Why change to the Spatha?

[Celtic505]

I'm not as up on my later roman history as I should be, but perhaps those of you out there who are can help me out because I've always wondered this. Why did the Roman army start adopting the Spatha as their sidearm and stop using the Gladius? Why did they stop using such an efficient and feared sword for the longer version? What occured to cause this change in preference?

[Sean Manning]

I'm not as up on my later roman history as I should be, but perhaps those of you out there who are can help me out because I've always wondered this. Why did the Roman army start adopting the Spatha as their sidearm and stop using the Gladius? Why did they stop using such an efficient and feared sword for the longer version? What occured to cause this change in preference?

Perhaps it was either a Germanic fashion, or resulted in a shift from major battles to small skirmishes with a more open style of fighting. But as with many things, the Romans weren't courtious enough to leave us an explanation for why the change happened.

A lot depends on how you envision the tactics of an Imperial legion though (eg. 3' or 6' of width per man).

[Matthew Amt]

Yeah, I'd say it was simply a change of fashion. In any case, weren't there a couple different types of shorter sword that were still in use quite late? Semispatha, etc.

It's always dangerous to get into "WHY", unless the ancients wrote it down for us (and even then!). You can get into an awful lot of theory and conjecture. It's fine to theorize sometimes, but too often it doesn't really advance our knowledge, and for reenactors it can lead to some very dodgy conclusions and reconstructions. Beware!

Oddly enough, there are scholars who feel that Bronze Age warfare must have been loose and open, mostly small skirmishes, because the weapons are usually small! Short swords the approximate size of a gladius were the rule, along with spears, javelins, and lots of axes. But some folks just don't feel you can have massed combat with weapons like that. Hmmm.... By this logic, an army using only longer swords must have fought MORE closely and "heavily" than an Imperial Roman army!

Like I said, beware!

Matthew

[Paullus Scipio]

......and as ever it is always dnagerous to over-simplify....there was a 'semi-spatha' for instance.......

[Matthew]

Indeed. There's no reason to suppose that the Gladius was a better sword then the Spatha or vice versa. On the other hand, and if I recall correctly, we have Caesar's comment that the Gauls made fun of the Roman 'short sword'. There is at least one lengthy Thread on the subject around here.

Try these for starters: The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why? and Update on the Spatha and Gladius fighting techniques!

Matthew James Stanham

[Celtic505]

Thanks for the responses. I just wondered if there was a cause or change in attitudes or threats that made a lot of soldiers switch to a longer sword, or if it was more practical in whatever situations they faced to use a spatha.

[Iagoba]

Try these for starters: The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why? and Update on the Spatha and Gladius fighting techniques!

Thanks!

I practice medieval fencing (one hand and half sword, and one hand sword) and this it´s very interesting for me!
Still, I'm puzzled the unbalanceness of the Spatha, which goes in difficulty of using it to stab. It´s like a Viking sword, but the pommel is of bone, or wood instead of iron (at least the ones I have seen in photographs, replicas or not :?: ), so the gravity center is far from the grip.This pains your wrist while using, and lets you tired in few minutes. Not good thing in battle (a weapon is a tool, and all tools must be handy in use). Maybe it´s just only the modern replicas, but those I had try, reminded me the ACW "wrist-breaker" sabre replica I have got in home. BUT this while on a horse is not so bad, at least against the infantry, because the chop goes down, and the unbalanceness goes in your favor.

Are there any surviving comments on the use of the Spatha? Or finds of spathas? This would be of help. I´m speaking without much knowledge so...

I´m not an expert on Roman Army, so probably I have made some mistakes, but just I´m one guy that spends a lot of time learning the use of swords. Perhaps is a new point of view for RAT! :wink:

[Ironhand]

Do not make the mistake of thinking all spathas were like Viking swords. There was a huge variation in blade profiles and designs with many of them being remniscent of later Oakeshott typologies.

[Iagoba]

Yes, I know, That was only to remark the absence of metallic pommel. The balance of a sword conditiones al lot the way of using it. Most thrust swords have the Gravity Center near the guard, on an average betwen 3-4 fingers. This allows better point control to aim the thrust, and to do movements to stop the point attacks on you. That I have recorded from XVth century swords, XVIIth rapiers, and XXIst "deportive" sword (eppe) and foil. The cut swords have it further, as cavalry sabres, but they are designed to give a donwards blow on infantry. No point. :lol: (I think that´s a bad joke...)
Sadly we don´t have any Gladius or Spathas at my city´s Armoury Museum, so as I have never hold a real one, I cannot say nothing :? .

[Mitra]

we have Caesar's comment that the Gauls made fun of the Roman 'short sword'.

