Gladius vs. Spatha

[mucky305]

Is it true that the gladius was primarily an infantry weapon while the longer spatha was generally issued to Roman cavalry units? Also, my understanding for the emergence of LS in the 1st century was that it was much lighter and easier to store than chain mail or scale mail. Please no flames.:whip:

[Long lost Caesar]

As far as I know the Spatha was more of a slashing weapon, whereas the gladius was more of a thrusting weapon, which suited infantry tactics.

[Ibrahim]

also late roman armies used the spatha more than the gladius, reflecting more barbarians in the army..

[Long lost Caesar]

also late roman armies used the spatha more than the gladius, reflecting more barbarians in the army..

wouldnt they have used longswords instead? much more "barbarian", eh no?

[Watchman]

Far as I know, the spatha was a longsword. And I'll be damned if it wasn't the direct descendant of the trusty old Celtic longsword at that, doubly so given that it was originally a cavalry weapon and the Celts had a fair lot of influence on Roman cavalry practices.

It certainly was the direct ancestor of the later so-called "Dark Ages" and "Viking" longsword patterns anyway - Carolingian parlance for example spoke of full-sized swords as "spathas" and shorter ones (often presumably essentially large fighting-knives) as "semispathas".

[mucky305]

I'm shocked by the Romans lack of truly effective italic cavalry

[Watchman]

Like, say, Extraordinarii...?

[Ibrahim]

or equites campanici?...
see most Italic cavalry is good, just not many to choose from. ROMAN cavalry are terrible/ the exception, and I only use them ideally to support a extraordinarii charge (they can melee better at least-but barely)

[Watchman]

The Romans are actually perfectly OK; sort of better-armoured Hippeis. What they're not is cost-effective, what with that special price hike...

[Fenrhyl]

Far as I know, the spatha was a longsword. And I'll be damned if it wasn't the direct descendant of the trusty old Celtic longsword at that, doubly so given that it was originally a cavalry weapon and the Celts had a fair lot of influence on Roman cavalry practices.

It certainly was the direct ancestor of the later so-called "Dark Ages" and "Viking" longsword patterns anyway - Carolingian parlance for example spoke of full-sized swords as "spathas" and shorter ones (often presumably essentially large fighting-knives) as "semispathas".

Ok. Linguistics, for Justice !

Spat(h)a => Espata => Espada (spanish form) [the"t" sliding to a "d" also happened in palatinae, which gives paladinae in the carolingian kingdom... it is a typical germanization of the "t" betwwen two vowels]

Espada gives Espadon in french and Spadone in Italian

Espata also => Espé => épée (french form)

All of these are swords. Same word, same form, same thing.

If one want to be strict, long sword is not the good terme. A sword is as long as the arm of its wielder and is necessary longer than the short blades used by the romans, which don't use the same physics.
A long sword is a 14th century one hand and a half sword, precursor of the two handers used later (and also a precursor of the rapier).

[Watchman]

The names of weapons weren't anything like close to set and fixed you know... "longsword" may indeed refer to two-hander in a Late Medieval and Early Modern context - heck, I've trained with one - but not when it comes to Antiquity. Or arguably earlier Middle Ages for that matter - because two-handed sword weren't used; so "longsword" would rather be, well, whatever was the longest pattern of sword in use at the period.

Holpological terminology is notoriously problematic.

[Fenrhyl]

After giving it a thought... you are obviously right.

[Uticensis]

During the early Empire, the infantry generally used the gladius and the cavalry the spatha. During the later empire, however, as the focus shifted from major set piece infantry battles to fighting nomad and Persian cavalry, and skirmishing with Germans on the Danube and Rhine, the spatha gradually replaced the gladius and used by most legionaries, probably in conjunction with spears.

The barbarians who joined the Roman army around this time would have been trained with the spatha, and went on to produce them in their own communities. By the 4-5th century, it was the primary weapon in Roman and Germanic armies. After the fall of the Western Empire, most groups living in the West still used swords whose design originated with the spatha, hence its prevalence as the root word for sword in most Romance languages.

[Watchman]

By what I've read of it, the degree of "barbarisation" of the army tends to get rather exaggerated. Or rather, it tends to miss the point a bit. The manpower was still largely Roman, what now that classification had for a long time included a lot of former "barbarians" who'd gained citizenship. Instead the army, which had been cleft to a virtual world of its own separate from the civilian life of the realm already by Marius, increasingly began affecting a "barbarian" identity - deliberately adopting what established Roman stereotypes held to be "barbarian" names, clothes etc. Unit names that made references to assorted "barbarian" tribes and that way imparted a certain aura of notoriety, as well as an association with the strenght, ferocity and cunning associated with such folk, were one aspect of it.

Basically just showing off and flaunting the specific "army" subculture really.

As the weapons go, I've read that later to the Empire the gladius gradually began becoming longer and longer - until one day it had for all intents and purposes became the spatha, and was understandably regarded as such. Probably more a slow change in tactical preferences more than anything else; the amount of soldiers of "barbarian" origin in the ranks would seem very unlikely to have had anything to do with it, given that across the limes a longsword was very much the purview of wealthy and/or elite warriors as well as aristocrats and their retinues - not the kind of folk who'd normally enroll into the Legions.

[Uticensis]

I agree that the barbarization of the army is not really the point. I brought it up because the barbarians in the army brought the spatha to Germania, I don't think the other way around.
Bog finds in Germany and Denmark have included large numbers of Roman spathas presumably belonging to Germanic warriors.
Thus, after Rome fell, the Franks, Vikings, Scandinavians, and others still fought with what were essentially spathas, preserving the sword design and making swords of similar design widespread in the Early Middle Ages.

