01-17-2006, 04:37 PM
I believe the commonly accepted period for the adoption of the spatha and round/oval shield is c200AD - although there was, of course, a traditional rectangular scutum found at Dura Europos dating to around fifty years later, together with numerous oval shields, so I would say the change was rather gradual, certain units using either style (or both!), for a century or so. Was it not also true that the Romans called any infantry sword a gladius, regardless of length, 'spatha' being used for convenience to designate the longer, later variety?
This being so, the theory of a longer blade being more effective against a mounted enemy seems the most practical - a spear, of course, is more useful still against horsemen, but the longer reach of the spatha seems appropriate for armies that were increasingly facing largely mounted opponents. The Roman spatha was still very much a thrusting weapon, however - not like one of the blunt-ended celtic swords described by Tacitus - and with the spear as well I think we could see later Roman troops still fighting in close formation, using long spears and spatha to repel cavalry - even with a long sword, being caught in open order by a cavalry assault wouldn't be very healthy.
Perhaps the flat or dished shield is merely a practical extension of this - the old Roman gladius was worn on the right and drawn underarm, but once a blade reaches a certain length this cannot be done and it must be worn on the left and drawn across the body. Now, I'm not sure about this, but could the curvature of the old rectangular scutum have made this difficult, or necessitated holding the shield further from the body? Would a larger flatter shield have made it easier to draw a longer blade from the left without exposing too much of the soldier to the enemy? Perhaps someone with experience of using these weapons could confirm or deny?
This being so, the theory of a longer blade being more effective against a mounted enemy seems the most practical - a spear, of course, is more useful still against horsemen, but the longer reach of the spatha seems appropriate for armies that were increasingly facing largely mounted opponents. The Roman spatha was still very much a thrusting weapon, however - not like one of the blunt-ended celtic swords described by Tacitus - and with the spear as well I think we could see later Roman troops still fighting in close formation, using long spears and spatha to repel cavalry - even with a long sword, being caught in open order by a cavalry assault wouldn't be very healthy.
Perhaps the flat or dished shield is merely a practical extension of this - the old Roman gladius was worn on the right and drawn underarm, but once a blade reaches a certain length this cannot be done and it must be worn on the left and drawn across the body. Now, I'm not sure about this, but could the curvature of the old rectangular scutum have made this difficult, or necessitated holding the shield further from the body? Would a larger flatter shield have made it easier to draw a longer blade from the left without exposing too much of the soldier to the enemy? Perhaps someone with experience of using these weapons could confirm or deny?
Nathan Ross
