Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why?
#76
How about a tall people using a short blade weapon. That would be a nice counter-exmaple. The Zulus come to my mind. They invented a short staff stabing weapon that was quite revolutionary when everyone then and there used thrusting spears. The Zulus put a premium on closing the distance and going in for a stab rather than wasting time poking with a spear. They were tall and yet they went for the relatively short distance stab. They were quite successful at it too.
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
Reply
#77
Well, I've been sitting on bringing Lendon's Soldiers and Ghosts (ISBN: [amazon]0300106637[/amazon]) into discussion for a while, but this seems to be the morning for it...

If we accept Lendon's idea that legionaries were increasingly reserved for engineering and besieging while auxilliaries bore the brunt of battle, then we're not really seeing a replacement of the gladius by the spatha, or at the very least not in the timeframe we've been discussing. The same goes for the "replacement" of pilum by hasta discussed in another thread. In this case, hasta and spatha would be the preferred weapons for infantry combat from the 1st c. CE onwards.

That might not be perfectly clear, but I've got to get to class at the moment...
Dan Diffendale
Ph.D. candidate, University of Michigan
Reply
#78
Quote:If we accept Lendon's idea that legionaries were increasingly reserved for engineering and besieging while auxilliaries bore the brunt of battle, then we're not really seeing a replacement of the gladius by the spatha, or at the very least not in the timeframe we've been discussing. The same goes for the "replacement" of pilum by hasta discussed in another thread. In this case, hasta and spatha would be the preferred weapons for infantry combat from the 1st c. CE onwards.

I agree with Danno, and I'm chuffed that someone else has come to the same conclusion.

Average skeletal remains of Romans seems to be 5'5", and of Celts 5'10" (Matt Amt's post here: [url:kmduj91r]http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=5409[/url]. If you look through the thread one says he saw an interview with an Italian archaeologist who had studied skeletal remains all over Europe, and puts the average Roman height at 5'2"!

[Image: size.jpg]
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#79
I'm going to step out on a limb here and offer an alternative, technology-driven explanation: what if the spatha was simply the product of a slow, evolutionary technological process that at some point allowed for longer swords?

Early Celtic long swords suffered from several drawbacks and were unsuitable for stabbing, which is why some of them don't even have points. They were pure slashing weapons. Longer stabbing swords were simply outside the limits of technology then.

But what if, at some point, Roman (or European) metallurgy reached a point where they could make swords that were longer but still as strong, sharp and durable as the shorter gladius? Adopting a longer sword would be logical under those circumstances, just like the trend has always been towards weapons with longer reach.
Regards, Nicholas.
Reply
#80
Good point. There is an account by Polybius of Gauls having to step on their swords and straighten them after a couple of blows. But that could be propoganda and an isolated case.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#81
I would be happy to go along with that if it wasn't for the 'Spanish Sword' that Polybius refers to. If this weapon has in fact a 27" blade (as the archaeological record apparently increasingly implies), we still have to explain why there was a movement towards shorter blades and then back to longer ones. There is no steady movement from shorter blades to longer ones over time, as far as I know.

Tarbicus,

I too quite like Danno's interpretation as a possibility, but I'm a bit confused as to where you stand on this issue. What period do you think the shorter Gladius belongs to as an effective and commonly used Infantry weapon?
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one\'s own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350), Tsurezure-Gusa (1340)
Reply
#82
Quote:Tarbicus,

I too quite like Danno's interpretation as a possibility, but I'm a bit confused as to where you stand on this issue. What period do you think the shorter Gladius belongs to as an effective and commonly used Infantry weapon?
I can't really answer that without going into greater and boring specualtion and detail. Apologies to all in advance, and this is not a thesis, more of a "write the thoughts down while you've got time and come back to it later".

The gladius hispaniensis was adopted by the legionaries after their experience fighting against them. At this time they were much longer than the classic gladius (which is often quoted as being smaller than modern reproductions). In fact they were up to twice as long as the classic Pompeii type. Before this time the Romans had adopted the Samnite scutum, manipular tactics, pilum (hasta velitaris) and other equipment (Sekunda quoting Atheneaeus; and the Certosa Situla). When Scipio Africanus captured Cartagena in 209 BCE he also captured a number of Spanish swordsmiths, who he forced to teach Roman smiths on how to make the gladius hispaniensis.

