I am having some trouble trying to understand the differences of Roman gladii. I've read that the Romans went to the Gladius Hispaniensis sometime in the 3rd cent BC but what did they carry before? Did they change only because of the shape defining role or was it the manufacturing method (better forged steel) that quantified the newer Hispaniensis?
Next, I know of the difference between the Mainz and Pompeii style, ie. the waist and length of the point but I was under the impression that both of these were also typed as Hispaniensis gladii, just different sub-designs. (like the difference between an M16 and an AK-47, both different but both are assault rifles with the same role in battle as compared to say a bolt action rifle) Am I wrong? If so, what was the original Hispaniensis' dimensions/shape and what couldn't it do that the others could?
The Roman kingdom, and early republic was a greek style fighting force, so it wouldn't surprise me if they were carrying hoplite swords. They did use the phalanx. Armor was the same, but then they decidedto switch to a more a more manueverable fighting force, so go on google and search the rebublican fighting units, you will see many kinds of variation depending on wealth and skill of the soldier. I don't know what sword the Romans used just before the conquest of Spain, but I think as soon as they learned of the high quality Spanish swords, they adopted the Gladius Hispaniensis, which is a Spanish sword, made to look Roman. I have to stop writing so I hope this helped. The internet and members here will tell you a lot about the swords.
Until the nineties, the sword used by the republican army during the 2nd-1st century BC wasn't known, so the Hispanic prototypes of it even less. Some scholars had proposed different candidates that didn't fit with the posterior evolution of Roman gladii, others that Romans never adopted an Iberian sword (for them, the term hispaniensis referred to quality). But since then, some swords from the republican period have been discovered, what allowed to discard some of the old proposals of possible hispanic prototypes (falcata, fronton sword...), and to identify the origin of the gladius hispaniensis: modified versions of the Celtic La Tene I swords. Imported to Iberia, they were modified in accordance to local tastes from the late 4th century BC and known and adopted by the Roman legions probably at the end of the 3rd century BC (during the Second Punic Wars).
A bad summary of an excellent article from F. Quesada Sanz (JRMES, 8, 1997, pp.251-270)
Quote:Next, I know of the difference between the Mainz and Pompeii style, ie. the waist and length of the point but I was under the impression that both of these were also typed as Hispaniensis gladii, just different sub-designs. (like the difference between an M16 and an AK-47, both different but both are assault rifles with the same role in battle as compared to say a bolt action rifle) Am I wrong? If so, what was the original Hispaniensis' dimensions/shape and what couldn't it do that the others could?
My way of explaining that gladius is like that of muscle cars, while the 1st and 2nd generation Camaro had similarities, and the 2nd and 3rd had similarities, the 1st and 3rd generation did not really have similarities.
The there are similarities between the Hispaniensis and Mainz but not the Hispaniensis and Pompeii.
One other thing, you didn't mention the Fulham-Mainz varient, which is considered the gap between the Mainz and Pompeii.
Indeed the Fulham gladius is sometimes considered just a variation of the Mainz, that is why it is often called the Mainz-Fulham sword. But you cannot deny the sword is more narrow, and has an almost parallel waist. Even the timing of the sword is at the end of the common use of the Mainz, and the popularization of the Pompeii, making it a perfect gladius to bridge the gap
So is there evidence that the Gladius Hispaniensis was in fact another style/shaped sword that lent itself well to a new type of stabbing emphasis roman warfare or was it just a new type of sword making, metallurgy and smithing?
What about the accounts of Titus Manlius Torquatus? Didn't some ancient source say he used a Gladius Hispaniensis in battle to stab and enemy repeatedly in the stomach?
How accurate is this paragraph: In the ancient world, as is today as well, swords are hard to make and expensive to boot which made Rome unique in that its primary offensive weapon after the pilum was the sword. During the mid-republic period the army sounds to me to be more of a national guard that a professional military force where warfighting was secondary to most in terms of making a living. Most soldiers levied would be using grandpa's old gladius since it still worked, wasn't bent or rusted, and could still gut a Gaul.
Quote:So is there evidence that the Gladius Hispaniensis was in fact another style/shaped sword that lent itself well to a new type of stabbing emphasis roman warfare or was it just a new type of sword making, metallurgy and smithing?
I've explained it in the other post. The Gladius Hispaniensis is another sword, with a different shape (straight blade, parallel edges and pointed end), than the used by the Roman Army before the 3th century BC (probably of hoplitic kind). It was better for both, cutting and thrusting, so it was adopted from the Celtiberian panoply probably during the Second Punic Wars.
Quote:What about the accounts of Titus Manlius Torquatus? Didn't some ancient source say he used a Gladius Hispaniensis in battle to stab and enemy repeatedly in the stomach?
"The term hispaniensis or hispanicus came in time to refer to any short, multi-purpose and robust double-edged sword with a straight blade, as a kind of byword for quality, and it was used in this sense by later authors, to describe anachronistically the episode of the single combat or duel of T. Manius against a Gaul set in the 4th century BC."
From the wonderful paper by F. Quesada Sanz you should read: http://www.uam.es/proyectosinv/equus/warmas/index.htm (search for it in the blue column on the left, under Artículos on-line). In English and for free.
Quote:I've explained it in the other post. The Gladius Hispaniensis is another sword, with a different shape (straight blade, parallel edges and pointed end),
Straight-sided and parallel? I think that's far too much of a generalisation given the examples that are slightly wasp-wasted.
tiberius aemilius naso post=292833 Wrote:I've explained it in the other post. The Gladius Hispaniensis is another sword, with a different shape (straight blade, parallel edges and pointed end),
Straight-sided and parallel? I think that's far too much of a generalisation given the examples that are slightly wasp-wasted.
You are right, it's a generalization. It's a way of describing its general appearance.
Yeah, the first sword you post has not straight and parallel edges. But it is an atrophied antennae sword, and it has been discarded as a prototype for the Gladius Hipaniensis.
The discussion held in the old forum of Legio VIIII (concernig the manufacture of a gladius hispaniensis by Armillum, and the shape chosen for the blade) is if considering "parallel edges" as a characteristic for the gladius hispaniensis is too generalizing. And it is, they can be also quite waspy (if it is the same as pistiliform, it is? Sorry for my English).
