spatha or gladius?

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

I wonder often about the fact that until the legions of Rome used the gladius were more efficient than those of the third-quarter century AD who used the Spath(for massive presence of barbarians).

It is clear that the fighting close with the gladius is better because Spatha is less manageable, it can't be used effectively in dense formations.
Conversely Spatha is a heavier weapon, and therefore more powerful, but indicated more for lone warriors, not an army that fights with order and discipline.
Spatha also acted to further cut instead of sank, forcing the shield to be smaller and thus less protection from arrows (this would explain the massive use of armor during the Middle Ages).

is the best spatha or gladius?

Spatha was then the true architect of the fall of the Roman Empire?

[SwissBarbar]

The Spatha still is one of the most successful weapons in history. Especially in later periods (middle ages..), when even Germans armoured themselves, the Spatha was known to be able cutting trough armour. It's in the 12th century, when armour grew even thicker to protect from missiles from crossbows etc., when the Spatha got useless because it was finally unable to cut through this immense heavy armour of these knights.

The Gladius was great for close combat, but traditional field battles got rarer in later times.

[AngryAngelDD]

wow...difficult question
the answer is certainly not one, you would like.

the legions of the late empire had a different modus of operation than their earlier predecessors.
the strategic concept differed, the battlefield tactics differed and therefore their equipment differed.

first, the man who carries the sword made the difference. a well trained soldier might be as deadly with a gladius as with a spatha.
if that man fights in ranks with his comrades other factors count in.
the round/oval shield of the late legionaries needs other fighting style than the rectangular one of the earlier legions.

and then the late legions had a different formation on the battlefield, as well as they had to face other enemies. in general cavalry was more often seen as opponent, as in earlier times. therefore weapons must reflect this.

not to forget the different possibilities of training for a late legion. perhaps the soldiers they acquired for the legion might have been used to another style of fighting and discipline.
the most part the soldiers of the legions were certainly no longer of pure roman origin. most would have been germans or other people. (or eastern people for eastern empire)

also, connected with training time etc., the roman army faced many opponents on many theaters at the same time
they often had no possibility to retrain and reequip their new soldiers to the extend they had in earlier times.

last, the economic possibilities of the late empire were by far not so good as in earlier times, so quality of soldiers and equipment was sometimes not of highest importance.

so the spatha was the weapon of choice in the late 3rd, the 4th and 5th centuries. (and later for the germans). it was not worse or better than the gladius. in a military sense i would say it was suited to its task.

[athanaric]

it was not worse or better than the gladius. in a military sense i would say it was suited to its task.

Exactly. Every weapon or tool has its place and purpose. Some become outdated over time but are usually replaced with related designs.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

then it is unrealistic to EB to see the troops with long sword (like solduros, calawre, also all axes or falx units) fighting in a dense formation.
they should fight with a few meters away so as not to injure each other.

I read somewhere that the legions of the first quarter century BC fought in open formations to ensure that soldiers are injured among them. But with major discipline and training, after 3 centuries, have been carried out the first dense formations that were truly unassailable (even the cavalry, which at that time was weak).

Also oval shields (suitable for the long sword) reported legions back 500 years.
Which ridiculous shields wall you want to do with oval shields?
Oval shield (adopted ater Costantino's reform) has a value only in 1 vs 1 combat.

In the fourth century a legion was not more powerful than a barbarian's horde because all fought in the same way.

then i ask again: can the long sword has changed the fate of the empire?

[Publius Aelius Hadrianus]

.

In the fourth century a legion was not more powerful than a barbarian's horde because all fought in the same way.

The legion was a superior fighting force even in the fourth century, at least according to Adrian G. Having said that, i´m pretty sure that the "fall" (which is a rather inacurate term) was not because of the spatha.

Thx

[Ludens]

then i ask again: can the long sword has changed the fate of the empire?

The fall of the empire was due to a number of factors, many of them not military. Goldsworthy argues that Roman legions of the fourth century AD still got the better of their opponents most of the time. The problem was not the effectiveness of the legions, but the fact that there were less and less of them, and they were depleted by endless civil wars.