It is here that we see a definitive desire by the Romans to use the Spanish sword, and its introduction en masse into the legions. Compared to some swords that have been described, Philon's description sums it up; whereby the gladius could be placed horizontally on top of the head sideways, and the blade bent down on either side until it touched the shoulders and released, the blade springing back into shape with no sign of ever bending. Any amount of repeating this wouldn't bend the blade out of shape. Who wouldn't want one? However, there wasn't really a need to shorten the length of the gladius at this time, as the Romans fought in open order with a two metre frontage per man. By 200 BCE the gladius is the standard sword for the legions. As a note, it seems the falcata is more useful for more agile fighting without a shield, which is not useful for the legions. Livy described the demoralising effect it had on the Macedonians after they saw how effective it had been against their comrades. The gladius seems to have been very effective against the Macedonian phalanx, just as the Biscayan sword and buckler saw to the Swiss pikemen of Louis XII (Sekunda again).

So, how come it became shorter?
Here's the most speculative of the lot as part of that answer, and a lot of people ain't gonna like this: Sheer brutal vioence. The average Roman soldier loved close combat, and the closer and more brutal the better. Violence was a Roman institution, and the closer a Roman soldier got to his enemy the more effective he became once the pila had been thrown. Gory, psychotic, bloodchurning, gut-spilling violence.
The second part of the answer could be to do with what follows below, and explains the gladius' ever more gradual reduction in size: Siege warfare and the penetration of the enemy in cramped order (not even close order) while pouring over battlements, through breaches in walls - urban combat.

I think the shortest gladii were being used during the 2ndC CE. One is quoted as being 35 cm in length. Around this time I understand that we begin to see a serious decline in citizen soldiers and more non-citizens joining up, to the point where the situation grew so bad that a need was felt for an "upgrade" of all freedmen, making them e citizens in the earlier part of the 4th C CE. A good reason for the lack of citizens in the military may well be that they were ever more tied to rich landowners who forbade them from joining the army lest they lose labourers.

By this time the auxilia had already become the main fighting force, with the legionaries mainly involved with engineering and siegeworks (as said above). However, with the depletion of citizen conscripts into the legions they were becoming smaller and harder to replace, hence the drastic decision which enabled fresh blood to be introduced into the legions and bring them up to strength.

Along with this influx of fresh blood into the legions, one of the oldest and strongest traditional establishments of Rome, also came changes. No doubt attempts were made to force them into training as the normal citizen would be, but there was a difference to the "new legionaries". Many of them came from cultures with strong traditions in horsemanship (never a Roman forte), and also of using a longer sword. As time went by their influence grew and grew, with many becoming centurions and officers of higher rank. It is not unfeasible that they saw advantages in the use of the native weaponry, coupled with their past links to them, and also lacked the prejudices of the average past Roman citizen, who saw the spatha type only useful for cavalry and auxilia. Hence the gladius became longer, but not overnight. If also they retained many features of auxilliary tactics, fighting in looser and more open order, the need for a short gladius diminishes, and the longer spatha type makes more sense, and we see a return to the original gladius hispaniensis lengths which I think is mentioned earlier in the thread.

Is it small wonder that the shape of the more common scutum used by later Roman legions is also oval or round, and that segmentata gradually fell out of use, superceded by hamata, squamata and plumata? Also the neckguards on helmets reduced in size (see Lendon's theory, that the larger neckguard is more ideal for deflecting missiles from above in siegework construction) and the spangenhelm, a "barbarian" design, became more dominant. I believe that what we see in the later Roman legionary is a more advanced version of an earlier auxilliary.

