01-20-2006, 01:12 PM
Like others have said I think there is a huge danger of overinterpreting changes that happened over a long time, like the move from shorter to longer swords. With that in mind, here are some ideas:
It's my understanding that some Roman cavalrymen and skirmishers, including "elite" skirmishers in the legion (mentioned in one of Ross Cowan's Osprey books), always used round shields. The oval or square shield was only really useful for heavy infantry fighting in formation, and in many other situations it was actually more of an encumbrance (like when on the march). The adoption of the round shield may thus have been a simple process of diffusion, perhaps speeded up by pitched battles becoming more rare.
(Diffusion happens all the time of course. For modern examples, look at how the average US infantryman in Iraq has picked up tons of special forces gear from 10-15 years ago like kneepads, carbines, rail attachments etc).
One can of course also speculate in a change in tactics occurring at the same time and for the same reasons. As I understand it the round shield is better for the skirmisher or cavalryman because it allows easier movement and better allaround protection when fighting in loose formations. Thus, if the role of the legionary shifted more towards force marching and chasing barbarians through the woods in open order than marching in columns and fighting in close formation, then the move towards a round shield (and, perhaps, different weapons) would be a logical result. With round shields already available to other troop types, the diffusion process would start quite easily (cf. the modern example above).
As for the swords, I'm inclined to speculate in diffusion again. Longer swords were available (as I understand it gladius length varied a lot to begin with), and over time people started picking up the longer swords. I don't really believe legionary fighting techniques or weapons were ever as stereotypical as some authors suggest. Probably there was always a good deal of variation, with professional legionaries even during the "classical" short-gladius era being able to use different weapons, formations and tactics as the situation required.
(BTW isn't "short sword" a bit of a misnomer for the gladius to begin with? As I understand it the blades could be up to 60 cm long, and that's hardly a short sword for a Roman who's maybe about 1,65-,170 m tall on average.)
It's my understanding that some Roman cavalrymen and skirmishers, including "elite" skirmishers in the legion (mentioned in one of Ross Cowan's Osprey books), always used round shields. The oval or square shield was only really useful for heavy infantry fighting in formation, and in many other situations it was actually more of an encumbrance (like when on the march). The adoption of the round shield may thus have been a simple process of diffusion, perhaps speeded up by pitched battles becoming more rare.
(Diffusion happens all the time of course. For modern examples, look at how the average US infantryman in Iraq has picked up tons of special forces gear from 10-15 years ago like kneepads, carbines, rail attachments etc).
One can of course also speculate in a change in tactics occurring at the same time and for the same reasons. As I understand it the round shield is better for the skirmisher or cavalryman because it allows easier movement and better allaround protection when fighting in loose formations. Thus, if the role of the legionary shifted more towards force marching and chasing barbarians through the woods in open order than marching in columns and fighting in close formation, then the move towards a round shield (and, perhaps, different weapons) would be a logical result. With round shields already available to other troop types, the diffusion process would start quite easily (cf. the modern example above).
As for the swords, I'm inclined to speculate in diffusion again. Longer swords were available (as I understand it gladius length varied a lot to begin with), and over time people started picking up the longer swords. I don't really believe legionary fighting techniques or weapons were ever as stereotypical as some authors suggest. Probably there was always a good deal of variation, with professional legionaries even during the "classical" short-gladius era being able to use different weapons, formations and tactics as the situation required.
(BTW isn't "short sword" a bit of a misnomer for the gladius to begin with? As I understand it the blades could be up to 60 cm long, and that's hardly a short sword for a Roman who's maybe about 1,65-,170 m tall on average.)
Regards, Nicholas.
