The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why?

[Martin Wallgren]

I have to join in Mr O´Neills pusselment here!

Okej! It takes more training to keep soldiers in formation! But for the techniques with the blade and shield the loser formation and man to man fighting is much harder to survive.

At least in my oppinion. I have not done roman lines but I´ve joinedthe vikings here where I live for a few times to fill their ranks out. And I train with longer blades and have five to ten duells/bouts two times a week. And To stay alive in the battleline is just o stab faster than everybody else. But to get more than a 50% chans in a man on man situation takes skill, training more training and even some more.

[tlclark]

But the reason I mentioned that the Germanics is that the suggestion is that the spatha was adopted due to the influence of barbarians in the late Roman Army. The bulk of those barbarians at that stage were Germanics (and some Huns and Indo-Iranians) rather than Celts.

This is always a thorny issue. By the time they became the predominant force in the Roman military, the 'barbarians' had been under Roman control for about 200 years. Most were Christians, and nearly all of them thought of themselves as "Romans"

Under the criteria of many historians, I'm still British!! The 'migrational' tag is equally arbitrary.

Clovis, the founder of the Merovingian line in France celebrated a triumph in Roman style!

And Charlemagne when he goes to Rome is still required to put on 'Roman' clothes.

we see this sharp break in late antiquity, the people at the time almost certainly did not.

The point is, the spatha is a Roman weapon, not a German one. I don't think we can credit/blame the Germans with its popularity, especially if they didn't even think of themselves as "Germans".

I think the reasons for the change are more practical, and less cultural.

Travis

[L C Cinna]

my guess:

I have some probs with the barbarisation and the extended use of cav. theories.

First of all, the change towards the spatha and oval scutum took place BEFORE the big contingents of barbarian troops appear in the army. and about the cavalry, it became the important arm in the army in later times...but if you look at the armies in the 4th century the infantry is still the main and most important part and the Roman opponents, except for the Sasanides don't deploy more cav than usuall. SO imho cavalry can't have been the important factor for the change.

BUT what we have is troops stationed at the border as their primary job after the big expansions stopped. and the majority of conflicts being small barbarian groups raiding the country and returning home again. no big scale operations. all you have are small detachments fighting here and there, a few hundred people maximum.

Now if you and your century are called to stop some 100 Alemannes running wild in the village behind the next hill I guess you don't form battle lines and such. you would automatically have much more individual fights, skirmishing and so on and for that I'd prefer the Spatha.
It was first the auxiliaries using it as far as I know...so exactly the troops responsible for the small scale ops...well and from there it spread...especially because everyone could serve anywhere until the reforms of Constantine...


well that's my guess

[Magnus]

Usually...you see a change in weapons in response to either a change in A) enemy armor/weapons or B) Enemy tactics. Usually. I don't put much stock in economic or logistic reaons behind outfitting the army with the spatha vs gladius. I'm fairly certain that even on the lowest level, an army will go to just about any length required to see that it gets the equipment it needs, especially while on active duty.

From what has been said, it really only seems as though the tactics have changed. From the close packed formations that utilized the tower shield, to a more open style where a longer bladed sword could be effectively wielded.

AND, it's interesting to note...that the sword likely wasn't the primary weapon on the battlefield. Even during the republic and early empire, was the pilum not considered the main weapon of the roman army? Sometimes battles didn't make it to where the sword was drawn, rather they were decided by javelin volleys. The same can be said of many other eras...the samurai for example. Primarily they were archers, spearmen, cavalry, shock troops and such. The katana was relied on as a side-arm. I don't see why the Roman army can be seen any differently.

My vote then is something changed in Roman tactics, or it was a response to the enemy's.

[Nathan Ross]

I believe the commonly accepted period for the adoption of the spatha and round/oval shield is c200AD - although there was, of course, a traditional rectangular scutum found at Dura Europos dating to around fifty years later, together with numerous oval shields, so I would say the change was rather gradual, certain units using either style (or both!), for a century or so. Was it not also true that the Romans called any infantry sword a gladius, regardless of length, 'spatha' being used for convenience to designate the longer, later variety?

