches on (on his own) and compensates to not fall prey to it again.
So, I just think the gladius wasn't the asset it once was. In fact, it became a liability.
Re: The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why? - tlclark - 01-16-2006
Here's a thought.
Doesn't a spatha have more of a reach but less steel?
could it be an economic decision?
Travis
Re: The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why? - FAVENTIANVS - 01-16-2006
And from then onwards almost all combat swords have been long bladed until the 20th Century.
Re: The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why? - Thiudareiks Flavius - 01-16-2006
The idea that a spatha was, somehow, more 'defensive' than a gladius strikes me as armchair speculation of the silliest kind. The people who believe this seem to think that a few extra inches were required to keep the enemy slightly more at bay and that this appealed to the later Roman Army because they were no longer expanding the Empire and so were in a more timid and defensive frame of mind. These people need to get out of their armchairs and pick up a spatha and then a gladius. One of them is stating (as a fact) that 'the Romans were now on the defensive, defending walls and cities where the longsword fits better'. These pseudo arguments are great examples of how internet discussions can be wonderful poolings of ignorance and ill-informed speculation masquerading as fact.
The idea that the adoption of the spatha was due to 'barbarian' influence is rather less silly, but still one I find unconvincing. The archaeological evidence from Germania indicates that the Germanics adopted the spatha as their primary sword due to influence from the Romans after the Romans had already done so. Before this they favoured short gladius-style swords, just like the Romans.
Which brings us back to why the Romans adopted the spatha over the gladius in the first place.
I can't help but think that the fact that this transition is accompanied by the ditching of the classic, curved scutum for slightly concave oval and round shields indicates that there was some kind of change in tactics involved in both transitions. This would explain why these transitions seem (as far as our sketchy evidence can tell us) to have taken place at about the same time - the old combination of curved scutum and short gladius gives way to a new combination of a slightly shorter/smaller oval or round shield and longer sword.
Surely this change indicates a change in the way the Romans chose to fight?
Re: The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why? - Martin Wallgren - 01-16-2006
Sounds to me as if the sword wasn´t the primary arms in the formations any longer. Maybe The oval shield is a suggestion that the spear is the offensive weapon and the spatha is more of what they call an armingsword in Medival classification. A secundary tool to use when formation is broken or you find yourself in more of a man to man type of combat as in a skirmish or duell.
This is just a late night thought from me, falling back on medival combat tactics.
Re: The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why? - Thiudareiks Flavius - 01-17-2006
Quote:Sounds to me as if the sword wasn´t the primary arms in the formations any longer. Maybe The oval shield is a suggestion that the spear is the offensive weapon and the spatha is more of what they call an armingsword in Medival classification. A secundary tool to use when formation is broken or you find yourself in more of a man to man type of combat as in a skirmish or duell.
This idea might have some legs. Given that the late Roman Army did still use versions of or developments from the old pila, but were also equipped with spears in a way the old legionaries weren't, the idea of the spear being the primary weapon, with the angon, plumbata etc used for initial attacks and the spatha as a back-up weapon makes some degree of sense.
Could this be a response to cavalry-heavy Sassanid armies in the Third and Fourth Centuries?
Now I think about it, I'm not certain that all late Roman soldiers did use spears. Perhaps one of our Late Roman experts can help us on this point.
The more I think about it, the more all these changes could have been a response to a need to do things differently against the Sassanids following several humiliating reverses and increased pressure on the eastern frontier in the Third and Fourth Centuries.
Thoughts?
Re: The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why? - Martin Wallgren - 01-17-2006
I´m a beginner on the late roman field so I would also be grateful for all th information on that period I could get.
My statment is sole experience with different types of blades and weaponry from the 10th c. and forward. The experience I have is that a round flat shield in formation is best used together with a spear. The sword is more of a personal defence tool. Man to man the sword often gets the better of the spear though! At least if the spearman is holding a shield and can´t apply the very efective grappling and throwing you could do if you have both hands on the shaft.
Just my two sestertii!
Re: The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why? - arklore70 - 01-17-2006
If I am not mistaken,..the Roman empire went more and more to Cavalry formations. As cavalry became more and more the force of choice on the battlefield, the Spatha would be the preferred edge weapon due to its extended reach I would think as compared to a gladius if one were looking to engage an enemy on horseback or running down a dismounted enemy. Especially after the Spear or lance was used and dropped.
Could it be a logistical factor in that the smiths were mass producing one type of sword for ease of production?