Methinks you are idealizing the Gladius Hispaniata too much. It was a good weapon, but hardly the only or even major factor in Rome's rise. Unless you prove otherwise, you cannot blame Rome's fall on its replacement.

[mcantu]

as for the weight of the gladius vs the spatha...its only about 1 lb heavier (~2 lbs gladius, ~3 lbs spatha)

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

The Romans all suddenly became dumber and started to adopt new ineffective weapons in place of their old and trusted ones. Oh really, they did.

[Bucefalo]

Actually i think you are underestimating the gladius hispaniensis as a weapon, let me tell you more about it.

During their Iberian campaign, the Roman’s experienced firsthand the effectiveness of the sword that came to be known as the gladius hispaniensis. Shorter than the standard hoplite, the gladius hispaniensis was ideal for encounters with foes with longer weapons.

Using a buckler or small shield to block, the wielders of the gladius would step inside the swing of the longer sword and use their short sword to slash and pierce their opponent with staggeringly brutal efficiency.

So impressed were the Romans that, upon their quelling of the Iberian Peninsula, the legions quickly adopted the gladius hispaniensis. Because of the sword’s effective use by the Roman legions, it has been suggested by some historians that no other weapon in history has killed more men than the Spanish sword prior to the advent of the firearm

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

This means nothing. Every major and lasting military reform is driven by necessity, and not merely vanity. Vanity were the documented attempts of all too obsessed Emperors with bringing the Sarissa back. Self-evident was the move towards a different style that emphasized mobility, hit-and-run, skirmishing and irregular fighting by smaller combat units, for as has been stated here and elsewhere countless times the solid block fighting for major pitched battles was less suited to defend the borders against quick barbarian raiding parties which most often fought in quick skirmishes and irregular, guerrila-like attrition for about 98% of the time.

Rather than relying on fixed defenses and major legionary armies stationed on the border, it was all to well to adopt a flexible defense-in-depth coupled with tactics that were better suited for countering barbarian raids. The spatha, which was originally a cavalry sword, and the parma shield, which was also a cavalry shield, were probably found better suited for that kind of engagement. Javelins became lighter and the late Roman soldier was not only as familiar to melee as his predecessor but also a skilled skirmisher, as attested by the drive towards lighter and more powerful plumbatae and other such solutions in place of the old, cumbersome and often ineffective pilum, which was too heavy and too few in ratio per soldier for a light skirmisher, better used against a solid and slow shielded square and not to be thrown at fast moving unarmored enemies.

[machinor]

That actually brings me to something I always wanted to know: what kind of sword did the Romans use before they got involved in Iberia and adopted the gladius hispaniensis?

[Bucefalo]

They were using the greek hoplite sword, i think it is called the xiphos

[machinor]

Thx. :2thumbsup:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Gladius is a, frankly, brutal weapon, but it requires a legionary to be well trained and facing an oponent who doesn't understand how the weapon is used. In close quarters, such as a shieldwall, it is an excellant weapon, but then so is the Seax, and the Seax is lighter. If your enemy understands your tactics, and engages you more cautiously, their longer swords will give them a reach advantage.

Further, one thing often skipped over is that as their ability to produce higher quality iron/steel increased the Romans tended towards longer, more tapered weapons. The "Pompei" pattern Gladius has the marks of a weapon design to be easy to manufacture even with relatively low skills and poor materials.

[Publius Aelius Hadrianus]

An interesting debate would be if there was a fall or not?

Nowadays more and more historians are arguing about this term "fall", which i believe is rather innacurate.

[antisocialmunky]

The fall of the empire was due to a number of factors, many of them not military. Goldsworthy argues that Roman legions of the fourth century AD still got the better of their opponents most of the time. The problem was not the effectiveness of the legions, but the fact that there were less and less of them, and they were depleted by endless civil wars.

Methinks you are idealizing the Gladius Hispaniata too much. It was a good weapon, but hardly the only or even major factor in Rome's rise. Unless you prove otherwise, you cannot blame Rome's fall on its replacement.

