Short Sword Underrated?

[Astiryu1]

Well it's not Roman the Samurai used a shortsword, the "Wakizashi". The long sword "Katana" was the sword of choice but they always had the two swords. I have extensively researched and trained with both and the shortsword would commonly be used for confined spaces; hallways in particular. So it is accurate to assume that a shortsword would be better to use when in confined spaces; like a close shield formation. The "Ninja" (if one believes in them) were said to favor shorter swords or knives as well for confined spaces. The "Chokuto" straight style blade was in use by ninja according to the Bansenshukai; the written documentation of Tokugawa Era Ninjutsu.

The simple answer is:
The pointy end goes into the other man - The Mask of Zorro

[Fruitbat]

I have always felt that the reason that short gladius type swords are found less and less as time went by and seem to be replaced by longer weapons could have been due to the fact that as the Empire started to get a bit shakey due to civil wars, attacks from outside etc, Roman emperors and generals would more and more often hire mercinary troops 'straight out of the box' , ready trained and armed. If you read Gibbon, this is very clear, to the point that some later 'Roman' armies were made up of nothing but foreign troops. As these troops were ready trained and used their own weapons and armour, this could account for the changeover from the Roman gladius to the more alien long sword.

I think that both weapons were very effective, but just needed different techneques to use, depending on the culture of the user.

[Robert Vermaat]

I have always felt that the reason that short gladius type swords are found less and less as time went by and seem to be replaced by longer weapons could have been due to the fact that as the Empire started to get a bit shakey due to civil wars, attacks from outside etc, Roman emperors and generals would more and more often hire mercinary troops 'straight out of the box' , ready trained and armed. If you read Gibbon, this is very clear, to the point that some later 'Roman' armies were made up of nothing but foreign troops. As these troops were ready trained and used their own weapons and armour, this could account for the changeover from the Roman gladius to the more alien long sword.

a) Best not read Gibbon as a source, he was a 18th c. writer, and his book is a view on Roman history, not a study that can be used today. His opinion of the Late Roman army was just that, and as we've seen, he was wrong.

b) Although the Romans used mercenaries on a quite large scale for campaigns (not for standing forces), they usually equipped them in the Roman fashion. Therfore I can't agree with you that the spatha was a non-Roman influx, replacing the Roman gladius.

c) the spatha was not an alien sword, the earlier auxilia troops used it, and the cavalry of course.

[Fruitbat]

Hi Robert,

Oh yes, I quite agree regarding Gibbon himself, but one of the best features of his work is the copious supply of contemporary references he gives, and they almost all point to this 'deromanisation' af 'Roman' armies in the later empire.

As for the hire of mercinary foreign troops, if they were required quickly (if not, why not just train-up a couple of new legions), would there be time to re-equip them all and then retrain them in these new weapons uses and tactics (sounds like just training-up a couple of new legions to me).

[Robert Vermaat]

Oh yes, I quite agree regarding Gibbon himself, but one of the best features of his work is the copious supply of contemporary references he gives, and they almost all point to this 'deromanisation' af 'Roman' armies in the later empire.

Sure, but he did not know how to judge these sources. Such as vegetius, who claimed that LR troops did not wear armour or helmets any longer. Today we know better, Gibbon did not. The claim about non-Roman troops has also been rejected after research of names in the Roman army (see Elton for instance) as probably more political than realistic.

As for the hire of mercinary foreign troops, if they were required quickly (if not, why not just train-up a couple of new legions), would there be time to re-equip them all and then retrain them in these new weapons uses and tactics (sounds like just training-up a couple of new legions to me).

perhaps only if they went straight into battle. With cavalry you hire specialists, but with infantry if you want to beef up your units rather than use homogenous mercenary forces, they would be supplied from the Roman fabricae. One reason how we now this is that such troops went home and took their equipment (including fibulae and buckles) with them.

But more importantly, you've not disputed the fact that the spatha was Roman to begin with, not a non-Roman mercenary weapon. :wink:

[Fruitbat]

hi Robert,

You mention some good reading there, thanks.

I agree that Gibbon's judgement on alot of the references was well off the mark, and the particular case you mention is a classic. If you read the Vegetius reference about troops not wearing armour any more, it seems to refer to a reduction in discipline and the troops not wearing armour almost ALL of the time.