If I remember correctly the Gauls make fun of Roman short stature not sword in Atuatuca siege after Sambre battle.

Maybe it´s just only the modern replicas,

I dont remember where I read (a Arma.org article over the weight of swords probably) but the author says that modern commercial replicas are made much heavier and bad balanced respect the originals, for commercial strategy (a big sword has to be heavy when taken in hand).

[arklore70]

Davide,
I think you hit the nail on the head with part of the feel and balance issue. Some of the commercially made blades I have picked up, especially Spathas tend to be what I would call top heavy.

Deepeeka makes a pretty darn good Pompeii gladius, but if you compare it to a hand made Albion Pompeii gladius, there is a huge difference in balance and feel. The Albion produced one feels like a extension of my arm. Both are good blades, but you can see the difference, as well as in price.

I would be interested hear comments from folks that have have compared a hand made Spatha to a commercially produced one to see if they have the same effect.


I think Matt is correct in that we just really can not say for certain why one blade replaced the other as the main sword of choice. Cultural background of the recruits, changes in fighting techniques and tactics, different enemies, rise of the increased use of cavalry, and fashion all could have played a part, but we just do not know. We know it happened, just not the why part of it.

Cheers!!

Mike

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I would tend to agree there as well. The Albions are different, but because they are sharp, the profile they are made to would be closer to the originals, as a blunt sword wit the same taper, will involve more metal... :?

[stevesarak]

It could also be the mentality of the fighter. During the time of the republic, they didn’t really have professional soldiers with a tour of duty, men were called up when needed. Their style of fighting also reflected the period they lived in. Their style was more brutal, there philosophy of fighting was simple, there are certain spots on the body that when punctured, kills or immobilizes an opponent. They were trained to get in close, deliver a blow, then quickly move on. During battle, they didn’t care if they killed their opponent or not, they fought to stop their opponent from fighting back, then can move on to the next. After the battle, they could kill at their leisure.

That’s an effect way of fighting, but for those of you that have sparred before, you know that when you first started fighting, if you were aggressive enough (as anyone back then would have to be), you would charge in to do as much damage as possible, but had a good chance of receiving as much as you dished out. But after some experience, you would still go in, hell bent on delivering the killing blow, but would now be a little more cautious about what they could do to you, considering all the blows you’ve received yourself. Now your also thinking somewhat about defense, as well offence.

The Gladius is a great offensive weapon, give it to your men, and tell them to “Go forth and killâ€

[Ironhand]

Don't forget also that most Germanics had a short sword as well (the seax) so they could use whichever weapon best suited the combat of the moment. People mostly think stabbing with the gladius, but it was effective at both stabbing and slashing. Combat changed though and while the shorter blades worked well in the early years while most groups using longer weapons lacked efficient battle tactics, more and more groups used effective tactics along with a variety of efficient equipment and strategies which forced the Romans to evolve. Most Germanic swords did not go above 32" in blade length at the extreme and even the no-taper entirely straight blades seem a lot more wieldly based on blade profile than some of the Celtic La Tene III type blades. In my opinion as a Western Martial artist having a metal crossguard is not as important with earlier combat styles than the later medieval period where shields were largely abandoned and the sword was your sole offense and defense when you used it. A bone, horn, or softer metal guard works fine against a blade sliding down and defending with the sword was a last resort anyway. The gladius is a great weapon, but changes in the world and combat tactics rendered it ineffective as the main weapon and while it could have took the place of the seax as a weapon to use when it was necessary (It isn't unreasonable to think in the early Late Roman period there might have been those who used the spatha and the gladius, but I don't have any sources for it) cultural changes definately probably played a part.

You're definately right about sword replicas being inaccurate both in weight and balance. There are many good ARMA articles about this. I know a lot of weekend warrior reenactors that think wielding a sword is a weight lifting contest. Swordsmiths back then had to cater to those who trusted their lives to the blade and had to adjust to their wishes, desires, and demands of the field. Now it is often catering to LARP, Tolkien, SCA types who often know very little other than I want to look cool and be just like the dude from Highlander (pick a historically inaccurate movie, tv show, fantasy book). Its strange though how smiths often don't even realize they are making crap. Here is a good article on this. Marketing gimmicks are a historical thing, but today its like finding a grain of wheat in 10 tons of chaff. Best thing to do these days is find a smith and stick with them.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/fantasy.htm

[Matthew]

we have Caesar's comment that the Gauls made fun of the Roman 'short sword'.

If I remember correctly the Gauls make fun of Roman short stature not sword in Atuatuca siege after Sambre battle.

I hope that's true. I only have the most vague of recollections of the passage, but if it is the stature of the Romans, rather than the length of their swords, then I would be pleased.

Matthew James Stanham