Why change to the Spatha?

[Matthew Amt]

Matthew, I think you missed my point. I never said that longer blades makes one a wimp...

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you had implied that!

...I was saying that an experienced fighter will use their head more, they don’t just blindly go charging in, or at least not to many times.

Sure, no problem there. Though there would be experienced fighters in any era, regardless of the weapons. And there's no evidence that veterans *selected* longer weapons just because of a more cautious approach. (I don't think we can count Republican triarii here, since they were apparently spear-armed to be able to serve better as a holding force.) Of course, there would always be at least a few cautious or timid newbies, and veterans who had decided that being more aggressive gave one an advantage sometimes. Check out the description of the battle of Forum Gallorum, fought between veteran legions, it's fascinating.

A longer blade give one a chance to maneuver a little more and use a little more defense as well as offense. To emphasize my point, you and a sparring partner trying using a small rubber knife and go at it. It’s a totally different type of fighting, then using a sword. With a sword, you have the advantage of being able to use a little strategy, or technique, to get in and deliver the killing blow. And of course I’m not saying that the Gladius was like a knife, but you get my point.

Fair enough. A longer blade gives you more options, more effective cuts if nothing else. Though I remember from my days of padded weapon combat years ago that I was always very aggressive with sword and shield, charging right in to bash and swing. Whereas going one-on-one with daggers against an opponent who I knew was good, I was much more cautious and focused, knowing that I would probably have only one chance to nail him before getting killed. (Nailed him twice in a row, in fact, to both our surprises!)

When your fitting your army, you certainly don’t think about the soldiers with the weakest armor, you plan on going against the strongest, or at least keep in mind the trend where the armor’s headed. True most of Rome’s enemies at the time wore nothing more then blue paint, but that’s not the focus when your fitting your legions for battle, you think of the what gives you the biggest problems, then plan against it, the rest, (shirtless enemies) are gravy. I think a smart general or whoever had the voice of how to best equip the legions, planed against the 10% of the enemies that was the hardest to kill, rather then the 90% that relied on numbers.

But we have no indication that they thought this way, do we? Equipment doesn't seem to have changed significantly (functionally, I mean) for hundreds of years, regardless of the region or opponents. Short swords had been in use since 1500 BC. Tactics were flexible to suit terrain and different foes, and generals would try to assure they had good auxiliary and allied backup (cavalry, etc.). But the Dacian campaign is about the only time I know of where we *think* the Romans actually altered the regular gear in response to a particular weapon. Oh, you could count Caesar's troops at Dyrrhachium, making padded coats to protect against arrows, but they seem to have done that on their own. And both of those are protection in response to weapons, not the other way around.

As all of us knows, in the heat of battle, your opponent doesn’t always respect your wish to kill him and stand still so you can deliver that nice sweet shot. During the battle, he’s trying to avoid you as your trying to kill him, and sometimes your shot doesn’t always go where you’d like. How would you like your opponent to have crouched down a bit as he was trying to avoided a face shot, then you go for the neck, and slide the tip of your sword into a loop of his armor or imbed into a primitive chest plate made up of strips of wood, then he suddenly stands up, scared by your shot, and oops, their goes the tip of the Gladius. Sure your going to get pissed and kill him anyway, but you now have a sword with a broken tip. My point is that your shot doens't alway go where its planed.

Well, okay, I think I can see what you're getting at. But the main obstacle would be the shield. If I could get around that and punch low and quickly at his groin, I wouldn't think it was too likely that he could crouch fast enough for me to hit his cuirass. Of course, he'd be hoping and praying just the opposite! Sure, nothing is certain in battle. But again, what I'm saying is that if the tip of a gladius is that vulnerable, there's no way it would have taken them THAT long to figure it out!

What's the "primitive chest plate made up of strips of wood"? Never heard of that one!

[quote]And what do you mean, “If you have to hit armor, you don't use a swordâ€