Late Roman Tactics

[Caius Fabius]

Abuse of another person on RAT is contrary to the rules of usage. Calling someone's post "ignorant" is not very polite, in any case. If all parties cannot respond in a civil manner, action may be taken by the moderators.<br>
<br>
Thank you for your attention<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"What's encouraged:<br>
<br>
1. Treating others as you would want to be treated. Be polite and courteous, and you'll be treated that way. Healthy disagreement over ideas or facts is definitely OK. Direct your arguments at another person's logic -- not at the person. Be mature.<br>
<br>
2. Supporting newcomers and helping them to become a member of the community. Build the board one person at a time. Welcome newbies' innocent questions. We were all new once!<br>
<br>
3. Posting often. Have something meaningful and pertinent to say in the topical forums. In Off-Topic, be as frivolous as you like -- it's all for fun there.<br>
<br>
If you have any questions, ask us via email, or ask a Moderator. Thanks and enjoy making this board a fun, easy-going kind of place where everybody's welcome.<br>
<br>
Jenny Cline<br>
Senior Admin & Founder<br>
[email protected] <br>
<br>
Rich Campbell<br>
Deputy Admin<br>
[email protected] " <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=caiusfabius>Caius Fabius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ROMANISROMANORVM/files/C%20Fabius%201988b.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 11/12/04 8:14 pm<br></i>

[Lucius Aurelius Metellus]

Hi Aug33,<br>
Robert was not ridiculing you or trying to tear down your ideas, he was only trying to understand exactly what you were saying, and also to help teach a little of what he knows on the subject (which is a great deal), so you are mistaking his intent. There is nothing wrong with debating a subject with each other, but we must remember to be civil to each other and listen to each other with open minds, and if someone objects to your point of view, don't be angry and take it personally, for that is not how it was meant. There is no reason whatsoever to be insulting to each other. If a person disputes your theories, try to listen or see their reasons why, and then you'll understand more about the subject. This is how we all learn, and no harm was intended. <p>Lucius Aurelius Metellus, miles gregarius, Secunda Brittanica</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=luciusaureliusmetellus@romanarmytalk>Lucius Aurelius Metellus</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v384/Lucius68/Lucius.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 11/12/04 10:35 pm<br></i>

[Theodosius the Great]

Avete !<br>
<br>
My understanding is that the gladius was ideal for small (or smaller) men fighting against much taller ones.<br>
<br>
I recall reading somewhere that by the time of Claudius' invasion of Britain, the Roman army's makeup consisted of 90 % non-Italians.<br>
<br>
So as the height of the average legionary increased over the decades, wouldn't it have increasingly seemed ridiculous for a 6 foot legionary (for example) to be using a gladius against an opponent of similar stature ?<br>
<br>
My guess is that the Romans tried to adapt their weapons to their now taller legionaries .<br>
<br>
-Theo<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

Well I said this before too.<br>
Simply because the gladius was good for stabbing in tight fighting does not mean it was not used to chop!<br>
I find quite funny the idea that long swords came into use when legionaries got taller to avoid looking puny!<br>
Why? because when shove come to kill (battle field) it is not a matter of looks!<br>
<br>
Could we say that roman soldiers got less effective over time because they got taller? It is a partial truth that "for centuries small italics/latins with short swords killed far more tall gauls and taller germans that used long swords!" The Romans did well for a long time but not as long as they stayed short and used a gladius short to scale!<br>
<br>
It is certain the gladius and the romans way of using it did quite well against shield walls and muscular germans! So the puny gladius was evidently a deadly weapon in the hands of trained legionaries that faced up with success over centuries against many types of enemies with, including long sword germans behind shield walls! To those of you that keep thinking ONLY about Varus, I suggest tou think of all those times after Varus that Romans still kept beating germans, over and over again in forests and beyond the rhine and danube in enemy territory. No definitive victory, sometimes even Pyrrhic victories, ocasional defeats, but in terms "body count" (not enough to win a war) and how much the germans avoided direct set battle confrontation with romans is a Fact!<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=goffredo>goffredo</A> at: 11/13/04 9:52 am<br></i>

[Anonymous]

Your point about the roman use of the gladius against sheild walled germans etc with great effect mirrors my thoughts. As I say I am new to this and have to apply what to me seem's like common sense to any theories presented regarding the discarding of the gladius in favour of longer swords. So far an increased level of enemy cavalry, if correct, makes the most sense to me given my limited knowledge. <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>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.<hr><br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Sincerely and with no malicious intent, Aug33 <hr><br>
<br>
I'm afraid that writing this about a person, as if you would know their thoughts and intentions without having a shred of knowledge about that person, can't be interpreted as very civil.<br>
You might have asked me about my intent before you decided you knew all about me, don't you think?<br>
<br>
Thanks Lucius, for defending me.<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Goffredo,<br>
<br>
Your point about Roman soldiers becoming taller is an interesting one, I had not thought of that. Would anyone know of skeletal evidence regading this?<br>
<br>
About <em>gladius</em> vs. shield wall, was the latter indeed a common feature for Roman armies? Did the Celts have the shield wall, as well as early Germanic armies? My knowledge about the early Roman army and its opponents is limited, I'd like to know more about that.<br>
So far, I understood that Germanic armies had developed through their centuries-long contact with the Roman army into a more static, defensible forces, making more use of bigger shields in a solid shield wall. Was I wrong?<br>
<br>
Valete,<br>
Valerius/Robert <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

