01-17-2006, 04:56 PM
Two points: First, I think the idea that the gladius was a more "aggressive" weapon comes from the fact that its shortness forces the user to get closer to the enemy. A Spartan, asked why his sword was so short, replied: "I like to get close." In fact, the adoption of the Mainz-style gladius in the late Republic, along with the smaller scutum, may have been because authorities felt the soldiers were fighting too defensively, hovering behind their huge scuta and thrusting with their longer Hispanienses.
As to adoption of the spatha, might superior metallurgy and forging techniques have played a part? A shorter, wider, stouter blade is less likely to bend than a long, attenuated one. But with better metal and better forging a long blade is far less likely to bend or break. Does anyone know if long blades of the period under discussion were significantly better made than earlier ones?
As to adoption of the spatha, might superior metallurgy and forging techniques have played a part? A shorter, wider, stouter blade is less likely to bend than a long, attenuated one. But with better metal and better forging a long blade is far less likely to bend or break. Does anyone know if long blades of the period under discussion were significantly better made than earlier ones?
Pecunia non olet