With regard non-roman troops being used to beef up the existing Roman units. What if (and in the later empire not uncommon) you had no existing Roman units? How long would it take to re-arm and retrain these men to fight in a roman unit? If it were me in this situation I would just say "great weapons and tactics guys, here is the cash, the enemy is over there!"

As for the spatha not being roman, yes, cavalry would require a longer reach weapon (and cavalry and auxilia etc were mercinary troops), but to be honest, even the gladius was a spanish idea!

[Paullus Scipio]

Fruitbat/Dave wrote:

As for the spatha not being roman, yes, cavalry would require a longer reach weapon (and cavalry and auxilia etc were mercinary troops), but to be honest, even the gladius was a spanish idea!

Not quite true.....the 'spanish gladius' adopted by the Legions was an evolved form of a celtic sword, as was the spatha ( the Celts were the supreme iron workers of the age), and the predecessor in Roman service to the 'spanish' gladius was also a 'short' sword of similar length...... and for that matter one would hardly call auxiliary cavalry and infantry of the early Empire 'mercenary' troops, for they were recruited from subjects of the Empire and were rewarded with citizenship on completion of their service.

[Fruitbat]

Hello Paul,

With regard the gladius, I stand corrected.

But with regard auxiliary infantry and cavalry not being mercenary, surely AFTER getting citizenship, THEN they would no longer be mercinary troops? Even in the time of the republic, didn't Africanus 'buy off' Hanibal's numidian cavalry?

[rrgg]

I thought the Gladius came from the Celtiberians. :?



Anyways, getting back to the original question about whether the short sword is over or under rated.


1. Short swords were relatively cheap and simple to make, and as was brought up in the other thread they were quite common and available among Rome's neighbors. Based on that we have little reason to assume that the shortness of the gladius provided much of a technological or combat advantage to the Romans in particular (other than against very poorly armed foes).

2. More expensive longer swords tended to be preferred over short swords, originally by the Celts and Germans but eventually by the Romans as well. Generally this might suggest that the longsword was more of an evolution if it weren't for the odd development of the Roman Gladius which again was brought up in the other thread: as I understand it, the original 'Spanish' gladius that was popularized in the 2nd century BC tended to be significantly longer than the other swords, averaging at about 2.5 feet long, sometime after the Marian reforms and towards the imperial era however the Gladius was shortened to an average length of about 2 feet and remained there until finally losing out to the spatha in the 3rd century AD.
The question then is why was the gladius first shortened and then replaced by a longer sword? Unfortunately we still can't answer that with any certainty but if I had to hazard a guess the most likely cause might be simply that it was cheaper. After the Marian reforms and the inclusion of landless citizens in the army all armaments suddenly had to be provided by the state possibly creating a desire to cut costs, and of course one way to cut costs and improve production would be to introduce a shorter sword that was almost as effective as the longer ones.

3. The other aspect which was touched on in the other thread was whether the short sword or the sword in general was over or underrated against other weapons such as spears. Most of what I've come across in ancient literature and art seems to suggest that dedicated sword and shield men in battle were extremely rare, swords were generally reserved as side-arms while the main weapon carried was some sort of spear (sort of like the Triarii or early Hastati). I would also point out that the Roman legionary was not really a dedicated sword and shield man either, he carried with him a devastating heavy javelin which both Caesar and Arrian showed to be an extremely versatile and important part of the soldier's armament (to some extent he could be described as a spearman who preferred to throw his javelin before combat).

[Matthew Amt]

1. Short swords were relatively cheap and simple to make, and as was brought up in the other thread they were quite common and available among Rome's neighbors. Based on that we have little reason to assume that the shortness of the gladius provided much of a technological or combat advantage to the Romans in particular (other than against very poorly armed foes).

If cost were a factor, the Romans would not have put so much time, effort, and materials into the fancy and useless brass fittings all over the helmets, armor, belts, scabbards, etc. Six inches of iron barstock is cheap by comparison.

