Difference in Spatha Legions vs Gladius

[Imperium]

What are the differences in formation and fighting style of the Legions after they had adopted the Spatha vs the formation and fighting style when the gladius was still employed?

[M. Demetrius]

Well, you could start with a book like The Complete Roman Army by Adrian Goldsworthy, and add the Strategikon by Mauritius.

That might give you a broader database from which to work, and help you frame a more specific question. It's a little like, perhaps, asking "What are the differences in formation and fighting style of the American army after they had developed JDAM munitions vs the formation and fighting style of the American Revolution." That's a bad analogy, but you probably get the point?

[Dan Howard]

I think you'd have trouble working out what sword most of the sources are talking about. It seems that they didn't care too much about terminology. "Gladius" and "spatha" are often used interchangably.

[Forty-One]

I think you'd have trouble working out what sword most of the sources are talking about. It seems that they didn't care too much about terminology. "Gladius" and "spatha" are often used interchangably.

Well, they did care, because they always carefully chose a word that meant "sword" when writing about a sword. gladius meant "sword" (among other things). spatha meant "sword" (among other things). It's not the ancient writers' fault if moderns have hijacked and misapplied words in their ancient language and made them into annoying pseudo-technical terms.

[Dan Howard]

Yes, exactly. There is no point using the terms "gladius" and "spatha" to try and work out how long a particlar sword was because the sources make no such distinguishment. Both terms simply mean "sword".

[Matthew Amt]

I think the original post was more concerned with tactical changes between the time of troops armed mainly with shorter blades, and troops armed mainly with longer ones. Doesn't matter what they were called at the time, though it can be handy for us to say "gladius" and "spatha" rather than "swords with blades 18 to 20 inches long" versus "swords with blades 24 to 32 inches long".

I tend to be obnoxious and point out that on a very basic level, the tactics were the same: Line up, hold your shield between you and the bad guy, and hit him with something sharp! A lot of ink is spilled over the comparative "ranges" of short and long swords, but the actual difference in reach is about half a step. Sure, the methods of wielding can be different! But long swords and short ones could both cut and thrust.

As another wrench in the works, were not later legionaries toting spears? So that would be their primary weapon, with the sword as more of a secondary one.

Oh, might be good to do some searching and digging here on RAT, cuz I know we've talked about this not too long ago.

Valete!

Matthew

[rrgg]

And then you have the early Gladius with a 24-27 inch blade. I find it interesting how in the later Middle ages the title 'short' starts to lump together any one-handed sword less than 3-3.5 feet long.

[ValentinianVictrix]

What are the differences in formation and fighting style of the Legions after they had adopted the Spatha vs the formation and fighting style when the gladius was still employed?

This is an interesting question.

The Spatha was a different sword from the gladius, it was longer and appears to be more designed for slashing than the gladius was. The strange thing is that when the Legionaries employed the shorter gladius, they also employed the pilum, whilst Late Roman infantry had the spatha with the longer spear known as the spiculum. According to Vegetius, the spiculum could either be thrown, with the same penetrating power of the pilum, or held to presumably fend off cavalry.

Did this lead to a change in fighting styles?

Some authors such as Elton feel it did, in that the Late Roman armies fought in a more shield wall type formation, again probably due to the increasing number of cavalry they were facing. The spiculum would have enable the infantry to be able to fend off cavalry better than infantry armed with the pilum who after throwing it would have been forced to rely on their swords for close-in fighting.

As to how the spatha became introduced into the army, I would speculate that it was copied from swords carried by germanic recruits into the Roman army, and as more and more germanics were recruited the spatha then became the dominate sword type. But, thats just my speculation.

[Dan Howard]

Matt's point is critical. During the time in question the spear was the primary weapon, not the sword. Infantry tactics and formations would have the spear in mind, not the sword.

[Robert Vermaat]

The Spatha was a different sword from the gladius, it was longer and appears to be more designed for slashing than the gladius was.

Not surprising when you see this weapon used by cavalry long before it became to common sidearm of the infantry. But of course, don't forget that the auxilia also used it during the Principate, so perhaps there were differences in fighting back then too.

The strange thing is that when the Legionaries employed the shorter gladius, they also employed the pilum, whilst Late Roman infantry had the spatha with the longer spear known as the spiculum. According to Vegetius, the spiculum could either be thrown, with the same penetrating power of the pilum, or held to presumably fend off cavalry.

The spiculum being a throwing spear, the longer spear which you have in mind would be the hasta or contus. I'm not sure I'd want to rely solely on Vegetius for that.
Next to an aaray of throwing spears, they also employed the plumbata, an even better method of keeping cavalry at bay.

