New Book on Roman Swords

[Virilis]

I have read now about one-third of the book and it has turned out to be a bit more like a general history of the role of warfare and violence in the development of the roman empire. Despite that it is VERY interesting, offering new insights and also including the gruesome role of the sword during this process. The gladius hispaniensis is now covered and we will move to the phase which was dominated by the mainz style gladius :wink: ...

[rononmaximus]

Would it be suited for someone starting to learn about Roman warfare or is it too technical and full of concepts and names that will blow my mind? :mrgreen: Sounds interesting by your description.

[Virilis]

Would it be suited for someone starting to learn about Roman warfare or is it too technical and full of concepts and names that will blow my mind? :mrgreen: Sounds interesting by your description.

Hi Andre!

It is indeed a bit heavy-going but it is rewarding in the end. Yes, lot's of names and concepts that would require a prior knowledge of the subject. In all, perhaps not the best book to start learning about the roman warfare...

[rononmaximus]

Would it be suited for someone starting to learn about Roman warfare or is it too technical and full of concepts and names that will blow my mind? :mrgreen: Sounds interesting by your description.

Hi Andre!

It is indeed a bit heavy-going but it is rewarding in the end. Yes, lot's of names and concepts that would require a prior knowledge of the subject. In all, perhaps not the best book to start learning about the roman warfare...

Ok, thanks, it does sound interesting but maybe later then eheh

[arklore70]

I just got my copy of it and it is a book worthy of reading so far. Virilis is dead on in his description of the book. It is well sourced and documented, with lots of illustrations.

I am having a hard time putting it down, as I find it fascinating. Once I finish or get half way through I will comment further.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I am hoping my copy will be arriving today sometime! mile:

[Robert Vermaat]

I am hoping my copy will be arriving today sometime! mile:

Has it?

[Virilis]

I have finished 2/3 of the book now! It gets more and more interesting, I have to say! The author has very plausible theories of the evolution of roman military gear. From the mid 2th century there is tendency of the swords to get longer (not icluding the ring pommel swords). In the 3th century they are definitely longer and the reacancular scutum has been replaced with the dished oval shield. Why so? In authors opinion, there might be several reasons. First, for the individual legionary it is much easier to hack / slash with the longer spathas when the shield doesn`t have any corners. That`s the reason for the oval shield. Why the adaptation of the longer spatha? Perhaps it was adaptation to the new fighting techniques required due to the new kind of enemies on horseback (sassanids, sarmatians, some goths). The rectangular scutum and thrusting with the shorter gladius is not very effective in this respect. It can also have been the preferred way of fighting for the legionaries drafted more and more from the provinces?

Then the sword. In the 3th century the quality of the sword blades improved drastically (pattern-welding etc.). Which was first, the need to develop a technique which allows to make more durable longer blades or were the improved metallurgical techniques developed by accident and in no relation to this need? So was there an isolated need to longer blades due to changing fighting techniques or were the longer blades a side-effect of the technological advancements? Any way, very interesting !

[Medicus matt]

In the 3th century they are definitely longer and the reacancular scutum has been replaced with the dished oval shield. Why so? In authors opinion, there might be several reasons. First, for the individual legionary it is much easier to hack / slash with the longer spathas when the shield doesn`t have any corners. That`s the reason for the oval shield. Why the adaptation of the longer spatha? Perhaps it was adaptation to the new fighting techniques required due to the new kind of enemies on horseback (sassanids, sarmatians, some goths). The rectangular scutum and thrusting with the shorter gladius is not very effective in this respect. It can also have been the preferred way of fighting for the legionaries drafted more and more from the provinces?
Then the sword. In the 3th century the quality of the sword blades improved drastically (pattern-welding etc.). Which was first, the need to develop a technique which allows to make more durable longer blades or were the improved metallurgical techniques developed by accident and in no relation to this need? So was there an isolated need to longer blades due to changing fighting techniques or were the longer blades a side-effect of the technological advancements? Any way, very interesting !

Or, in other words....nothing new. I know that this book is being aimed at a wider audience than those with a specific interest in Roman weaponry (it's ready availability in UK bookshops is evidence of that) but I must say that I've found nothing revelatory in it. It's a good book (as you'd expect form Simon James), not a great or essential one though.

[Virilis]

I have to disagree, Matt :wink: !

This is the first popular book about roman swords that I know which draws extensively on the latest research (by this I mean especially Christian Miks's work). The conclusions might be familiar to us but it is backed by new data available. Then again, I must admit that linking the development of the roman sword to a more general roman military history is a bit artificial in some places...

[John Conyard]

It seems to be a general Roman history, linked to the development of swords, with a dash of "the human experiance of war" thrown in.

A very cheap book from Amazon, from memory just over £12 ish.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

It is, a book which the author states, the first history of
Rome to ignore the 'Glory and Valor' side of the history, and focus on the
reality of fighting with the sword, which is how the empire was won, and maintained.
He does go into several aspects of military history, besides the sword, and is a very good account, on the whole.

It is definately one to add to your collection, as it raises many points which one can also question.

A very good read. It is not the definitive history of the sword though.

[Vindex]

Thank you for the reviews, gentlemen. I think it can wait on my wish list for a little longer. (May find a nice cheapo second hand one later...)

[arklore70]

Am about 1/3 though my copy and I am really enjoying it. It's well researched and definitely makes for good fireside discussions amongst Roman history enthusiasts as well as when engaged with the public at public events.

It is well written and easy to read for even a amateur historian such as myself. Some of the more technical books can sometimes put me to sleep, this one doesn't.

Would make a great Christmas or holiday gift IMHO.

[dengland]

I've recently acquired the book ,Arms and Armour Dura Europos Final Report VII by Simon James. I found the book entertaining and informative. I thought he gave credit where credit was due and laid out his views on scholarship concisely. He then got on with his subject matter and presented a fabulous horde of artifacts. I love the picture of the Arab horse wearing a suit of just excavated armor. I hope my wife sees this and gets me an early Xmas present.