04-16-2009, 09:15 PM
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
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
