Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated?

[Kai]

Well, they certainly managed to win over the longer weapon wielders with it and create an empire that lasted for almost 2000 years.
The semi-spatha was still in use after Adrianopol, which is what I am guessing you refer to?

First of all, I would like to clarify that I don't think the Roman short sword after 'spanish' fashion was a bad weapon, quite the opposite: the effect it had on Philipp and his men is obvious testimony for its worth (Livy 31,34). Still...

I for one wrote 3rd century, meaning the defeats especially against the Persians, but the contemporary defeat at the hands of the Goths and the slaughter of Decius also fits. Again, the figures given by Christian Miks are clear: there was a massive shift in the 3rd century; at the time of Adrianople (to take that one), there are barely ANY blades shorter 700mm – to be precise: there is exactly one short blade found, which is dated into that time, opposed to 89 blades longer than 700mm, the majority of which is even longer than 800mm (49). (Miks, Studien, Abb. 2)

Evidently, of the 1500 years the Roman Empire (meaning having an Emperor), 1200 years it was defended by a long sword :? – However I really don’t see any sense in arguments like this or the “it created an Empire” argument, as if the weapon was responsible. And, if the opposition had few swords, like the Germanics, which furthermore were of Roman pattern, how would that prove the superiority of short swords over long swords? If anything it would prove the superiority of short sword over spears, but even then one rightly would point to tactics, body armour and other factors.
In short, any argument like “it was used for x years”, “it was used by successful y” or the likes means nothing at all imo.

On the contrary the adopting and discarding of certain weapons can - although it does not have to be - attributed to equally certain tactical needs. The Suda entry on the adoption of the Spanish sword would be one example, maybe even a contemporary source as the entry is probably a Polybius fragment.
It’s superiority over the Gallic long sword did lay in its versatility, for the Gallic long sword could only slash (so they say…), and once the space for slashing is denied, the thrust becomes the battle winner.
However a Roman spatha could also thrust, and if we are to trust Ammianus Marcellinus, the Roman tactics still put an emphasis on thrusts in close order, only slashing when the enemy fled (16,12,49-52). So if the short gladius was better at that, there must have been very good non-tactical reasons to discard it. I cannot think of any though.