The increased reliance on barbarian troops was not as much a downside because of the barbarians being lesser soldiers, it was simply because it led to a diffusion of the heavy infantry tactics and strict dicipline that the roman army so long had relied on, and so they lost their traditional upside! It is true that for a long time romanized barbarians, that is, non-latin roman citizens had been the mainstay of the army, but something obvioulsy happened from around 400 to 450. It may appear that the romans struggeled to recruit from their own citizens. The Theodosian Code speaks of a number of measures taken to force people into the army, and later even slaves, that first were seen as unfit, were included. In this situation, the increased reliance on barbarian troops, and more "horde-like" armies makes sense. In this context, perhaps the switch from the gladius to the spatha may also be seen as a matter of preferance. The barbarians may have relied more on longswords, and it would fit better with their style of fighting. The spatha was not the only equipment that changed, remember. The traditional scutum, and the body armour also changed, and all in all the roman army seemed more like the people they were fighting. <p></p><i></i>

[Paullus]

Good points, although by the 5th century the spatha had already been in use by the Roman army since the early 3rd century AD. This was well before Germanics started to appear among the ranks in large numbers. <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

It is quite possible that the spatha was a roman development/evolution. It apparently was a cavalry sword and then simply diffused into the infantry as the infantry evolved; i.e. no direct germanic influence.<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

There was a major presence of barbarians also in the third century, and much of what the romans learned about cavalry tactics they indeed got from these. Besides, identifying the "barbarians" as merely germanians is misleading. There were a number of tribes all over the frontier that the romans could have picked this up from. Cavalry for instance was something they recruited very much from the areas we today know as the balkans. <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

The romans used individuals in cavalry from germanic tribes but that does not mean the cavalry used germanic weapons. Indeed the great number of roman made spathas found in germanic graves way up north make me think the germanics were possibily influenced more by the romans, in terms of weaponry, rather than the other way around.<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[wulfgar60]

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>

I think that was the entire point between the gladius and spatha. Iron working techniques were on the improve. The gladius was a pretty reliable weapon if made with the basic forging process. A faggot of Iron between two pieces of case hardened iron. With a welded edge of truer carbon steel.
I think it's Ceasar who mentions Gallic longswords prone to bending. If that was the case I'd rather stick with a reliable gladius.
Soon after patten welding techniques were introduced. This produced reliable longswords. I was reading some guy who checked grave finds, and claimed the spatha was on par with later samurai sword fabrication.
The early spatha's weren't all that much longer than the gladius. And may have even been a bit lighter and better quality weapon.
Must have had something going for it. The design ended up being univerally popular on the Eurasian continent into the later middle ages.

[Urselius]

I think that the idea of the increased use of the spatha being a Germanic influenced trend is fundamentally wrong. The Persians, Romans and German tribes were all influenced by the Sarmato-Alan peoples of the Eurasian steppes; it was the Iranians of the steppes who influenced all these martial societies towards greater use of longer-bladed swords.

I suspect that the infantry tactics of the early Empire were a continuation of those of the Late Republic. The use of a volley of short-range heavy javelins followed by a charge by short-sword weilding soldiers essentially working as independent fighters (you can't make an offensive shield wall with straight sided scuta for soldiers with shortswords - no gaps to stab through) was probably rather wasteful of lives. This is fine if you have an army made up of martial citizens needing minimal training and a large pool of conscripts to call on to make up casualties. However, in the Empire the soldiery became more and more highly trained and difficult to replace. By the time of the Tetrachy I suspect that the preservation of the individual soldier's life was of more importance to the Roman army and government. Keep the infantry behind large oval shields which can overlap to form a shield wall (fulcum) and they will, in general, suffer fewer casualties in battle. With round or oval shields a shield-wall can still allow thrusting spears and even long-bladed swords to be used as the shields form 'v' shaped notches (straight-sided scuta do not allow this).

The ideal of this form of fighting - attrition and a pushing match by a shield-wall - was illustrated at Strasbourg, the Allemanni suffered 6,000 casualties, compared to a few hundred Romans.

[PMBardunias]

It is interesting to read about the changes that lead to the fulcum, since my primary interest is in the hoplite phalanx. A couple of points:

The sword of the hoplite became shorter as the phalanx became deeper, presumably correlating with more pushing and belly to belly combat.

My understanding of the fulcum comes wholly from Rance's paper, so any other opinions are welcome, but he describes the formation as shields ovelapping to the boss and possibly in two levels. This is a very different formation that a hoplite phalanx or a simple one-rank shield wall with round shields. Even oval shields would provide little in the way of a "v" at the top to fight over in a fulcum.

It would seem to me that the gladius evolved as a weapon specifically tied to a type of infighting against mostly spear armed opponents. Once Romans became the Romans most common and dangerous foe, they did not have this specific advantage with a small sword. Add to this that infighting is quite intimidating (I'd rather be in a sword fight than a knife fight any day!).

Then there is fashion. As spatha armed cavalry became recognized as superior troops, do you really want to walk around with a sword half the size? The threat to manhood is obvious :wink: