Rome vs Han essay- want get some opinions

[Anthrophobia]

I disagree entirely. The POINT of a sword determines it's suitability for thrusting, and thrusting vs armoured and unarmoured opponents., as does straight vs curved. It has little to do with with it's length. The reason the gladius is shorter is because there is limited room based on Roman tactics, however this does not hamper it's ability to be used in any way. If the Romans just stabbed, and stabbed only they'd probably use pointy pieces of iron rod (like javelin shafts) or pointed sticks with hardened ends. Why bother putting cutting edges on them? Seems like a lot of extra work.

The gladius is a cleaver. It's a 2 inch (average) wide blade by 18 - 20 inches long (average). Do you have any idea the amount of cutting force that blade can generate? The history channel demonstrated that a gladius is fully capable of severing a goat's neck..imagine an arm.

Try it out...make a wooden waster of a gladius or a needlefelt one...get a couple buds and try it out. You'll see cutting or stabbing it works just fine in both roles.

That's the same with the Han jian. It is designed to stab but it can cut as well, but to say that it can do both equally well is absurb, since if so it wouldn't be replaced by the dao. Thus it would be double standard to think so of the gladius while not giving the jian the same credit. The cutting force by the gladius generates 100 ft pounds and requires 250 ft pounds of energy to cut through wrought iron. However, a weapon made for cutting such as the dao generates 150 ft pounds of force due to that it is longer and thus have more force applied to it. Can a gladius cut through a goats neck? My kitchen knife can cut through a goats neck if enough force is applied to it, no problem. Any good sword can cut through flesh and even bone depending on the force applied by the user. But in a real fight infantry against infantry, it is easier to stab. Roman sources admitted this as they fought the celts who swinged their swords while the Romans thrusted their gladius. It is common sense which one was more effective.

So a thrust doesn't need to have force applied to it either? Again, I totally disagree with this statement. Even a light amount of force in a swing which creates a cutting action (not a chop..i'll get to that later) would be enough to split the skin and create a deep wound. Deep wound = pretty big trouble for the person cut. Blood loss is a pretty serious factor in combat.

A thrust gives less force but this type of attack is much quicker, allowing the user to attack his opponent more times than one who cuts. A cut does not give as deep a wound as a thrust. A nastier wound, yes, but a thrust would already be enough to go from one side of the stomach to the other side(people usually wouldn't want to do this or else it would be incredibly hard to yank the sword out).

So the Han were armoured in a similar fashion as the romans? With gladius-like weapons? I thought they had longer slashing weapons? Also, short does NOT equal less power in this case. The dimensions of the gladius allow the user an amazing amount of power and kinetic energy which makes your argument irrelevant.

No the Han was not armored in a similar fashion, but yes, the Han do have gladius-like weapons, they are called the jian, which very in length depending on the situation required of it. The jian is not designed as a slashing weapon, but a thrusting weapon, just like the Roman gladius. A shorter sword do indeed equal less power as given by the example above. 100 ft pound energy for the gladius and 150 ft pound energy for the dao, and that would also be the likely energy for the spatha as well. If a shorter sword can produce the same amt of energy as a longer sword in a cutting situation, the dao for Han infantry would be a lot shorter than they were, nor would the dao even replace the jian as cavalry became more and more of a threat.