Don't forget the Crisis of the Third Century when it pretty much went to hell. A lot of the damage that was done was economic Rome never really recovered from that period despite the legions managing to hold their own and eventually putting out all those fires everywhere. A good deal of the later Emperors basically did damage control to try and hold the empire together. But by the last days of the Western Empire, even if the Romans were better trained(Vegetius has a lot of say on this topic), there just weren't enough willing men left.

Despite what Vegetius spouts about 'Germanization,' the reequipping of the legions and new tactics were probably not the primary reasons for the total disintegration of the Empire. Heck, the East used similar tactics but managed to stay together wand wage continuous war against the Parthians for several centuries more.

@Christopher Burgoyne

I've never really liked the Roman strategy of defense in depth. Western Europe wasn't all that big and most of it was worth something. Combined with the fact that the 'barbarians' were fairly self-contained and had fewer logistical restraints, the strategy seems to be ill suited for the situation at hand. I'm sure there was reason to change from the tactics of the Early Imperial Period, but I never really saw it as a good idea...

[chairman]

That is an excellent point, PVC. I remember a thread about whether a Roman legionary or Medieval knight would win in a combat situation, and what most people ignored, was that, it didn't matter who was more "disciplined" or "trained" or whatever, the armor and weapons that the knight would be using were composed of far superior metal to that of the legionary. So the same way that the bronze using Egyptians struggled against their iron age opponents, Republican and Principate legionaries would find their metallurgy to be inferior (if only slightly) to that of armies of Constantine's day or later. That is even having taken into account the masterful iron-working skills of the Iberian and Celtic smiths. As I have already mentioned, a similar evolution/revolution occured with the bronze-to-iron age change, with swords becoming longer as the metallurgy improved. So, while you can make all the arguments about spathas emerging due to the need for more mobile warfare or declining military quality or quantity (and some of these might be true), the fact that better iron working skills allowed longer blades still remains.

Chairman

[Ibrahim]

I've never really liked the Roman strategy of defense in depth. Western Europe wasn't all that big and most of it was worth something. Combined with the fact that the 'barbarians' were fairly self-contained and had fewer logistical restraints, the strategy seems to be ill suited for the situation at hand. I'm sure there was reason to change from the tactics of the Early Imperial Period, but I never really saw it as a good idea...

well, the ireason it was adopted was not because of the Area being too large (any army can do that with the proper organizing), but because of the length of the frontier enclosing the area. the old system dictated that troops be stationed through out the border, to protect all miles of the border. the 3rd century proved the infeaseability of it in a continuous attack, so the government basically said "f*** it, we can't do this, so we will switch to defending area, not frontier.". it also shortened the supply chain, since the local populace supports the garrison (grain and other supplies still came from elewhere, that said). that said, the limitanei did remain on the frontier, to delay the enemy attack in question.

mind you, improvements to this led to the thematic system in Byzantium, and it worked very well actually.

so why fail? one word: manpower. If what the notitia implies is true, then there was a massive shortage of men willing to join the army. by 450, the Romans under Aetius didn't even have nough men to confront Attila, which was part of the reason why he had to rally several peoples to his side (esp. the Visi). this was further exasperated by the loss of Africa to the vadals in the 420's and 30's. granted the Vandals continued to ship grain to the western army, but not in the near amounts of pre vandal Africa.

Addendum: in the old system: remember, the overwhelming majority of Combat troops were on the border. the intent in this case was political: keep the Army away from the seat of power (Roma), and to hence empowering Augustus and his successors.

[Cute Wolf]

If you got much training in longswords, you'll just as comfortably use the shortswords, but it will require a bit more training to keep the feel of weapon's reach.

But if you highly trained with shortswords, you'll need more time to keep on controlling the longswords, otherwise, you will expose too many unprotected spot for your enemies.

Source: Wushu sword training....

I know that the very same does happned to the Romans....:laugh4:

[Labrat]

That actually brings me to something I always wanted to know: what kind of sword did the Romans use before they got involved in Iberia and adopted the gladius hispaniensis?


