Short Sword Underrated?

[Urselius]

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).

I could go into details, but my basic thesis is that military equipment sometimes changes without there needing to be a practical reason for it. Consider the appearance of armours with plate codpieces from around 1520. One could raise the premise that they arose in response to the development of a specific "ballock-attacking weapon" which needed to be guarded against. However, we know that the new armour element was just an expression in metal of a clothing fashion.

[Robert Vermaat]

I could go into details, but my basic thesis is that military equipment sometimes changes without there needing to be a practical reason for it.

Who is talking about equipment changes here? The spatha was already know for along time. We are talking about short swords vs. long swords, and in this case the possible reason for the outphasing of the gladius. Not a new development.

[Urselius]

Vortigern StudiesWho is talking about equipment changes here? The spatha was already know for along time. We are talking about short swords vs. long swords, and in this case the possible reason for the outphasing of the gladius. Not a new development.

Rather a nice distinction, daggers were around for a long time before someone stuck one down the barrel of a musket thus creating a bayonet, the fact that all Roman infantry were using the spatha rather than merely some is a novelty, all I'm arguing for is that all changes in miltary equipment do not neccessarily arise from purely practical considerations.

For example the introduction of round/oval shields and the reintroduction of thrusting spears to Roman heavy infantry and their adoption of shield-wall tactics have been put forward as an explanation for the loss of the gladius. However, the use of round shields, thrusting spears and close order shield-wall tactics all characterise the hellenic hoplite, and these troops used shortswords.

[Tarbicus]

If the later Roman army was more Germanic then perhaps the cultural practices would gradually integrate into the military, too?

Weren't later Roman troops expected to ride in response to an extended border, using a dwindling army due to citizens being tied to landowners, and the need to counter increasing insurgency on its borders? Or am I so rusty on the subject now I'm out of date?

[Paullus Scipio]

What the....? Hullo stranger! Welcome back !!

[Tarbicus]

Hello there :wink:

[Kai]

If the later Roman army was more Germanic then perhaps the cultural practices would gradually integrate into the military, too?

First, most of the 'Germanic' warriors had no swords at all, and if they had swords they were after Roman fashion. The blades found on both sides of the Limes dated to the Principate were not much different to each other, “Gleichläufig[keit]”, according to Miks. Longer swords were only adopted when the Romans did so, probably with the Romans in the lead.
Second, it is very hard (a) to distinguish what is barbarian and what is just Roman-military fashion, and (b) to find out what the ways of transfer were. Attributing anything to an ethnic background is difficult at best. On a side-note, the word 'Germanic' is more harmful than useful in this respect and it is thus entirely abandoned by many important scholars today (Pohl, Kulikowski, Jarnut e.g.).

So I would disagree with the notion a barbarized army led to the dominance of spathae. But I laid that out in more detail in the "prequel-thread" (Is the short sword overrated).

regards

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Martin,

Who is talking about equipment changes here? The spatha was already know for along time. We are talking about short swords vs. long swords, and in this case the possible reason for the outphasing of the gladius. Not a new development.

Rather a nice distinction, daggers were around for a long time before someone stuck one down the barrel of a musket thus creating a bayonet, the fact that all Roman infantry were using the spatha rather than merely some is a novelty, all I'm arguing for is that all changes in miltary equipment do not neccessarily arise from purely practical considerations.

I was discussing the sword (the long spatha), not the dagger or whatever other piece of equipment one can think of.
No, I did not say that all Roman infantry used the spatha (that would indeed be a novelty), just that the spatha was known to the Roman army long before the late Roman period (used by the cavalry as well as the auxilia). Therefore, there was no 'equipment change', the spatha was simply extended to a larger part of the infantry than it had before.
yes, I can agree with your opinion that 'all changes in military equipment do not necessarily arise from purely practical considerations', but in this case, there was no change in equipment.

For example the introduction of round/oval shields and the reintroduction of thrusting spears to Roman heavy infantry and their adoption of shield-wall tactics have been put forward as an explanation for the loss of the gladius. However, the use of round shields, thrusting spears and close order shield-wall tactics all characterise the hellenic hoplite, and these troops used shortswords.