2. More expensive longer swords tended to be preferred over short swords, originally by the Celts and Germans but eventually by the Romans as well. Generally this might suggest that the longsword was more of an evolution if it weren't for the odd development of the Roman Gladius which again was brought up in the other thread: as I understand it, the original 'Spanish' gladius that was popularized in the 2nd century BC tended to be significantly longer than the other swords, averaging at about 2.5 feet long, sometime after the Marian reforms and towards the imperial era however the Gladius was shortened to an average length of about 2 feet and remained there until finally losing out to the spatha in the 3rd century AD.

Just to quibble on lengths, I believe the longest known hispaniensis blade is about 27 inches. The Mainz gladius averaged around 22 inches, the Pompeii about 20.

Most of what I've come across in ancient literature and art seems to suggest that dedicated sword and shield men in battle were extremely rare, swords were generally reserved as side-arms while the main weapon carried was some sort of spear (sort of like the Triarii or early Hastati).

Agreed, spear and shield was far and away the most common way to go to war for thousands of years. But there were exceptions here and there, so there's no reason to try to prove that the Romans were not primarily swordsmen (not all of them, of course!).

I would also point out that the Roman legionary was not really a dedicated sword and shield man either, he carried with him a devastating heavy javelin which both Caesar and Arrian showed to be an extremely versatile and important part of the soldier's armament (to some extent he could be described as a spearman who preferred to throw his javelin before combat).

To me, that makes him a swordsman who carries javelins, not at all unusual in ancient Italy. If your spears are specially made for throwing, and you generally throw them and fight with a sword, you're not a spearman...

Valete,

Matthew

[M. Demetrius]

Attention, please: This thread, if it becomes a rehash of the thread that was locked, will simply be locked. Those with particular pet theories who will not entertain any other possibilities would be wise to consider that.

[Paullus Scipio]

Hello Paul,

With regard the gladius, I stand corrected.

But with regard auxiliary infantry and cavalry not being mercenary, surely AFTER getting citizenship, THEN they would no longer be mercinary troops? Even in the time of the republic, didn't Africanus 'buy off' Hanibal's numidian cavalry?

RRGG wrote:

I thought the Gladius came from the Celtiberians.

Professor Quesada from Spain, an acknowledged expert in the field established with some certainty the ancestry of the gladius some years ago, but like many things it takes awhile to percolate into the 'public consciousness'.

Here is a response of his a year ago on a 'Celtiberian swords' thread which I'll quote in full, to save searching RAT.

Hi, Jesper
In fact there is not such 'transition'. By c. 250/200 BC there were at least four distinct types of sword in use in the Peninsula: falcata, an evolution of La Tène I Celtic sword, Quesada type VI ('Arcobriga type'), Quesada type V ('Atance'), Quesada type IV ('Alcacer'). SOme of them are exclusive of certain areas; some coexisted all over the Peninsula. Other types had already became extinct, others were yet to appear. The only leaf-bladed shaped among these is type VI (average blade lenght 34.5 cm. (smallest one is only 22.5, longest 48). So, where does gladius hispaniensis came from? Not from any of the short, atrophied antennae types (IV, V, VI), but from the Iberian version of the La Tène I type, already extinct in Gaul, but still used in Iberia. The Iberians changed the scababrd, suspension system and elements of the blade, to produce a typ (my VIIC) that became what the Romans copied.
You can read a detailed account of this in Journal of Roman Military Equimpent Studies 8 (1997). I wrote a paper on the origin of the Gladius Hispaniensis in English there.
Also you can have a look at my book on El Armamento Ibérico, published in France but in Spanish (see my web page at http://www.ffil.uam.es/equus and specially http://www.ffil.uam.es/equus/warmas/index.htm and browse, some of the contents are in English but most are in Spanish with many pictures.

Hope this has been usefulFernando Quesada aka Thersites

http://www.ffil.uam.es/equus
http://www.ffil.uam.es/hellas

As can be seen from the above, the Romans did indeed adopt a Spanish sword, but that sword evolved from a La Tene 1 type, and not a Celt-Iberian type.....

As to Auxiliaries being 'mercenary', the term is usually applied to those who owe no loyalty to their paymasters, but work purely for money. Early Imperial Auxiliaries, recruited from within (usually) Roman territory were subjects of, and owed their loyalty to, Rome, and so, by definition were not mercenaries.

