Quote:I have long wondered why the Romans switched, apparently abruptly, from the xiphos as the primary sword type to the gladius. I have also wondered if the switch corresponded to some other change in military doctrine. This really leaves me with two questions:
1. Was the gladius easier/cheaper to make?
The earlier types, such as example from delos seem like they would not be easier, though the organic hilts do seem somewhat cheaper. The simpler pompeii type certainly seems easier to make, but that type did not appear until long after. I am especially interested in the input of any smiths on the board.
2. Is there a difference in how the swords handle?
This question really goes out to the reenactors. For those of you who have had a chance to play around with good replicas of each type, how do they handle differently? Do you find the gladius more suitable for the type of fighting engaged in by manipular legion, or would a xiphos have worked just as well? For those of you who respond, please specify what types/models you are comparing. Additionally, I'd be interested to know if you have tried either sword with a shield, and if so, what type.
I can't answer everything but here are my two cents, based of some historical and archaeological sources, the well thought out arguments proposed by other posters right here on RAT, a few other websites, with lots of personal speculation:
By the late 3rd century BC, the Romans militarily had become a sword people. All their military classes, from shield bearing line infantry, to skirmishers, to cavalry, all carried them and predominately used them in battle, in addition to spears and javelins.
The sword styles most commonly thought to have been used by the Romans during this time were:
- the xiphos, double edged, with a blade of about 20-26 inches long, heavily waisted, a good cut and thrust sword, perfect for the infantry style used by the Romans
- the kopis/machaira/falcata, single edged, about the same length of the xiphos but with differing degrees of a forward sloping blades, predominately cutting swords but capable of thrusting. Recommended by many for cavalry but also a great infantry sword
The heavy emphasis on the use of swords would have meant that there needed to be a large industry to facilitate this, as at any given time, Rome would have between 16-50 Roman Legions or Latin equivalent sized units in the field (high number during the 2nd Punic War). This led to a large demand, coupled with a minimum supply of quality iron, found mostly in the northern Etruscan lands and Sardinia, good quantity but not of great quality. Meanwhile, the fabled iron ore of Noricum and Spain weren't yet accessible to the Romans.
The problem with both the xiphos and falcata (a modern name for the weapon), was that neither sword was simple to craft, as their hilts were very complicated:
[img width=200]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Falcata_%C3%ADbera_%28M.A.N._Madrid%29_03b.jpg/220px-Falcata_%C3%ADbera_%28M.A.N._Madrid%29_03b.jpg[/img] [img width=400]http://i1337.photobucket.com/albums/o673/AlaeSwords/pvgiones_gladii_antiqui13b_zps9f01b884.jpg[/img]
During the 2nd Punic War, with so many new legions needing to be fielded yearly, with 25 legions fielded in one year by Rome alone, not counting however were rallied by the Socii, it would have likely meant that the quality control of swords would have dropped significantly from a major increase in production and that their prices would have gone up, from supply and demand. Complicating issues further, much of the land of the Po river valley in Cisapline Gaul, a major iron working area, was contested, stifling trade even more so. This meant a situation where the average sword carried by a Roman in the first decade of the 2nd Punic War, who wasn't rich, would probably have been of poor overall quality.
When Scipio Africanus took New Carthage in 209 BC, he captured 2,000 artisans, many of whom were blacksmiths, who were promised their freedom after a designated allotment of time working for the Roman state, I believe it was 15 years. These skilled smiths had been crafting, among other things, a different design of sword, what would later be called by the Romans the Gladius Hispaniensis , the Spanish Sword. Based off of an older Gallic/Celtibernian design, the La Tene I sword (possibly La Tene II depending on the classification), it had on average a 24-26 inch straight double edged blade, 1.5-2 inches wide, capable of both cutting and thrusting. Spanish iron was known for its purity so it would have been easy to work it into a quality sword. In addition, the Celts and Iberians were known for being excellent iron workers.
One source reports that a quality Spanish Sword could be bent over the head, with the tip and hilt pulled down by either hands to the shoulders, and then let go, where the blade would spring back straight. To get this type of springiness and still be hard required quality iron and exceptional workmanship.
One of the most obvious differences between the older Roman sword designs like the xiphos and the Spanish swords, beyond quality of the iron and the smithing and blade geometry, was the tang/hilt design:
[img width=200]http://legvi.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/dcp_5128.jpg[/img]
With a simpler hilt, the Gladius Hispaniensis was an easier and quicker sword to construct then its predecessors. Instead of a blacksmith spending a good portion of the overall time for one sword working the elaborate hilt designs of the xiphos or falcata styles, he could quickly hammer out the blade and tang, while a less skilled worker could simultaneously be constructing a hilt out of wood or bone or whatever was being used, as well as making the scabbard, shortening the overall construction process and spreading the work load out in a mass production-like method. Or the same worker could do everything and still finish quicker than the previous swords, meaning less work overall, less time (time=money).
Properly constructed and assembled, the hilt design of the Gladius Hispaniensis was just as good as sturdy as its forerunner sword designs, at least in any meaningful way. More so, the shape, length, and point of balance of this sword would not have greatly differed from the Xiphos, so a change in fighting style would not have been necessary at all. Simply,those armed with a Spanish Sword would own a weapon that was easier to make, made of higher grade raw material, forged with better methods, sturdier, and best of all, cheaper.
Knowing the quality of weaponry carried by the Spanish Army were spotty at best when he took over, Scipio Africanus rearmed his entire army with these new, well made swords constructed by those captured artisans, and this probably started a trend within Roman society. After being victorious in Spain, Scipio took coomand of a new army in Sicily, using these armies to beat Hannibal at Zama. During the year of preparation of invading Africa, no doubt this army as well were gifted with the new swords. Afterwards, the Spanish Swords simply became synonymous with quality, effectiveness, and low cost, so they gained popularity.
As time went on, the other styles of swords became phased out among the Romans, with the Gladius Hispaniensis becoming semi-standardized in size and shape, though of course materials and construction methods varied. There's no doubt there would have been probably many smiths knocking out cheap, low quality copies, with poorly tempered blades, or "sharpened crow bars" as another RAT poster, the reenacting guru Matthew Amt , used to call them, all while advertising them as "Spanish Swords." I doubt it wasn't much different that the concept of buying a German or Japanese car these days, they became synonymous with quality, though actual results may vary.
The original Gladius Hispaniensis blade design seems to have been used predominately by both Roman infantry and cavalry until the mid to late 1st Century BC, when the shorter, wider, and more heavily waisted Mainz style blade design replaced the long, thin, straight or slightly wasp-waisted original Gladius Hispaniensis blade. Meanwhile, the tang design and hilts generally didn't change significantly (which is what I believe truly differentiated a gladius hispaniensis from other swords, such as the xiphos).
My guess is that this change occurred because of four primary reasons:
1.) The dissolving of the Roman citizen cavalry class, replaced by Gallic horsemen and other auxiliaries, meant all Roman common soldiers at this point were line infantry, no longer needing the extra length of a Gladius Hispaniensis for its reach.
2.) A standardized fighting method for sword and shield was taught to the infantry by gladiator instructors, started by Publius Rutilius Rufus in 105 BC and continued by Marius and everyone else afterwards, until those training methods became standardized within all units the Roman army. A slightly shorter sword would be easier to maneuver with in the compacted space of a shield carrying infantry battle line, especially against quality opponents, like the more organized heavy infantry Gallic enemy and even other Romans. Only a few inches shorter, the weapon made close in fighting easier while still being long enough to serve as a general all-purpose infantry sword.
3.) The Mainz, with its longer tapered point and heavily waisted blade, mimicked the Pugio, the Spanish daggers that had become common among the Romans in the 1st Cent BC, in its overall blade contour and design. They kept the tang of the Spanish Sword and lengthened the pugio blade. Compare a picture of a Gladius Hispaiensis, a Mainz style variant, and a Pugio and you'll see what I mean, I think the similarities are not a coincidence. They simply turned the pugio into a sword.
4.) Style. Things change and not always for any specific reason or out of efficiency. Decisions to rearm entire armies with new weapon designs do not always follow common sense. An anecdotal example of this issue is the modern US Marine Corps' refusal to switch to the shorter and easier to maneuver M4 Carbine during the majority of the recent Iraq/Afghanistan wars over worries that the plastic butt stock would not withstand the impact of a buttstroke weapon attack, something done so rarely in modern warfare that its barely worth thinking of, let alone be used as an argument over the choice of a service rifle. This reasoning is so stupid its barely believable, but its still true.
From my understanding, the differences between the Mainz and the Mainz-Fulham blade designs are so slight I don't really see any difference other than style to differentiate them.
The overall problem with the Mainz/Fulham style swords were that the long tips were susceptible to be broken/bent/rolled from stabbing into hard objects. This is a bad thing, especially for a weapon predominately used to stab:
[img width=200]http://www.sword-manufacturers-guide.com/images/Tinker-Armor.jpg[/img]
Good luck using this to gut someone afterwards or even trying to get it back in the scabbard.
This problem may have led to the changes to the gladius resulting in the Pompeii style, with its point being shorter, less extreme of an angle, sometimes even reinforced (Guttman sword's diamond tip), or not as severe of a distal taper, making the blade thicker. These changes would lead to a sturdier stabbing point, less likely to be damaged or needing to be repaired or entirely replaced. But this doesn't mean it was armor piercing, as no one handed sword was ever used or meant to pierce armor. It would simply extend the life of the sword, ensuring it didn't need frequent repairs of the tip.
By the point in Rome's history that the Pompeii style was coming about, the popularity of a heavy waisted blade, to add mass further down the blade to add momentum with slashing/chopping attacks, what appears to have been a carry over from the old style xiphos swords, had finally run its course and disappeared altogether, leaving straight or slightly tapered blades. But the Pompeii style was so short that, while making for an exceptional fighting weapon in the close quarters of a shield wall/close in fight, it was less than ideal as a general fighting weapon for other situations. For example, the sword was just too short for cavalry to use, necessitating the creation of the Spatha around the same time, which would eventually replace the Pompeii completely but that's a totally different story.
The different gladius blade styles:
[img width=200]http://www.larp.com/legioxx/blades.gif[/img]
I'm sure I've messed some of this up a bit (ring pommel gladius missing) and generalized a bit, leaving out some useful info, but I hope this helps you.