[Watchman]

Methinks it more likely the spathas in Germanic regions, if not of local manufacture (since they'd picked up the root design from the Celts as readily as anyone), mostly came there by the usual channels - trade, pillage and as gifts. They were highly prestigious items after all, and profit could be made by dealing them over long distances and much goodwill gained by giving someone a fine specimen; in later times Frankish monarchs in vain tried to stop their merchants from exporting high-quality swords to the troublesome Scandinavians...

[Uticensis]

I doubt they came from trade: The Theodosian and Justinian Codes include laws that specifically outlaw the export of high quality swords, steel, weapons, ect. on pain of death. And I don't think they were taken from defeated Romans: there is no evidence of that and they were found with locally made goods such as bone combs and seaxes. I think the spathas were produced locally in Germania, but the design would have come from the Romans. Remember, the Celts were gone for a long time by then, and it was only in the later Roman period that the sword becomes widespread in Germania. At that time, Roman goods were very much in vogue among the Germans, and they adopted many weapons/tactics from the Romans, which they very well could have learned from their fellow countrymen who had served in the Roman army.

[Watchman]

I doubt they came from trade: The Theodosian and Justinian Codes include laws that specifically outlaw the export of high quality swords, steel, weapons, ect. on pain of death.And since when did that stop anybody ? I'd be willing to bet the similar Frankish legislature wasn't meaningfully less draconian about the penalties, for all the good that did.

Indeed, that such transactions were specifically proscribed and with so severe punishements really just serves to suggest that kind of lark was a major concern to the authorities, and on which less ferocious measures had had little effect...

[Ibrahim]

did they repeatedly reiterate (restate) that law? if so, then I'd say some of the swords were imported. they did that to a anti mutilation law in the late empire (to prevent "draft-dodging")

[Uticensis]

I suppose the law must have been broken a lot. But the Germans were also quite capable for producing their own copies without having to smuggle in Roman ones. Archaeologists have found many Roman Iron age German workshops, including one, I don't remember where, they found 150 smelting furnaces. They weren't exactly making Christmas toys in those places.

[Fenrhyl]

About weaponry during the great invasions, read Iaroslav Lebedynsky.

As far as i can remember, many salian franks were considered as leti, and a good deal of them were also part of the limitanei and comitatenses (there also was a palatine unit or two made of franks). Some of them were high ranking officers and at least two of them were generals (Arbogast among them).
I don't think those people and their tribe had any kind of difficulty to have access to roman made weaponry.

[mucky305]

I know that the Romans had good cavalry during the Republican period, I just thought it strange that it didn't carry over into the marian/imperial period (or as it appeared to me). For example, I know that the Romans implemented the compound bow for their archers, however, they didn't appear to recruit or train mounted archers even though they saw the devestation that they could cause (Parthians). Did they hire them as mercenary auxilia on any kind of wide scale?

[Watchman]

Composite bow. "Compound bow" is the modern thingamabob with pulleys.

"Post-Marian" Roman cavalry was AFAIK chiefly recruited as Auxilia from assorted peoples with strong cavalry traditions, such as Gauls and Thracians and whatnot.

Horse-archers are somewhat difficult to train; the art is a bit tricky one, so such troops were normally mainly found in regions heavily influenced by the steppe peoples and with the necessary conditions for raising such cavalry. The Romans did make use of them, at least later to the Empire, however; they could be transferred from the east just as readily as infantry archers, and the grave-stelae of some apparently boast of rather Münchausenian feats of bowmanship...

[mucky305]

@Watchman
Apologies. Composite bow. I figure the compound bow came around at the advent of the pink bunnies with body armor :beam: The history lesson is much appreciated! Was it true that the Franks invented or at least the first to widely use stirrups? Could these have come from the East? Maybe China?

[Watchman]

Came with the Avars from the steppes near China around the 7th century AD, IIRC. The Western Europeans were actually pretty slow at adopting them from the Byzantines and Muslims they squabbled with around the Med...

[mucky305]

@Watchman
Thank you again! Now, no more dumb questions. Well...maybe one more. If Ming the Merciless is your idol, does that mean you enjoy blasting people and objects into atoms? :clown:

[Fenrhyl]

An historian stated in, a source i can no longer put my hands on, that franks adopted it massively after the duke of Aquitaine destroyed a muslim army at Tolosa.

In my opinion, it looks a bit like a "magic explanation". I'd say that constant fighting between franks and muslims around the Pyrénées (and the friendly relations between Odo, duke of Aquitaine and the muslim leader in Narbonne) just allowed a slow adoption of the stirup.

Before the stirup, franks did not rely heavily upon cavalry. After the stirup, the change is radical (insert paladins here).

[mucky305]

I imagine the rapid adoption of something as simple as the stirrup could occur. Think about it. The design is far from complex not to mention the fact that most simple inventions (the straw) are not generally something you'd think about until you see them (or something similar) in action and realized the practicality of it. I've ridden horses with and without stirrups and the difference is night and day but stirrups are certainly not necessary to actually ride a horse so.....

[Watchman]

Here (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/sloan.html) is an interesting brief article concerning the adoption of the stirrup by the Franks. I'm not personally entirely sure of all the points the author makes, but in any case it has a lot of useful information.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Ah the good old Stirrup controversy; there's something I recognise. :beam:

[Watchman]

Something of a post-Antiquity equivalent of the LS issue, that. :sweatdrop:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Saxons were an infantry baised feudal society, I don't buy into the stirrup arguement on that score. Sword, shield, mail, helm and saddle horse to carry you to and from battle were requirements for Thegns.