They were using the greek hoplite sword, i think it is called the xiphos

IIRC the predecessor to the Galdius Hispaniensis was another short-sword called Gladius-Italicus or something. I am not sure what its relation (if any) to the xiphos is, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a Greek design.

[Tretii]

What's the difference between spatha and gladius anyway? They look pretty similar to me? Is spatha just longer?

[machinor]

The Spatha is bascially a cavalry weapon which means that it is designed primarily for slashing and cutting rather than stabbing.

[mcantu]

What's the difference between spatha and gladius anyway? They look pretty similar to me? Is spatha just longer?

gladius:

http://www.albion-swords.com/images/swords/albion/nextGen/allectus/allectus1.jpg


spatha:

http://www.albion-swords.com/images/swords/albion/nextGen/new-swords/nextgen-roman-spatha2-decurio-sword.jpg

[geala]

The change of weapons never caused the fall of an empire, at least when they were so similar like gladius and spatha. The introduction of assault rifles might have changed something, but...
BTW I still think you can talk about the "fall" of the (western) Roman empire. In theory the state prolonged but it was so different that I would emphasize the differences and not what remains. The fall took place slowly. The critical moment was very early imho, when the Romans turned to a professional army, but it came into effect only at a very late time.

What I cannot really comprehend is the argument about weapon quality. In the post above mine is f.e. shown a gladius of the Mainz pattern. These weapons, from the 1st c. AD, were usually of a very good steel quality, often far better than later Roman gladii and spathae. The most important factor of the Spanish sword was also not the form (please explain me the fundamental difference between xiphos and Spanish straight sword - I don't see one) but the exceptional steel quality. To make good steel weapons was possible also in the centuries BC. So I don't think that the early Romans suffered from bad weapons material quality and later changed to spathae because better steel was available. They changed because of strategical and tactical changes and perhaps also a growing foreign element in the units.

Of course it was not easy to maintain a continuous quality of the weapons. The process of smithing was not fully understood but that changed not so much until the modern times. Crap was produced and also very good quality. The wealth of the state or the person decided wether the crap could be thrown away or wether it had to be used too.

[Tretii]

Machinor, Mcantu - thanks for explanation.

[Bucefalo]

This is a bit offtopic, but well still is related someway...
For those who are interested, there is a game called "Mount&Blade", that is a medieval RPG based on a fantasy world (there are mods for more historicity thought) and you usually fight from horseback, and on foot too. It is in second person view i think, or third...well you can actually change them as you like, even first person.

The thing is that the game has some little tricks concerning weapons who are very interesting to learn how some weapons worked, a few examples:

-There is a big difference between carrying a short and a long sword on horseback (refering to gladius and spatha), it is really difficult to hit anyone with a short range weapon.

-While on horseback, you can not shoot a bow to your right, only to the left, front and back. Physically it is impossible to hold the bow and aim to shoot at the right. After you realice this you will start to think that all the horsearchers of total war games are cheating you :P

-The kite shield is much more effective than the round shield when protecting agaisnt arrows. When you are fighting agaisnt some soldier with round shields, you can always shoot at their legs. The kite shield cover the entire body and it is much more difficult to hit.

Excuse me for the offtopic, just thought it would be interesting. It is a interesting game and it can teach you a few things:yes:

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

In my mind you are not offtopic Bucefalo because the thing you ve say it's very true (also if it's a game).
With spatha you can't bring a rectangular shield, you can only bring a oval shield and this second give you less protection to arrow or low attak.
I think the massive use of armour in Middle Ages was naturally conseguence of use of oval shields, then the long sword.
This shows that the majority of medieval troops had little discipline and little value.
For bring rectangular shield and gladius effectively must be well trained and know how to act in harmony with the companion you are next.
This is according to me the secret of strength of ancient legions than the post Constantine legions.:2thumbsup:

[machinor]

