05-07-2009, 07:49 AM
One problem with your conclusions is for example that a lot of Roman short swords, particularly of the Mainz pattern, had a better steel quality than longer spathae.
I find nothing is clear here. I'm rather baffled by this whole "gladius hispaniensis" stuff. Maybe it's a literary overemphasis, as so often. For example what is the fundamental difference between a Greek style xiphos and a later republican gladius? Maybe it is the balance like Paullus said (I doubt it when I think of the short xiphos versions or the substantial grips and sword pommels), but will that make the day for you, when you use one or the other from behind your big shield in a thrusting manner? Perhaps, I don't know, I don't think so.
The only reason for me to "change" to the spatha is: different tactical needs because of the foes mainly fought against (more small scale warfare in open order). Perhaps also a growing Germanic element in the army, but this is a weak argument.
I find nothing is clear here. I'm rather baffled by this whole "gladius hispaniensis" stuff. Maybe it's a literary overemphasis, as so often. For example what is the fundamental difference between a Greek style xiphos and a later republican gladius? Maybe it is the balance like Paullus said (I doubt it when I think of the short xiphos versions or the substantial grips and sword pommels), but will that make the day for you, when you use one or the other from behind your big shield in a thrusting manner? Perhaps, I don't know, I don't think so.
The only reason for me to "change" to the spatha is: different tactical needs because of the foes mainly fought against (more small scale warfare in open order). Perhaps also a growing Germanic element in the army, but this is a weak argument.
Wolfgang Zeiler
