09-21-2013, 01:31 PM
Interesting. Even most of the Lauriacum-Hromowka types I have seen were not super long, maybe 3-5 inches about 25" or so. But they are longer.
Here are an example or two
http://www.roman-artifacts.com/Gladius_S...spatha.htm
http://www.roman-artifacts.com/Gladius_S...Spatha.htm
This page indicates how they simply were adopting enemy arms and such as decline. I am not so sure. I think Rome itself was in decline but that the military was often as capable as it had been in the past in many ways. The problem is it was not always as well funded or supported from back home. Recruiting by the end seems pretty rough. The 4th century sees much more flexible infantrymen, men who can fight in a pitched battle as well as skirmishing and other ventures as primary expectations on them. We also have the part time soldiers that must have helped round out the fact that the armies in theory were about 2 times what they had been at their peak under the earlier empire to 500k-600k.
That said they mention finds of this type of blade by c.200 AD. Not likely to be the product of this decline that soon on. My guess is this was a Roman adaptation. The thing that really keep Rome winning is its ability to find something and take it and make it their own or improve it. I suspect these could still be used much like the earlier Mainz and Pompeii types but with some more reach. In the end they go to a much longer sword but once again I do not think this is anything more than them being used in far more scenarios, en rank or skirmishing so instead of two swords they have one more versatile one. Even the later Roman spata (I know this is simply term changes over time) was not all that long compared to later medieval swords.
Who knows but they were very smart in war so I sort of think the sword itself as an upgrade.
CAC
Here are an example or two
http://www.roman-artifacts.com/Gladius_S...spatha.htm
http://www.roman-artifacts.com/Gladius_S...Spatha.htm
This page indicates how they simply were adopting enemy arms and such as decline. I am not so sure. I think Rome itself was in decline but that the military was often as capable as it had been in the past in many ways. The problem is it was not always as well funded or supported from back home. Recruiting by the end seems pretty rough. The 4th century sees much more flexible infantrymen, men who can fight in a pitched battle as well as skirmishing and other ventures as primary expectations on them. We also have the part time soldiers that must have helped round out the fact that the armies in theory were about 2 times what they had been at their peak under the earlier empire to 500k-600k.
That said they mention finds of this type of blade by c.200 AD. Not likely to be the product of this decline that soon on. My guess is this was a Roman adaptation. The thing that really keep Rome winning is its ability to find something and take it and make it their own or improve it. I suspect these could still be used much like the earlier Mainz and Pompeii types but with some more reach. In the end they go to a much longer sword but once again I do not think this is anything more than them being used in far more scenarios, en rank or skirmishing so instead of two swords they have one more versatile one. Even the later Roman spata (I know this is simply term changes over time) was not all that long compared to later medieval swords.
Who knows but they were very smart in war so I sort of think the sword itself as an upgrade.
CAC