I think that the assumption, that medieval troops had little discipline and value on the battlefield is quite a wild generalization. First of all, the Middle Ages are quite a long time period in which there were quite some changes of equipment. Secondly feudal knights or men-at-arms were professional fighters much like ancient professional armies if not even more professional since they were trained from childhood on. Sure, they had a different battle doctrine than the rectangular-shield-Romans, but that does not mean that they are less capable. You're comparing two different kind of battlefield tactics that are more than 1000 years apart. It's not like people didn't invent new weapons and equipment in that time. Apart from that, there still existed shieldwall-formations in Medieval times.
Furthermore I think the contrary concept is accurate. The more and more heavy Medieval armour was not a consequence of the use of oval or non-rectangular shield-forms but the other way around: ancient soldiers tended to have large shields because they were not able to produce such high quality armour like in the Middle ages. As soon as almost full body plate armour was available the shield became obsolete and vanished more or less. After all it is quite handy in melee combat if you can afford to use both hands for fighting instead of only one.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, it depends on the period. The shield dropped out of favor when you had the proliferation of large plate and large pole weapons to defeat plate. After firearms appeared though, shields saw a small revival in sword and buckler men.

Stationary large pavise-style shields were used throughout the period.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In my mind you are not offtopic Bucefalo because the thing you ve say it's very true (also if it's a game).
With spatha you can't bring a rectangular shield, you can only bring a oval shield and this second give you less protection to arrow or low attak.
I think the massive use of armour in Middle Ages was naturally conseguence of use of oval shields, then the long sword.
This shows that the majority of medieval troops had little discipline and little value.
For bring rectangular shield and gladius effectively must be well trained and know how to act in harmony with the companion you are next.
This is according to me the secret of strength of ancient legions than the post Constantine legions.:2thumbsup:

The Spatha was in use at the same time as the rectangular tower shield for about a century.

So I'm afraid none of that held up.

[Aper]

Aulus, you are FAAAAAAAAAAR too much simplicistic in your view of history, especially military history.
My god, I don't even know were to start... No offense here, but all you wrote in this thread is completely crap & obsolete & wrong.
Read carefully the replies (some very good infos here), study some NOT OUTDATED history books (academic, not history channel stuff, maybe your next university can be of help) and maybe try some practice with qualified medieval fencing master, before throwing s**t on the longsword and the knights, and posting odd theories with that bold attitude, thanks.
I know I have been quite rude, but it was necessary, trust me.

some links I hope you'll find useful

http://www.warfare.it/tattiche/costantino_valentiniano.html
http://www.warfare.it/tattiche/presunta_rozzezza_medioevale.html
http://www.thearma.org/essays.htm
http://www.scherma-antica.org
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=70698

As I guess you are italian, if you want to understand better medieval warfare try the books of Aldo Settia, he is the greatest italian autorithy in middle ages military history IMHO.

Regards

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Dear Aper, I read with great interest your documentation.:book:
I have always interest to enrich my knowledge.

But what makes you think that my sources are outdated, and your sources are the truth?

I do not believe that anything I say is "cast gold"(as they say here in italy):italy:, I say to discuss and exchange information and opinions, freely and with respect.
I and anyone: we do not have the presumption to know everything, but we interact with others for answers, start provocations, laugh together.~:cheers:

Have you perhaps the presumption to be infallible?
I this case, I thank you for your information, but avoids trashing everything in advance that he disagrees with your ideas.
Here we discuss togheter! do not criticize others! we have respect for people!
This last thing that we do not learn from books, unfortunately for you.:rtwyes:

all regards to your respectable person:iloveyou:

[Aper]

But what makes you think that my sources are outdated, and your sources are the truth?
I do not believe that anything I say is "cast gold"(as they say here in italy), I say to discuss and exchange information and opinions, freely and with respect.
Have you perhaps the presumption to be infallible?
I this case, I thank you for your information, but avoids trashing everything in advance that he disagrees with your ideas.


I apologize for my manners, if I can't control myself maybe I should avoid posting.
Btw, I didn't posted "my ideas" as you say, I simply suggested you the opinions of well known experts, based on facts and research, that in most cases I checked myself in many years of hard studying (I'm getting a II level degree in Archeology and I have years of practice of medieval and renaissance real fencing, not for show, based on ancient treatises like that of Fiore de' Liberi, Filippo Vadi, Achille Marozzo, and many others).
My criticism comes from my studies, and more than suggesting you links and books to see by yourself what I mean, I cannot do, because an internet discussion like this always end like "my idea vs. your".
If you are interested, I'll post or send you by PM the material I wrote about: I'm italian too, so I can suggest you some books in our language, easier to read (like that of Settia).

