Why change to the Spatha?

[Matthew Amt]

I was under the impression that that was one of the features of the gladius hispaniensis, the higher quality of the blades, which attracted the Romans to them in the first place? :?

Polybius (I think it was him!) says that the Romans copied the form of the Spanish sword, but were not able to match the quality of the steel. Now, that doesn't prove the Romans made theirs thicker than the Spanish had, but it seems to imply a trend in average quality.

Once the Romans had conquered Spain, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a lot of their better swords made there, to take advantage of that good steel.

Vale,

Matthew

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

OK I will have to re-read him because I cant recall that passage, :roll: :?

[Matthew]

Polybius (I think it was him!) says that the Romans copied the form of the Spanish sword, but were not able to match the quality of the steel. Now, that doesn't prove the Romans made theirs thicker than the Spanish had, but it seems to imply a trend in average quality.

Once the Romans had conquered Spain, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a lot of their better swords made there, to take advantage of that good steel.

Hmmn. I don't recall that passage in Polybius either. Sounds interesting, though. Could you narrow it down a bit?

Matthew James Stanham

[Eleatic Guest]

Currently, [url:1t28kgx9]http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatha_(Schwert)[/url] is nominated for good article status at WP. You might want to take a look whether the article really stands up to scrutiny.

link repaired

[Paullus Scipio]

The ‘Polybian’ text quoted regarding the alleged adoption by the Romans of the “Gladius Hispaniensis”sword is not from Polybius( e.g. c.f. 6,23,6), but a fragment of the Byzantine Suda, compiled in the X C AD. It is considered by some to be consistent with earlier texts of Polybius: "The Celtiberians differ from the others in the preparation of swords (machaira). They have a double-edge cutting edge and effective point. Wherefore the Romans, leaving the swords of their fathers, from the wars of Hannibal changed their swords to that of the Iberians. They also adopted the form, but not the elaborate refinement of iron and other details, which they just imitated "(Suda, Br 96,) Unfortunately, attributing this textual fragment to Polybius is not consistent with Polybius’ own description of the use of Roman cut-and-thrust swords and their qualities versus Gallic ling swords at the battle of Telamon against the Gauls (225 BC, before the start of the second Punic War in 218 BC):
Polybius II.30:
“The Roman shields, it should be added, were far more serviceable for defence and their swords for attack, the Gaulish sword being only good for a cut and not for a thrust. .”

Walbank and others therefore doubted the attribution of the Suda fragment, and instead proposed that the Romans adopted the ‘Iberian sword/Gladius’ during or after the first Punic War from contact with Iberian mercenaries, which would also explain how the Romans adopted the form/design, but not the manufacturing method, since they did not actually go to Spain until the Second Punic War.

[Tarbicus]

IIRC, it's in a primary source somewhere that the manufacturing method wasn't learned until Spanish swordsmiths were captured after the fall of Cartagena in 209 BC. They were forced to show the Romans the technique. The description of the blade being able to be bent from the top of the head, to touch both shoulders, I believe is Philon's.

The attribution of the story to Polybius is in Rome and her Enemies, edited by Jane Penrose.

However, according to Scipio Africanus in the second Punic war, by Howard Hayes Scullard, p.95

"Difficulties of defining the earlier type of Roman sword have led many scholars to reject or modify this passage (by Suidas) by supposing that the Spanish sword was not a special type, but only of special quality, like Toledo steel, or that it was a curved sabre. Thus the old theory of a pointed sword replacing a blunt one has been rejected. P. Couissin however has shown that these objections do not affect Suidas' statements. In the middle of the third century the Romans used a short Graeco-Italian sword of the Hallstatt type, which was better for thrusting than cutting. During the Second Punic War the Iberians used a sword of the type of La Tene I; this was admired and adopted by the Romans for its excellence in stabbing and cutting, and it was known as the "gladus hispaniensis." At Cannae the Romans with their short stabbing Graeco-Italian sword met Gauls with long sharp unpointed swords (of the type La Tene II). Afterwards they adopted the Spanish sword, which with its well-tempered steel point combined the best points of both these types. It was in Spain that the Romans encountered this sword, and probably at New Carthage that they first aquired it and practised using it under Scipio's supervision."