Just a thought.
v/r
Mike
Re: The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why? - Thiudareiks Flavius - 01-17-2006
Quote:If I am not mistaken,..the Roman empire went more and more to Cavalry formations. As cavalry became more and more the force of choice on the battlefield, the Spatha would be the preferred edge weapon due to its extended reach I would think as compared to a gladius if one were looking to engage an enemy on horseback or running down a dismounted enemy. Especially after the Spear or lance was used and dropped.
Yes, but the spatha had always been the sword used by Roman cavalry. The question here is why was it adopted by the late Roman infantry as well.
Quote:Could it be a logistical factor in that the smiths were mass producing one type of sword for ease of production?
Maybe, though this had never been a problem for Roman military manufacturies before. I'm still inclined toward it representing part of a change or adjustment in battlefield tactics myself.
Re: The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why? - Theodosius the Great - 01-17-2006
Quote:The archaeological evidence from Germania indicates that the Germanics adopted the spatha as their primary sword due to influence from the Romans after the Romans had already done so. Before this they favoured short gladius-style swords, just like the Romans.
The Celts favored long slashing swords though. I didn't know the Germans favored the gladius-type sword. What about the Celts and Pics still unsubdued in Britannia ? Didn't they still wield long slashing swords (during the 1st & 2nd C. AD) ?
Re: The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why? - Thiudareiks Flavius - 01-17-2006
Quote:Thiudareiks Flavius:37jsidxm Wrote:The archaeological evidence from Germania indicates that the Germanics adopted the spatha as their primary sword due to influence from the Romans after the Romans had already done so. Before this they favoured short gladius-style swords, just like the Romans.
The Celts favored long slashing swords though. I didn't know the Germans favored the gladius-type sword. What about the Celts and Pics still unsubdued in Britannia ? Didn't they still wield long slashing swords (during the 1st & 2nd C. AD) ?
They did. But the reason I mentioned that the Germanics is that the suggestion is that the spatha was adopted due to the influence of barbarians in the late Roman Army. The bulk of those barbarians at that stage were Germanics (and some Huns and Indo-Iranians) rather than Celts.
Re: The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why? - A_Volpe - 01-17-2006
The answer is possibly a combination of everyone's add-ins so far -
Romans adpoted and absorbed what they felt was the best weapons/armors/tactics whatnot, sometimes creating something on thier own (IMHO I think Lor. Seggie was perhaps a unique Roman invention, as I know not of any evidence of other forces using anything similar)...And supposedly the Gladius being adopted and improved from the enemies.
Romans also had so many "outside" cultures and peoples joining in and bringing in thier influence, the Legions could have been the first to start adpating the 'new' styles...
As stated earlier, there is a growing trend to Cavalry for primary military force, so having 'longer' weapons would probably prove to be an advantage.
Also, the idea of the Spatha being more of a "backup" weapon is a very interesting and possible theory...Much as the Medieval/Renns. Knight's Longsword a 'last ditch' weapon as opposed to say the Lance...It appears the later Romans seem to warm up to the 'looser' formation and skirmishing tactics than say the earlier Imperial soldiers. (not to say you can't have tight formation with circle shield and spatha/spear, just more of a general sense than specific here)
And, keep in mind that as far as we know, the Romans used the [shorter] Gladius and the large Scutum for nearly 300 years, that's an exceptional period of time to use such a specific combination of gear....So perhaps they felt a change was in order, or it had just...Evolved that way.
...Even after the machine gun being in use for only 90 someodd years, we issue a bayonet...which works similarly to a Gladius...Get in real close, and thrust, thrust, thrust. :wink:
Re: The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why? - LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS - 01-17-2006
Very interesting subject!
I think another reason is that the "classical" roman fighting with a short sword and a largue scutum needs more training than fighting with a long sword (or a spear) and a oval scutum.
We can think that in the late roman army factours like training and discipline were not so important like in the laterepublican or imperial armies.
Re: The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why? - Thiudareiks Flavius - 01-17-2006
Quote:Very interesting subject!
I think another reason is that the "classical" roman fighting with a short sword and a largue scutum needs more training than fighting with a long sword (or a spear) and a oval scutum.
It does? Why? I can't see how that follows at all.
Quote:We can think that in the late roman army factours like training and discipline were not so important like in the laterepublican or imperial armies.
The late Roman Army continued to fight in disciplined formations and continued to be a highly effective fighting force right up to the very end of the Western Empire and, in the case of the Eastern Army, well beyond. Sorry, but I can't see why formation fighting with a short sword and rectangular shield would require any more training than formation fighting with a longer sword and an oval one. And I can't see any good evidence of a decline in training, discipline or effectiveness in the later Army.