This being so, the theory of a longer blade being more effective against a mounted enemy seems the most practical - a spear, of course, is more useful still against horsemen, but the longer reach of the spatha seems appropriate for armies that were increasingly facing largely mounted opponents. The Roman spatha was still very much a thrusting weapon, however - not like one of the blunt-ended celtic swords described by Tacitus - and with the spear as well I think we could see later Roman troops still fighting in close formation, using long spears and spatha to repel cavalry - even with a long sword, being caught in open order by a cavalry assault wouldn't be very healthy.

Perhaps the flat or dished shield is merely a practical extension of this - the old Roman gladius was worn on the right and drawn underarm, but once a blade reaches a certain length this cannot be done and it must be worn on the left and drawn across the body. Now, I'm not sure about this, but could the curvature of the old rectangular scutum have made this difficult, or necessitated holding the shield further from the body? Would a larger flatter shield have made it easier to draw a longer blade from the left without exposing too much of the soldier to the enemy? Perhaps someone with experience of using these weapons could confirm or deny?

[john m roberts]

Two points: First, I think the idea that the gladius was a more "aggressive" weapon comes from the fact that its shortness forces the user to get closer to the enemy. A Spartan, asked why his sword was so short, replied: "I like to get close." In fact, the adoption of the Mainz-style gladius in the late Republic, along with the smaller scutum, may have been because authorities felt the soldiers were fighting too defensively, hovering behind their huge scuta and thrusting with their longer Hispanienses.

As to adoption of the spatha, might superior metallurgy and forging techniques have played a part? A shorter, wider, stouter blade is less likely to bend than a long, attenuated one. But with better metal and better forging a long blade is far less likely to bend or break. Does anyone know if long blades of the period under discussion were significantly better made than earlier ones?

[Magnus]

Wouldn't that indicate then John, that earlier roman spatha were prone to breakage? Anyone know if that was the case?

[Robert Vermaat]

Yes, but the spatha had always been the sword used by Roman cavalry. The question here is why was it adopted by the late Roman infantry as well.

Yes, that´s what I wanted to hear - the spatha is primarily a cavalry weapons.
But - did not the auxilia also (sometimes) have spathae as well, while legionary infantry had the gladius?

][I'm still inclined toward it representing part of a change or adjustment in battlefield tactics myself.

I agree.
The gladius was first developed as a stabbing weapon. I´m told that a Hispanic gladius (sp?) was primarily for stabbing, but that a Pompeii is also a slasher. Apparently, a gladius is ideal for the scutum/stabbing tactic, where you unbalance your opponent with your scutum and then stab him. Shoot ne down if I´m wrong, Early Roman tactics is not my forte.
Later of course, when all the Germans and Celts had run out, the primary enemy besides the Parthian became.. other Roman legions. I can´t help but thinking that it was this period that must´ve influebced battlefield tactics as much as contact with other peoples had.

Therefore I´d say that if all the infantry is wearing a spatha, there must be something on the battlefield that caused them to need a longer weapon.
Also remember that during Late Roman times, large battles are no longer the rule but the exception.

First of all, the change towards the spatha and oval scutum took place BEFORE the big contingents of barbarian troops appear in the army. and about the cavalry, it became the important arm in the army in later times...but if you look at the armies in the 4th century the infantry is still the main and most important part and the Roman opponents, except for the Sasanides don't deploy more cav than usuall. SO imho cavalry can't have been the important factor for the change.

I agree. The cavalry started out with the spatha (so metallurgy can´t play a role it this), and they kept it. If the spatha was so successful, the infantry would have used it long before. yet they didn´t. Also, the oval scutum was never gone, it was used by the auxilia, so that did not play a part either.

Now if you and your century are called to stop some 100 Alemannes running wild in the village behind the next hill I guess you don't form battle lines and such. you would automatically have much more individual fights, skirmishing and so on and for that I'd prefer the Spatha.

Spathae are still unsuitable for fencing - you´d loose your fingers. :!:

[L C Cinna]

Spathae are still unsuitable for fencing - you´d loose your fingers.

but better than a shorter gladius when out of formation imho

[Martin Wallgren]

Spathae are still unsuitable for fencing - you´d loose your fingers. :!:

Not if you do it right! :twisted:

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

Spathae are still unsuitable for fencing - you´d loose your fingers. :!:

Not if you do it right! :twisted:

I'm not sure what Robert means by 'fencing' here, but I used Viking-style swords (descended from and very similar to spathae) in what I'd call 'fencing'/swordplay bouts for years. I still have all my fingers.