Did this lead to a change in fighting styles?
Some authors such as Elton feel it did, in that the Late Roman armies fought in a more shield wall type formation, again probably due to the increasing number of cavalry they were facing. The spiculum would have enable the infantry to be able to fend off cavalry better than infantry armed with the pilum who after throwing it would have been forced to rely on their swords for close-in fighting.

I'm not sure that it was the enemy cavalry which led to these changes. Germanic infantry might also have something to do with it, or perhaps even the circumstance that during the 3rd century, Romans fought much more against other Romans than outside enemies. We don't know. The thing with close formation infantry such as in a shield wall with overlapping shields (Principate infantry could equally fight in a shield wall of course) is that you don't reallly have the space to wield a spatha, other than stab with it.

As to how the spatha became introduced into the army, I would speculate that it was copied from swords carried by germanic recruits into the Roman army, and as more and more germanics were recruited the spatha then became the dominate sword type. But, thats just my speculation.

I don't think so. The spatha was around for a long time as a cavalry weapon before Germanic volunteers began to be accepted in the army in large numbers (which, as far as we know, were armed by the Roman state instead of bringing their own equipment with them).

[ValentinianVictrix]

I have read in a number of books that the Romans copied the longer Spatha type sword after their contact with Gallic/Germanic tribes?

This is the description of the Spiculum in Vegetius, its fairly clear it was the long spear I talk about and not the contos carried by the cavalry. I believe the Stilcho dyptch shows him holding one-

'Their offensive weapons were large swords, called spathae, and smaller ones called semispathae together with five loaded javelins (plumbata) in the concavity of the shield, which they threw at the first charge. They had likewise two other javelins, the largest of which was composed of a staff five feet and a half long and a triangular head of iron nine inches long. This was formerly called the pilum, but now it is known by the name of spiculum. The soldiers were particularly exercised in the use of this weapon, because when thrown with force and skill it often penetrated the shields of the foot and the cuirasses of the horse. The other javelin was of smaller size; its triangular point was only five inches long and the staff three feet and one half. It was anciently called verriculum but now verutum.'

[Dan Howard]

I have read in a number of books that the Romans copied the longer Spatha type sword after their contact with Gallic/Germanic tribes?

Centuries earlier the Romans came into contact with La Tene celts who had plenty of good quality long swords. Why would they wait for Germanic contact to start adopting long blades?

[john roberts]

Remember that, while the spatha was longer than the gladius, it was not all that much longer. The earliest gladius hispaniensis were close to spatha length. When calling the spatha a "long sword" the temptation is to picture it as a knightly long sword, a much longer and more massive weapon. Adopting the spatha needn't have required a radical change in battlefield tactics. Other, more important weapons and practices determined this.

[Kai]

I have read in a number of books that the Romans copied the longer Spatha type sword after their contact with Gallic/Germanic tribes?

Centuries earlier the Romans came into contact with La Tene celts who had plenty of good quality long swords. Why would they wait for Germanic contact to start adopting long blades?

Most important, why would they "wait" for people who had an absolutely parallel development in their blades? The blades found east of the German limes were usually very similar to the Romans ones. If anything, the Romans were leading the development to longer swords.


John,

according to the archaeological evidence, the average blade length in the second half of 1st century AD was between 40cm and 60cm, while in the second half of the fourth century it was between 70cm and 90cm.

From Miks, p.21:

[Robert Vermaat]

This is the description of the Spiculum in Vegetius, its fairly clear it was the long spear I talk about and not the contos carried by the cavalry. I believe the Stilcho dyptch shows him holding one-

Possibly, but remember that in artistic representations, the spear is often as long as the head of the person due to space limits. Same on funerary monuments.

'Their offensive weapons were large swords, called spathae, and smaller ones called semispathae together with five loaded javelins (plumbata) in the concavity of the shield, which they threw at the first charge. They had likewise two other javelins, the largest of which was composed of a staff five feet and a half long and a triangular head of iron nine inches long. This was formerly called the pilum, but now it is known by the name of spiculum. The soldiers were particularly exercised in the use of this weapon, because when thrown with force and skill it often penetrated the shields of the foot and the cuirasses of the horse. The other javelin was of smaller size; its triangular point was only five inches long and the staff three feet and one half. It was anciently called verriculum but now verutum.'

Yes, I know, but Vegetius leaves out the longer thrusting spears which we know were in use against cavalry from the early 3rd century onwards, which we see in art and which continue into the Middle Ages. The spiculum is not the same as the pilum, because it was not weighted - Vegetius does either seem to be unawar of this, or ignoring it. But the spiculum must have been different either way.