The Numidians, or rather their various tribes, were at the time of the second Punic war a semi-independent group of peoples, partly dominated by Carthage, but eager to become independent. Some tribes allied themselves with Carthage, some with Rome, so strictly speaking, they could not be called 'mercenary' either. ( because their motivation to serve and fight wasn't purely money - unlike, say, Carthage's Spanish and Gallic mercenaries, recruited solely for pay) ).
Later, in Trajan's time these same tribesmen, now subjects of Rome would serve as 'Auxiliaries', so still not 'mercenaries' ! :wink:

[markusaurelius]

Were not later Roman armies more heavily weighted towards Cavalry. Hence more soldiers would use a longer sword, which for obvious reason would be more effective on a horse. Is there even iconic or fresco evidence for Late Roman line infantry wearing a long sword/Spatha? Or is the archeology showing us a higher percentage of Spatha associated to the high % Cavalry soldiers of the era.

[Urselius]

Were not later Roman armies more heavily weighted towards Cavalry. Hence more soldiers would use a longer sword, which for obvious reason would be more effective on a horse. Is there even iconic or fresco evidence for Late Roman line infantry wearing a long sword/Spatha? Or is the archeology showing us a higher percentage of Spatha associated to the high % Cavalry soldiers of the era.

Precisely, and there is no reason that the adoption of spathae by infantry should have been either centrally directed or even done for practical reasons. Horsemen have usually had higher status in armies than footsloggers. In the Late Roman period the cache of the legionary had disappeared with the general bestowal of citizenship to all the freeborn. It is to be imagined that the greater prominence of cavalry was accompanied by an increase in their perceived status relative to all of the infantry. Infantrymen may merely have eyed those long cavalry swords with envy, and adopted them. The same thing happened at other times, whole light infantry formations were burdened with fur hats and pelisses merely so that they could ape fashionable hussar cavalry regiments. As recently as WWII the German army was shod in less than practical jack-boots, essentially horseman's footwear, merely for appearance. I fear that, in general, we over ratiocinate changes in equipment in past military formations, sometimes fashion changes merely because it is fashion.

[Robert Vermaat]

Were not later Roman armies more heavily weighted towards Cavalry. Hence more soldiers would use a longer sword, which for obvious reason would be more effective on a horse. Is there even iconic or fresco evidence for Late Roman line infantry wearing a long sword/Spatha? Or is the archeology showing us a higher percentage of Spatha associated to the high % Cavalry soldiers of the era.

Precisely, and there is no reason that the adoption of spathae by infantry should have been either centrally directed or even done for practical reasons. Horsemen have usually had higher status in armies than footsloggers.
In the Late Roman period the cache of the legionary had disappeared with the general bestowal of citizenship to all the freeborn. It is to be imagined that the greater prominence of cavalry was accompanied by an increase in their perceived status relative to all of the infantry. Infantrymen may merely have eyed those long cavalry swords with envy, and adopted them. The same thing happened at other times, whole light infantry formations were burdened with fur hats and pelisses merely so that they could ape fashionable hussar cavalry regiments. As recently as WWII the German army was shod in less than practical jack-boots, essentially horseman's footwear, merely for appearance. I fear that, in general, we over ratiocinate changes in equipment in past military formations, sometimes fashion changes merely because it is fashion.

Gentlemen, are you two attempting to overturn the commonly accepted disappearance of the gladius from the late 3rd ccentury onwards?
Some points of thought:
1) Republican auxilia infantry also used the spatha. If this was a case of fashion would they look 'with envy' at the auxilia cavalry or the citizen legionaries?
2) What 'high % Cavalry soldiers of the era' are you referring to? Certainly, cavalry increased in number, but not excessively so: when we know the numbers, even the highest percentage of cavalry in an army never exceeds more than 50% of the total.
3) Even if the mattered, Late Roman arms were manufactured solely by the state. So there in every reason to accept that the adoption of spathae by infantry should have been centrally directed. It could not have been a case of fashion, because the state decided what to provide.
4) the number of spathae vs. gladii/semispathae turning up in the archaeological record of the period after the 3rd. c. AD is clearly showing that this was not a case of 'number' or 'fashion', but a change in style.
5) Afaik there is no iconical reference for the gladius after the 4th c. in late Roman portrayals of soldiers (excepting retro-art of course where the style is either hellenistic or undatable).