Basically, I can say some time ago like you I enjoyed a lot of "black vs. white: what's the best?" or like we say in Italy "what's the gender of angels?" questions: I slowly understood that this is pure nonsense, reality is far more complex and interesting than some fanboysh simplicistic theories, and if you want a real answer you have to spend much time on actual evidences before cry "this is common sense!" around... About the sword, what make you think that 10-20 cm of difference in blades made spatha and gladius so dramatically different to decide the fate of a centuries old empire? Different weapon, different fencing, what make an army successful have little to do with the weapon of choice... The small increase in lenght of the longsword didn't prevent it to be used with great success in dense formations for a millennium, but here's the funny part, when you say "solduros, rycalawre, etc. have longsword, so the EB team is wrong giving them a close and dense formation." What? Only because your prejudices tells you that a longsword cannot, never, be used in tight formations, this should make the professionals historians of the EB team and the evidences spread from La Tene culture to late middle ages wrong??? This is what made me angry, nothing personal, but this is a most dangerous attitude in proper understanding of history.


gladius:

http://www.albion-swords.com/images/swords/albion/nextGen/allectus/allectus1.jpg


spatha:

http://www.albion-swords.com/images/swords/albion/nextGen/new-swords/nextgen-roman-spatha2-decurio-sword.jpg

Look at that images: you say someone told you the spatha was primarily a slashing weapon: well, judging from that long, narrow blade, I say it probaly was a better thruster than the gladius, more agile and with a better reach, while the gladius seems more like a butcher cleaver...

About the shields, AFAIK people in history made shield-walls with an infinite variety of protective tools, for an amateur it's hard to say the Thyreos (oval shield) was unsuitable for the task, considering that the EB team historians included in game some descriptions stating otherwise. And BTW it was not the only shield they used... and maybe the less suitable was really the scutum, its shape preventing legionaries overlapping them... the only prerequisite for a solid shieldwall.

About the late roman army being a bunch of smelling barbarians... ... ... ... I don't really know what to say, the practice of recruiting germanic mercenaries, probably increased over time due to the lack of manpower, but you should take in account that there was not a great difference between western and eastern regular roman army, the eastern one was plenty of germanic recruits too, but it remained for centuries the most refined and effective military force in europe and middle east, so...

An interesting article about gross generalizations regarding the actual way of fighting with a sword
http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html

Cheers :2thumbsup:

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Ah sei italiano? Di dove?
Sono felice se mi dai documentazine a riguardo, ma non in PM, meglio qui: così tuuti possono vederla.

Polibio (II, 33):
“…I tribuni…avevano osservato nelle battaglie precedenti che i Galli in genere sono più temibili per il loro coraggio al primo assalto, finchè sono freschi, e che le loro spade sono costruite in modo da avere efficace solo il primo colpo di taglio: infatti si rovinano facilmente, ripiegandosi tanto nel senso della lunghezza che in quello della larghezza. E se non si dà il modo ai soldati di raddrizzarle col piede piantandole per terra, il secondo colpo risulta del tutto inutile…”

On the alleged superiority of the Celtic blacksmiths. :shocked3:


I am not an archaeologist and then by not speaking archaeologist.
now you talk to workers.:smash:

-I hold with my right arm a tube that weighs 6 kg and is 0.8 m long.
-With her left arm supporting a rectangular sheet.
-Now, if I want to lead a coup cut from left to right is necessary to rotate the tube above my head.
-If instead I want to sink to the right or hit the cut I have to do a broad movement to harness the centrifugal force of my pipe, otherwise my shot is pretty weak.
-These movements are quite difficult to repeat, will also portray the tube sank after a long time use (the good old inertia force), during this time, I have found my right side completely exposed to the enemy.
To harness the centrifugal force of the tube, must also do ample movements and leave open the right side.
For this reason, in a dense formation is easier than I wound my companion, who is beside me, compared to the enemy that stands before me (and Solduros died).:stars:

With a 4 kg weighs and 0.6 m long pipe I do not have these problems: I am less tired and my sink is rapid. the retreat of the tube is fast and is back in comfortable position to defend themselves.:thumbsup:

This is simple mechanics, and common sense. You do not to hear a scholar of history to need it.