I don't know what period you are talking about when you mention the introduction of round/oval shields and the reintroduction of thrusting spears to Roman heavy infantry and their adoption of shield-wall tactics'', but again, this was not an 'introduction' in the 3rd century (if you were thinking of that period), but merely a 're-introduction, and not even that. Oval and round shields had always been used in at least part of the Roman army (I assume that you are thinking of the cut-off rectangular shield as the predominant shield form) by cavalry and auxilia. Which, incidentally, has lead some scholars to believe that in the case of auxilia infantry there was a connection between spatha and oval shield which reflects on the use of both by later Roman infantry.
Shield-wall tactics, at least against cavalry, were never dropped by the Roman army, not even for the legionary infantry (as can be seen in Arrian). Thrusting spears were used by the auxilia (hasta) and may have (again) became longer (contus) when the Romans were confronting the Sassanid cavalry armies. Only that one might perhaps be seen as a change in equipment.

That the Hellenic phalanx used short swords should have no bearing on the Late Roman infantry using the spatha. Although there are a lot of similarities, there are also a lot of differences. The Late Roman army was not a Hellenic phalanx.

Hi Jim,

Weren't later Roman troops expected to ride in response to an extended border, using a dwindling army due to citizens being tied to landowners, and the need to counter increasing insurgency on its borders? Or am I so rusty on the subject now I'm out of date?

So many assumptions !
No, the LR troops were not expected to ride in response, only the cavalry, which (although indeed forming a larger part of the LR army) it never extended to more than 50%, with infantry always being a larger part. most of the troops were infantry on the borders though (as had been the legions in the past).
The army did not shrink due to citizens being tied to landowners. Although that practice certainly occurred, it had (to the best of my knowledge) no impact on the size of the population (climate, economics and internal warfare on the other hand did). The size of the army was probably mostly diminished by civil war and a dwindling tax base.

Yep, I'd say you were a bit rusty. Welcome back.

[Timotheus]

Reading through all this a couple thoughts come to mind. First off a infantryman can effectively use a longer weapon, but the reverse cannot be said for a cavalryman. You cannot hand a man on a horse a gladius and expect him to fight anywhere as well as he does with his spatha. So it is entirely possible that the movement to spatha for infantrymen was little more than economic, its cheaper to build and train for one weapon than two and since the spatha works on and off the horse it was the logical choice.

Another thought is if Roman military discipline did decrease over time as has been suggested (yes and disputed) by many historians then isnt a longer blade more effective in the looser formation that less well trained troops are likely to use?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Short Sword Underrated?

A mistake made by many a Gaul, I'm sure..:wink:

[Marcus Velius Avitus]

I have been practicing Asian martial arts for about 15 years (I specialize in Filipino and Indonesian martial art), so my real life experience with hand to hand combat and weapons is all from this perspective. I think that certain fundamental laws of combat apply in this case.

In modern Asian martial arts systems, there are systems that utilize long weapons and some that utilize short. The Filipino martial arts tend to use the stick/small sword/knife at close range very efectively. The weapon dictates the range - in this case, close. A longer sword designed for slashing (like a Japanese katana) will be at odds with the former as it is more of a longer-range weapon. This actually happened a lot as recent as World War 2 - hand to hand fights between Filipino geurillas and Japanese Officers carrying katana! (Usually going in favor of the Filipinos - I have heard a lot of personal accounts from old Moro warriors who fought agaisnt the Japanese). In order to win in a hand-to-hand engagement, one must control the range suitable to their particular weapon. If a short sword system is utilized, then all your methods and tactics are geared toward its strengths. If Gauls with long swords never effectively learned to play to their weapon's strengths against Romans short swords, I am certain that the effects would be profound - the Romans would probably dominate.

We know the Romans were very fond of efficiency and economy in all things(including combat - economy of energy, motion, etc.) They also loved combat - thier facorite passtimes were watching people fight! Fight anything - other people, animals, whatever!
I guess to sum up my point - No one weapon is inherrently "better" than another - it all depends on what you do with it that counts.

[spqr95]

makes sense. you put it eloquently

[caiusbeerquitius]

This is what our reconstruction of the Sisak blade did to a rice mat of 9 cm thickness. The mat was watered for 22 hours, so equaled a very thick male thigh. Full information will be available in our book, which will come out this year. (Die Römische Armee im Experiment)

[Virilis]

Indeed the reach of the weapon dictates the fighting style. Just look at Mike Tyson or Rocky Marciano in their prime...