Sorry for the long link, but I can't find how to do text hyperlinks in the new setup here.
link from old RAT

Useful reference... I think :wink:
link from old RAT
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekeltoi/ ... o_6_4.html
<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=25675">viewtopic.php?f=25&t=25675<!-- l

[Dante]

I believe I read somewhere that the spatha was first used by the Roman horseman so that they could kill the enemy while on the charge and not have to lean so far over the horse to land a solid hit. Later the legions adopted this longer sword and the rest is history. As for me, I like the short sword for better control in close combat.----STRENGTH and HONOR

Dante

[Paullus Scipio]

To continue the digression on the adoption of the "Gladius Hispaniensis", one may wonder if it was that radically different to the Greek-style xiphos that seems to have preceded it, other than having a 'sharper' point.

The real difference was in the balance.The xiphos was broadest/heaviest toward the point, hence the 'balance point' was also forward, optimising the weapon for cutting, like a machete or the even more extreme kopis/falcata

The gladius hispaniensis, with it's (relatively) tapered point, had it's balance point further back toward the hilt, optimising the sword for a thrust.......

[Druso]

Hi,

I was intrigued too about the strange evolution from a middle sword, the original gladius hispaniensis, to a shorter, and then again to a longer. I think the explanation can be based on metallurgical arguments.

The original Gladius Hispaniensis, the celtiberian sword evolution from the La Téne I very well known in celtiberian archeological sytes, with the 70-80 cm total lenght can't be grouped with the short swords. We must take out the idea of celtiberians fighting basically as a guerrilla armies, this has been an interpretation of early historians who put the experience of the Peninsular War in the past, according with the modern view they used to be open battle warriors-armies as much as romans like can be seen easilly reading the accounts of celtiberian wars, in this context, the long gladius was used by celtiberians in close combats and proved to be an extremly deadly weapon.

But, romans tend to reduce the lenght of the sword: since the beginning, according to Polibius, romans were uncapable of copy the metallurgical dettails of the sword, and i suspect this led to a reduction of lenght triying to minimize the effect of lack of metal quality. The standarization procces and massive supply of weapons for later republican and early empire armies did the rest of the work and the Pompeii gladius was developed.

Under this view, romans didn't use their short gladius because the performance in close combat fight, but because technical problems.

-Metallurgical Hypothesis: the romans were capable of develop better metal techniques after the conquest of transalpine celtic regions, specially Norico were the metallurgy was extremly good. The change surelly began improving or making the weapons of those who need longer swords, the cavalry units. I think isn't clear the exact origin of the spatha, but i suppose two scenarios:

1. Spatha was always used by roman cavalry, at least since celtic cavalrymen was fighting with the romans legions.
2. Spatha is a development of roman gladius, a longer one.

1 or 2, Spatha expand and with they, the metal techniques of work long and tough swords, but, the model is based on roman design because La Téne II celtic sword tend to have a round point, and the spatha desing is clearly similar to pompeii gladius. The slow expansion of knowledge of these techniques allow smiths to begin a replacement in infantry units from short gladius to longer swords, probably equally or better for close combat than the short ones, as the original celtiberian design of gladius proove.


I have researched about metal characteristics of Spathas but i couldn't find very much so i can't prove better metal qualities of Spatha over previous gladius, so this is only a hypothesis; in fact if i remember well, imperial gladius could be done with steel or metal combinations of great quality, this can be a sign of improvement in roman metallurgical skill, a base for future developments completed around 200 AC.

What i have clear is:

1. For close combat a shorter sword isn't better, previous and posterior examples show it.
2. Roman metal working was worst than celtiberian one.
3. The germanic peoples didn't have the longer swords, in fact they used to fight with short ones. Was the celtic peoples who have the capabilites for make long swords.

regards

[geala]

One problem with your conclusions is for example that a lot of Roman short swords, particularly of the Mainz pattern, had a better steel quality than longer spathae.

I find nothing is clear here. I'm rather baffled by this whole "gladius hispaniensis" stuff. Maybe it's a literary overemphasis, as so often. For example what is the fundamental difference between a Greek style xiphos and a later republican gladius? Maybe it is the balance like Paullus said (I doubt it when I think of the short xiphos versions or the substantial grips and sword pommels), but will that make the day for you, when you use one or the other from behind your big shield in a thrusting manner? Perhaps, I don't know, I don't think so.

The only reason for me to "change" to the spatha is: different tactical needs because of the foes mainly fought against (more small scale warfare in open order). Perhaps also a growing Germanic element in the army, but this is a weak argument.