A relatively long slashing sword with a useful point and a good centre of balance - sounds perfect for fencing to me.

[Martin Wallgren]

Same here! Make sure to take the blade of your opponant and wind in a trust or drawcut. follow up quickly and finnish him of. I´ll show you all in a video as soon as the snow is gone an we can train outdoors again. Too cold right now. And our indoor training is restricted by the sealing.

[Robert Vermaat]

Spathae are still unsuitable for fencing - you´d loose your fingers. :!:

Not if you do it right! :twisted:

I'm not sure what Robert means by 'fencing' here, but I used Viking-style swords (descended from and very similar to spathae) in what I'd call 'fencing'/swordplay bouts for years. I still have all my fingers.
A relatively long slashing sword with a useful point and a good centre of balance - sounds perfect for fencing to me.

The point here is, folks, not about a point and a good balance, but about the lack of a cross-guard on all known spathae (these are first starting to develop on Anglo-Saxon swords). Any blow glancing off from the blade to your hand will immediately take off your top two knuckles from at least a few fingers. All Late Romans who I discussed this with agrees on that so far. Which is another reason why there is far less swordplay in Late Roman re-enactment. If any, then always with gloves, or not at all. Not just for safety, for necessity. Viking swords have cross-guards, or at least small ones.

[Martin Wallgren]

The point here is, folks, not about a point and a good balance, but about the lack of a cross-guard on all known spathae (these are first starting to develop on Anglo-Saxon swords). Any blow glancing off from the blade to your hand will immediately take off your top two knuckles from at least a few fingers. All Late Romans who I discussed this with agrees on that so far. Which is another reason why there is far less swordplay in Late Roman re-enactment. If any, then always with gloves, or not at all. Not just for safety, for necessity. Viking swords have cross-guards, or at least small ones.

Well, I agree that there is not a cross-guard on the spatha. I disagree to that you would loose your fingers at any glancing blow. I just tried to deflect a few blows and stabs and if you do it with the flat as I been instructed to do by medieval manuals the guard on my sword stopped the two glancing blows that I received.

I don´t want to slander or demise the fun in re-enactment fighting here, but it is NOT real fighting. In it´s own right as a form of theatrical show it is very good and in some ways as a sport but it´s not the real deal.

This is the very reason why We are starting our group, to find out how the weapons respond to deflecting and blocks and what is the most efficient way to use them. And it is also a necessity to know this things in addition to the archaeological finds and historical sources to understand a development as the one we discuss here. At least IMHO

I hope i did not offend anybody with my rather untested argument earlier.

[Robert Vermaat]

Well, I agree that there is not a cross-guard on the spatha. I disagree to that you would loose your fingers at any glancing blow. I just tried to deflect a few blows and stabs and if you do it with the flat as I been instructed to do by medieval manuals the guard on my sword stopped the two glancing blows that I received.

Oh sure, I agree to that. But if you can't manage that all the time you're still losing your fingers. :twisted: My point is that if this were a sword for sword-on-sword fighting, it would have a cross-guard, as one can see with other swords of the period. Which is why I (and other with me) think this was not where it was used for - primarily, of course. It was a development of a cavalry sword, and later with the infantry I think it was not used to hit other spathae with - again, primarily. When this fighting was called for, swords developed cross-guards, and for a good reason, I think.

I don´t want to slander or demise the fun in re-enactment fighting here, but it is NOT real fighting. In it´s own right as a form of theatrical show it is very good and in some ways as a sport but it´s not the real deal.

Nor do we even assume that. But I will maintain that we still can make conclusions about the use of it, without going to such extremes.

This is the very reason why We are starting our group, to find out how the weapons respond to deflecting and blocks and what is the most efficient way to use them. And it is also a necessity to know this things in addition to the archaeological finds and historical sources to understand a development as the one we discuss here. At least IMHO

As long as you are fighting with blunt swords and not any intention to hurt your opponent, you'll be able to be more sure of some conclusions but I maintain that you are not too different from the 'show-fighters'. That will always be the case when you're not using sharp weapons and aiming for a kill. I mean, it's still a hobby or science at best - not bloody survival as it would be if you were training for war, would it? It's that last step which nobody is (should be?) prepared to take.

I hope i did not offend anybody with my rather untested argument earlier.

Not me, anyway.