some specific Qs re: late infantry weapon changes

[sraoses]

Hi; first post. I'm guessing debates about the reasons for equipment changes undergone by late imperial infantry have by now become a tiresome trope for older members. I have some specific questions to which I would be grateful for answers, and apologize if this is redundant or if it should be in another place; or if the questions are inane. I hope they can be answered somewhat independently of each other.

I) Was the change from the use of the gladius to the spatha as an infantry sword only a matter of cultural change, or is it plausible to suppose that there were important tactical advantages as well?

More specifically:

1. Is it that the spatha is a better weapon in loose formations, but that the gladius is better in close formations? Assume no thrusting spears in either case. And how does shield type influence this question?
2. How much does it matter, for infantry in close formations, from which side of the body swords are drawn, DISregarding the shield type? In other words, are the cohesion/spatial dynamics of the formation significantly affected by how the sword is drawn?
3. Does the availability of a slightly longer toward make a noticeable difference in the ability of infantry to oppose cavalry?

II) Imperial scutum vs later oval shield:

1. Is the rectangular scutum more difficult to train with? Does it require more fitness?
2. Is it more difficult to march with? Is it more difficult to move quickly on the battlefield with?
3. Would the oval shield be better than the scutum in single/open combat given the offensive weapon is a sword, and would this be mostly because of the strapping-on or because of its shape?
4. Is the ability to strap on a shield, instead of holding is at the boss, better for use with spears as thrusting weapons? And/or for throwing javelins?
5. Is the oval shape better for use with spears as thrusting weapons? And/or for use with javelins?
6. Does the efficacy of the gladius largely depend on its combination with the scutum, and if so, is this mostly because of the ability to "punch" or because of its shape?
7. How important was the testudo formation to earlier imperial armies versus late imperial armies; how significant is the superiority of the scutum for this formation; and how significant would be the impact of superior bows and fewer or different offensive sieges on the usefulness of the scutum/testudo?

III) Hastae/plumbatae vs. Pila

1. Is the spear significantly better than the pilum against mounted opposition?
2. Is the availability of multiple throwing darts a significant advantage against mounted opposition, which can move in and out, thus validating the ability to send multiple volleys?
3. What, if any, are the issues surrounding the economy/ease production of these weapons?

IV) In context of the above questions, is it possible that the change of offensive weapons resulted from the change in shield type? Or conversely that the change in shield type followed the change in weaponry?

V) I once read a comment that the Macedonian armies of Alexander functioned like a boxer, with the phalanx being the body and the shock cavalry the two arms. (I think s/he was quoting someone.) Did the increased dominance of cavalry during the late Roman Empire necessitate a return to such tactics? If so, would a spear phalanx be a superior place-holding infantry type to the more forward-moving legions of earlier times?

VI) Anything else, in or out of the context of these questions, is of course welcome.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi,

Before I go into any detailed answer, I have both a general answer as well as a question for you.

Answer:
We don't really know. We notice a general change in weapons etc., but we don't exactly know whether this was based on policy, experience, strategy, availability or simply fashion. Or all of the former. We can speculate of course.

Question:
These topics have been discussed extensively on this forum. have you carried out a search already?

[sraoses]

Yes indeed; but I thought it might be useful, or at least amusing, to break it down into these component issues.

The virtual entirety of all of the discussions I have encountered on this topic are quite general. For instance, it is common to debate on whether the purpose was tactical or cultural, which is obviously not a question that can be conclusively answered. I was hoping that more specific topics might be worth discussing. For instance, I ask whether the use of a particular type of sword is more useful with a particular kind of shield in a particular type of combat. I have not found a discussion wherein the use of the gladius with the early imperial scutum is compared to the hypothetical use of the spatha with the early imperial scutum, absent all other issues, or any other discussion quite that specific. I don't expect to conclude whether this was an important causal factor in the changes that the military underwent. In fact, I didn't mean to ask for any answers to any "why" questions, because I don't believe these answers can be reliably obtained. I was mostly interested in those more knowledgeable than myself helping me to understand how, given that the changes occurred for whatever reason, they would have changed specific, even minute, aspects of battle.

Perhaps I should have searched more thoroughly, or tried harder to sift the desired information out from the old posts.

Cheers

[Luka Borščak]

I have often heard theories that because spatha was used in the later imperial times and more soldiers of barbarian background were recruited that roman formations were looser than earlier imperial and later republican formations. If we leave the testudo and anti cavalry formations aside, I have seen no proof that legionaries of that period were fighting in especially dense formations. In fact, throwing a pilum and than charging the enemy with a short sword and a curved shield sounds to me like something to be done in a bit looser formation. You can't really fight with a short gladius if your rectangular shield touches your neighbour's rectangular shield. In later imperial times when oval or round shield became the norm, you can strike or thrust with your longer spatha or a spear over the place where the shield touches your neighbour's shield because it's lower point of the shield and you have a longer weapon. It is a wrong assumption that you can't use a longer single handed sword in a tight shieldwall formation. You just have to use thrusts and downward strikes, you can't swing from right to left or vice versa, you have to use downward chops or slices and you don't bother your neighbour that way. It is the style of fighting later used by most germanic peoples of migration period and early medieval times. Of course, secondary way of fighting, thrusting with spears is a primary way of fighting in a shieldwall.
This is my opinion and experience from medieval reenactment and I would have nothing against being corrected if I'm wrong.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Rance's paper is available on the 'Net, here is the link https://web.duke.edu/classics/grbs/FTexts/44/Rance2.pdf

This may prove useful to your debate.

[Longovicium]

Paul Elliot's book 'Legions in Crisis' will give you much thought and detail on these topics. If you are serious about delving deeper into these questions, I would thoroughly recommend it.

[Nathan Ross]

The virtual entirety of all of the discussions I have encountered on this topic are quite general.

You might try taking a look through some of these:

The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha

Why Did the Oval Shield Replace the Scutum?

Changes in the Roman Army

The last thread goes over a lot of the ground previously covered, with a few new points.

it is common to debate on whether the purpose was tactical or cultural

As Robert says, we have no firm evidence, but I think it's fair to say that the development of Roman weaponry and shield patterns from the late 2nd to late 3rd century was principally driven by the tactical requirements of a changing battlefield, a wider array of potential enemies, and perhaps even changes in unit structure. Beyond that we can only hypothesise (which hasn't stopped us in the past, of course... )

[sraoses]

Just to clarify: I suppose I misintroduced my post by starting off with mention of the old early vs late army debate. I mostly only meant to satisfy any curiosity regarding why I was asking all of these otherwise potentially unrelated questions in a single post. So if any reenactment enthusiasts or any others have any insight for me on some of the questions, e.g. how much difference the ability to launch ~six javelin volleys instead of one or two makes against cavalry, I suppose I would, as before, be grateful for anyone's insight.

However, at any rate, thank you all very much for these very useful links/book recommendation which I am sure will contain the answers to at least some of these questions. This is indeed a fascinating topic for me and I will look at the Rance article right away!

Cheers,

S

[Timianus]

Paul Elliot's book 'Legions in Crisis' will give you much thought and detail on these topics. If you are serious about delving deeper into these questions, I would thoroughly recommend it.

I highly recommend this book as well. His thoughts, in a nutshell, are that increased contact with cavalry-oriented opponents necessitated use of the spear. This, in turn, made the rectangular scutum less desirable. With an oval shield, the spears can protrude through the "v" openings in the shield wall. He also has a good discussion on how changes to the design of helmets made the old, "crouch, advance, and stab" tactics unworkable.