Remember that the fencing has nothing in common with a battle: fear and fatigue do not allow the soldiers to be casual and take precise attacks.
Is much more convenient to carry simple attacks and take as much as possible closed defense.

Read this it's more interestig debate (especially what say Flavius and Rufus):

http://www.contubernium.it/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=468

Other sources:

http://italia.novaroma.org/arsmilitaris/telum.htm
http://www.roma-victrix.com/armamentarium/pvgiones.htm

See you again

[geala]

I would like to second the warnings to be not too oversimplicistic. When you look closer to medieval warfare you can find an astonishing amount of sophistication.

When you speak of the steel armour of the later middle ages as the main reason for the abandonement of large shields you should take into account that the percentage of warriors with such armour was always relatively low.

The development of the use of shields and weapons was always influenced by different political and social reasons and coincidence. The early Confederates f.e. in the 14th c. AD used mainly heavy two handed axe like weapons (halberds)which had connections with rural tools. They scarcely used shields although the use of armour was very rare. If they had had another tradition they might also have used strong longbows or big shields, swords and javelins.



Edit to Aulus: I just saw your last post too late. What do you mean with a 6 kg and 4 kg tube? The swords or the shields? The longest one handed longswords were by far lighter, between 0,8 to 2 kg, but more near 1 to 1,5 kg. The high medieval knights with large kite shields and long single handed swords were at least often able to fight in close formations on foot. I think the Celts and Germanics were too.

To Polybios: two theories, firstly perhaps he confused infos about Celtic sword sacrifices (deliberately bent swords) with battle use or, secondly and more probable, there was a wide span of quality with Celtic (and Roman) swords. I'm not a specialist for Celtic or Roman weapons but I know that there are quite a lot archaeological findings of Celtic swords with very good steel quality.

[Mediolanicus]

This is [...] common sense.



Since when did history become common sense? :dizzy2:

[Aper]

Polibio (II, 33):
“…I tribuni…avevano osservato nelle battaglie precedenti che i Galli in genere sono più temibili per il loro coraggio al primo assalto, finchè sono freschi, e che le loro spade sono costruite in modo da avere efficace solo il primo colpo di taglio: infatti si rovinano facilmente, ripiegandosi tanto nel senso della lunghezza che in quello della larghezza. E se non si dà il modo ai soldati di raddrizzarle col piede piantandole per terra, il secondo colpo risulta del tutto inutile…”

On the alleged superiority of the Celtic blacksmiths. :shocked3:
I miss the point: why a single, ROMANOPHILE, reference, should be taken as absolute truth?
Aulus, here there are people who devote their life to the study of history, and know far more you or me (I'm just a student) can imagine, trust me I know from bitter experience, don't be disrespectful.
About celtic smith, remember, every weapon is made for a purpose, it's stupid to speak of superiority of inferiority: for example, celtic sword were made in a world that know little body protections, and so probably the average weapon was forged using a quite soft steel, that is more prone to bend impacting hard targets, but is less prone to break like harder ones.
And BTW, there was enormous difference between the quality of the sword: the more money you had, the better you got, like today.

As early as 700 BC, the Celts were forging weapons, both spears and swords, by piling on layers of iron and forging the whole mess. This process continually improved until by 500 AD excellent pattern-welded swords were being made. In this process, bundles of carburized iron bars were welded together, and then a hard steel edge was welded on. This produced a sword, usually double-edged, with a soft, resilient body and a hard edge. The sword was flat, rather thin, quite light and flexible. Weight was in the area of 28 to 40 ounces. This method produced blades almost as good as Damascus ones, and surely the romans had nothing like this.