I may not have supported the whole Connolly height theory, but it was fun to do, and no doubt I'm about to be shot down in flames and crash and burn completely. But what the hell.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#83
Quote:Is it small wonder that the shape of the more common scutum used by later Roman legions is also oval or round, and that segmentata gradually fell out of use, superceded by hamata, squamata and plumata? Also the neckguards on helmets reduced in size (see Lendon's theory, that the larger neckguard is more ideal for deflecting missiles from above in siegework construction) and the spangenhelm, a "barbarian" design, became more dominant. I believe that what we see in the later Roman legionary is a more advanced version of an earlier auxilliary.
This is also Wheeler's position. He sees the development of the late 2nd c. and the 3rd c. towards hamata, oval scutum (but he says flat), hasta and spatha as part of a drive to standardise equipment. he also notices that the big neck guards of the early 3rd c. made crouching nearly impossible anyway, equipment looked as if it had to fit standing troops in close order formation.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#84
Coincidently, it sounds like these soldiers were looking more and more like what a well-equipped Gaul would have, before the advent of JC.
Felix Wang
Reply
#85
Just one point to add: the later army also used the hasta, a traditional cavalry and auxilliary weapon.
[size=75:2580vnfg]
How come nobody's launched into a tirade of corrections, or are they poring through books to back up the onslaught?
[/size]
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#86
Whaddayamean add? I said that too! Big Grin
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#87
No need to attack it, at least as far as I'm concerned! I'm reasonably happy with this sort of interpretation; I just didn't think much of the whole height thing being an important factor. Mind, I don't think shorter Gladii had much to do with wanting to get closer either, but increased emphasis on close order fighting seems reasonable to me as an explanation. The only doubt I have concerns parallel developments (i.e. other examples of emphasis on close order fighting leading to the use of shorter blades).

Thanks for clarifying your position, Jim.

Incidently, I don't put much stock in the 'shield resting in front, soldier crouching behind' theory either, which I think also appears in the same book?

Matthew James Stanham
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one\'s own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350), Tsurezure-Gusa (1340)
Reply
#88
Quote:Incidently, I don't put much stock in the 'shield resting in front, soldier crouching behind' theory either, which I think also appears in the same book?
Ah, now, you see, I do very much. The neckguards were growing larger during the Augustan period, where I feel the legionaries were still the ones showing more virtus, along with their officers, and also saw the introduction (afaik) of the seg :wink:
Quote:Whaddayamean add? I said that too! Very Happy
So you did. Sorry chief :oops: Long day, which is still going on right now.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply
#89
Well, then; there's something we can disagree on! I just can't imagine how resting a shield on the ground can be useful in combat (but I've never done it, so therein may lie the difficulty!). The main problem I have with it, though, is the same as with the height thing, no analogues that I can think of. I suspect the inspiration comes from Polybius' comment that the shield is reinforced at bottom and top to prevent damage when rested on the ground. Vegetius says something similar about soldiers in the rear crouching down behind their shields when in reserve. Are there any textual sources that describe this stance? I don't recall any being cited, but I'd be interested to know. Sculptural evidence is something else I'd like to see (maybe there is some?).
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after one\'s own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350), Tsurezure-Gusa (1340)
Reply
#90
Quote:Well, then; there's something we can disagree on!
Ah, hang on, that's where I really shouldn't post when I'm really tired. I misread your post and mistook for a comment on the crouching fighting stance. Two apologies today. :roll:

The Connolly theory of the crouching stance has nothing to do with kneeling on the ground afaik. It's about going low and bending forward to get under the enemy's usually high attack. The scutum offers more protection over a smaller profile, and the larger neckguard offers protection to the upper back as a weapon overeaches the scutum. Another thing I've reckoned before is that adds some sort of (maybe unnecessary) extra reasoning for the shoulder doubling on hamata extending all the way across the upper back in the absence of the large neckguard on a Montefortino helmet, or even a smaller necked Coolus or early Gallic. With a seg there is even more reason to increase the neckguard size as the plates are a single row between the shoulder plates. Then when the legionary is more involved in siege warfare it gets larger to protect from above, which is no change to the reason for its inception in the first place.

The resting on one knee thing is an ancient description of the Triarii being held in reserve while the Hastati and Princes get stuck in.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Gladius-Spatha/Contus Legate 7 1,150 03-05-2019, 03:27 AM
Last Post: Paullus Scipio
  Update on the Spatha and Gladius fighting techniques! Martin Wallgren 96 29,397 08-14-2014, 10:02 PM
Last Post: john m roberts
  Difference in Spatha Legions vs Gladius Imperium 15 10,357 04-20-2011, 05:05 PM
Last Post: M. Demetrius

Forum Jump: