This is my first post and I apologize if this has been covered. My question is why did the late roman army adopt long infantry swords and was this widespread. I have read somewhere that it was a result of the increasing "barbarization" of the army. The gladius would seem to have been ideal for the particular tactics of the roman army and I was wondering whether a change in fighting tactics may have led to the adoption of longer swords. Any help you could give me is greatly appreciated as I cannot see why they would abandon a weapon which had served them so well in the past.<br>
<br>
Thanks and congrats on a superb site. <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 15,116
Threads: 415
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
76
Hi car15,<br>
<br>
I like to think that it was indeed a change in fighting techniques that called for a longer sword. First though, short(er) swords did not vanish entirely, some are mentioned (e.g. by Vegetius) and a few turn up in the archaeological record. However, it seems that the <em>spatha</em>/longsword became the standard sword for the infantryman as it already was for the cavalryman.<br>
<br>
We at Fectio think that had to do with a changing enemy as well as change in battlefield tactics. The enemy may have changed its formations from wildly attacking mobs into strong, shield-walled infantry formations, be it Germanic Goths or Sassanid Persians. That, or most Roman wars became internal wars against equally-armed Romans. Confronted with these possible changes, the Roman army no longer relied on a concentrated attack from the Legionary infantry, but on heavy suppressing fire from battlefield artillery and an increasing role of the (heavier) cavalry. The infantry became less mobile and more defensive.<br>
<br>
For the Roman infantryman in the front line, that meant he no longer advanced in a concentrated <em>cuneus</em> against a rabble, but pushed with his shield against that of an enemy who was equally armed. Shield-wall against shield-wall in a giant tug-of-war. In such a situation a <em>gladius</em> is useless because too short. Only a <em>spatha</em> will be able to reach an opponent’s back over the shield, etc. We tried it out.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>
Thanks Vortigern Studies.<br>
That sounds like a reasonable expectation, espescially if you have tried it in reenactments. It makes me wonder why the celts didn't become clued into the benefits of the sheild wall once they saw the roman success using it, given that they would have had the advantage of the longer sword as in your example. I realize they were a culture of individual warriors but surely for the good of their tribes they could have adopted the more effective tactics.<br>
Thanks again for your help. <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 723
Threads: 77
Joined: Mar 2001
Reputation:
0
I don't think the gauls and germans always fought as rabble. I wrote this before: Ceasar describes his battle against the german shield wall of Ariovistus!<br>
<br>
Evidently the romans fought against shield walls early in their military history (phalanxs ring a bell) and they evolved their way of fighting once they noticed how these rigid formations could broken (choice of uneven ground, missile barrage, poking holes into it by stabbing at the rigid enemy). The gladius was used for many centuries evidently because if fit well with their standardized ways of breaking up shield walls or anyone else so foolish as to fight a set battle with them.<br>
<br>
Of course every battle is a story of its own but the best way of winning a battle is to take the initiative and then keep it. Aggressive fighting for poking holes and churning deep into dense formations favors short stabbing weapons. Longer weapons are best used at some distance and maybe only after fencing with a spear. The emphasis is different.<br>
<br>
I don't think being up against a shield wall explains development of longer swords. The eariler romans did just fine in breaking up rigid formations with pila and aggressive swordmanship. <p></p><i></i>
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
Another reason, That I believe is the cause in weapons was the build of the army. No longer was the Roman army Roman. By the fifth century the veteran legions were all but gone with the massive loss of Julian's legions in 363 and only 15 years later the loss of Valen's legions in 378 at Adrianople. The Romans then relied on mercenaries and buying soldiers. With a giant variety of men to pick from, it is no surprise that the weapons were different. No longer did the legionaries have the same basic equipment as each other. The long sword was always a weapon of the Gauls, Germans, and Goths. Eventually these people were the army and eventually Latin people ceased to exist in the military. <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 15,116
Threads: 415
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
76
Hi Aug33,<br>
<br>
Those losses were serious, but their impact should not be overstated. For one, these losses concerned only a part of the army, not the whole of both armies of both halves of the Empire.<br>
Also, the amount of foreign soldiers in the Roman armies was lamented by some writers, but modern studies have not been able to corroberate such claims. Conscription remained the normal manner to get soldiers for the Late Roman armies, and the amount of Germanic (or other peoples) has been much overrated. The image that the Roman armies after Adrianople would mostly consist of mercenaries and federates is outdated and invalid.<br>
<br>
And more than that, the development of the spatha as replacement of the gladius would have set in a hundred years before the events that you mention.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 15,116
Threads: 415
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
76
Quote:</em></strong><hr>I don't think the gauls and germans always fought as rabble<hr><br>
Hi Goffredo,<br>
Neither do I. I think the word ´individualistic´ would be better suited than ´rabble´.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>
this pertains to a comment about army conscriptions and impact of Adrianople and Julian's campaign. I tend to see a lot of people on this forum always arguing and trying to disprove other peoples information. I simply wrote my opinion of things and as did you. Nothing can be for certain because we were not there. I do believe that the Loss of Julian's legions and Valen's were huge...for this reason. Julian's army was an army made up from both sides of the empire. It was Gallic legions and eastern legions. a Roman Emperor being killed and over half his army destroyed or routed sounds like a big deal. Adrianople was the gateway for the Goths into Rome. It took some time, but eventually the loss became a giant strategic and catastrophic failure. I agree that the normal roman conscription occurred, but the people being conscripted were not all Roman. Latin people were on the decline due to the religious, ethnic, and racial differences of the people of Rome. this is all my theory and I hope that you only look at it as that. a historians job is to weight the facts and make a hypothesis on what really happened. No harm done no harm intended. Aug33 <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 2,540
Threads: 43
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
Yes, of course, but the fact is that Roman foot soldiers were using long swords at least from mid third century or earlier and if a rectangular scutum of that date was recovered from Dura, the image of the Tetrarchic army transmited by the Luxor frescoes or the Piazza Armerina mosaic shows round shields and long swords overall, more than seventy years before any of the famous routs that you quote, Aug33.<br>
To be concluded, no matter if the Roman army was largely or slightly 'barbarized' after Julian's Persian campaign and Hadrianople, the change in weapons and tactics had happened much earlier in date and had nothing to do with it...<br>
<br>
Aitor <p></p><i></i>
It\'s all an accident, an accident of hands. Mine, others, all without mind, from one extreme to another, but neither works nor will ever.
Rolf Steiner
IMO the reason could be a lower morale in the army, it is a well known psichological process, the short sword required a very agressive, very confident infantry, when you are not sure about your superiority you tend to put your confidence into better weapons instead of training and morale. <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 15,116
Threads: 415
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
76
Quote:</em></strong><hr>but the people being conscripted were not all Roman. Latin people were on the decline due to the religious, ethnic, and racial differences of the people of Rome.<hr><br>
<br>
Please explain. Why would a Roman army have to made up from 'Latin' people to be successful? I mean, the bulk of Roman citizens after Caracalla extended Roman citizenship to all inhabitants of the Empire can hardly be called 'Latin'?<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>
Could people be overestimating the percentage of a Roman host that was actually equipped with longswords? One might expect that a large percentage would use the spear as primary weapon and their secondary weapon would be whatever they could afford. Good quality steel longswords tend to be difficult and hence expensive to manufacture than shorter weapons and IMO would make up a small minority of weapons on any battlefield. <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 203
Threads: 24
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation:
0
In addition the increased cavalry threat would have encouraged the use of long swords. We know that the spatha became a legion weapon c. early 3 century AD when a substantial part of the army would still have used pila. Not all of them would have a lancea to fend off a horseman. If a cavalryman is charging you down I'd much rather cut him in half with a spatha instead of trying to stab with a gladius. Safer and more practical.<br>
<br>
Plus during the civil wars of the 3rd century, Roman fighting technique with the gladius and scutum could have been so down pact that when combined with their armor legionnaires were practically invincible against like foes. Hard to stab for the enemy's face when he knows how to use his scutum. Now to be able to chop through the edge of that shield would be very useful.<br>
<br>
Plus the continued cruciform reinforcement of helmets couldn't solely have been caused by the falx. After all the Dacians were conquered fairly soon after this feature emerged. If it was a simple adaptation this would have petered out soon after, yet it continued i.e. Imperial Italic Type H. This would support the possible adoption of spatha in small numbers sometime in the mid 2nd century AD. Or could it be the increased use of swords by the Germanics in addition to having to face the falx? Obviously there was no systematic reinforcement of helmets (if any) during Caesar's Gallic campaign, so who knows? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=paullus@romanarmytalk>Paullus</A> at: 11/13/04 1:14 am<br></i>
Thanks for the input guy's. Paullus, your idea about the increased use of cavalry the legions faced being a reason for spatha being adopted makes alot of sense.<br>
<br>
I am only beginning my infatuation with the roman army and there aren't any reenactment groups in my part of the world to get info from.<br>
<br>
As far as the spatha cutting through an enemy sheild or opposing scutum, would a gladius have the necessary weight to achieve this?. (never having held one).<br>
<br>
I realize the gladius was primarily used to stab but there are some impressive accounts of it's chopping ability.<br>
<br>
I'm probably missing something simple but if having to fight more "solid" ranks required a longer blade to stab over and into the opponent's back was a reason for longer swords I always thought the difficulty of using a long heavy sword in close combat was one of the main advantages of the gladius in the tight confines of battle<br>
<br>
Once again thanks for all the replies. They all add to my knowledge, even the one's that confuse me. <p></p><i></i>
Once again I am not surprised by your ignorant and habitual post. You are like many biblical scholars who tent to take fragments of a peace and put them out of context. Never did I say that A Roman army would have to be Latin in able to be successful, You draw a conclusion my friend. I am out to put more opinions and possibilities on the table while you on the other hand, tend to want to tear down ideas by ridiculing them and questioning them as though they were posted by an ape or some form of inferior person. My hypotheses was not to tell, exactly, why and when the army decided to adapt the long sword. It was just another bit of information that provided possibilities. i just wrote an example of two instances that could have possibly had an impact on the tactic changes within the army.<br>
<br>
Sincerely and with no malicious intent, Aug33 <p></p><i></i>
|
