New Book on Roman Swords

[Medicus matt]

In the 3th century they are definitely longer and the reacancular scutum has been replaced with the dished oval shield. Why so? In authors opinion, there might be several reasons. First, for the individual legionary it is much easier to hack / slash with the longer spathas when the shield doesn`t have any corners. That`s the reason for the oval shield. Why the adaptation of the longer spatha? Perhaps it was adaptation to the new fighting techniques required due to the new kind of enemies on horseback (sassanids, sarmatians, some goths). The rectangular scutum and thrusting with the shorter gladius is not very effective in this respect. It can also have been the preferred way of fighting for the legionaries drafted more and more from the provinces?
Then the sword. In the 3th century the quality of the sword blades improved drastically (pattern-welding etc.). Which was first, the need to develop a technique which allows to make more durable longer blades or were the improved metallurgical techniques developed by accident and in no relation to this need? So was there an isolated need to longer blades due to changing fighting techniques or were the longer blades a side-effect of the technological advancements? Any way, very interesting !

Or, in other words....nothing new. I know that this book is being aimed at a wider audience than those with a specific interest in Roman weaponry (it's ready availability in UK bookshops is evidence of that) but I must say that I've found nothing revelatory in it. It's a good book (as you'd expect form Simon James), not a great or essential one though.