-I hold with my right arm a tube that weighs 6 kg and is 0.8 m long.
-With her left arm supporting a rectangular sheet.
-Now, if I want to lead a coup cut from left to right is necessary to rotate the tube above my head.
-If instead I want to sink to the right or hit the cut I have to do a broad movement to harness the centrifugal force of my pipe, otherwise my shot is pretty weak.
-These movements are quite difficult to repeat, will also portray the tube sank after a long time use (the good old inertia force), during this time, I have found my right side completely exposed to the enemy.
To harness the centrifugal force of the tube, must also do ample movements and leave open the right side.
For this reason, in a dense formation is easier than I wound my companion, who is beside me, compared to the enemy that stands before me (and Solduros died).:stars:

With a 4 kg weighs and 0.6 m long pipe I do not have these problems: I am less tired and my sink is rapid. the retreat of the tube is fast and is back in comfortable position to defend themselves.:thumbsup:

This is simple mechanics, and common sense. You do not to hear a scholar of history to need it.
This is what I mean: please, don't take this as an offense, but you know absolutely nothing about swords. Follow my suggestion, speak with a good ancient fencing master, or with a scholar who cares about military history (they are very few).
1) As already pointed out, a one-hand sword had a maximum weight of 2 kg, so your experiment is just meaningless.
2) The weight of the sword is absolutely secondary in comparison with balance.
a sword is all about balance, if you have the chance, look for an ancient and medieval weapons vendor, and tell him to hold in hand swords of different quality, you'll see the better ones seems far lighter, even if they should actually be heavier.
And take in account, that few swordsmith in the world can reach the level of skill of medieval ones, according to comparisons made between the best modern replicas and the best museum longsword: that masterpieces seems to almost have life, modern swordsmasters say.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm



Remember that the fencing has nothing in common with a battle: fear and fatigue do not allow the soldiers to be casual and take precise attacks.
Is much more convenient to carry simple attacks and take as much as possible closed defense.
Yeah, so weapon training is useless, and Marius (and others) called swordmasters from the schools of gladiators to train legionaries because he was dumb.
In battle, you cannot surely use perfect academic techniques, but an expert fencer who trains with war weapons, like ancient and medieval fencers did, and not with specialized civilian dueling ones, as modern, have surely an immense advantage. I repeat myself, try some ancient fencing with qualified masters, some practice is far more important than a thousand words.

Ok, maybe I have been again disrespectful to you, and I'm very sorry, but this stuff is my life, and I get passionate quickly.
I apologize again, and thanks for the links.

BTW, sono della provincia di Genova, a nasty roman-hater Ligurian :laugh4:

Regards

EDIT: After a quick reading of the posts of "Contubernium" I can say my "prejudices" are confirmed: someone have real, documented, knowledge about some arguments, but have very odd ideas about others! for example, R. in the middle of an interesting and informative post says "the hoplite is the maximum expression of individual, disordered valor" ... :stunned::stunned::stunned::stunned::stunned::stunned::stunned::stunned::stunned::stunned:
This is the subtle danger of homemade studies, usually books in the libraries are very very different in their scientific value, and are far inferior to academic ones, so it's almost unavoidable to fall in gross misinterpretation.

Look, I'm not saying that if you aren't academic you are comndemned to know nothing, you can just take a day of free time, go to the university, search for a good bibliography, and buy books that you are quite sure to be trustworthy, and that come from recent researches.

Forum interessante, comunque, grazie!

EDIT 2: a very important point not already taken in account: the critics of references. Reading the Roma Victrix site, I see that is common knowledge that most Gladii measured 60-80 cm: how much do you think late roman and medieval infantry spathae were long? Actually, there were little difference in the lenght of the 2 weapons! Longer swords are cavalry swords, medieval weapons confirm this: 100 cm of blade lenght is more typical of a bastard sword (used almost always with 2 hands), than of a medieval sword adept to be used with a shield! I fear our discussion comes from a misinterpretation of terminology...:laugh4:

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

ah ah sei ligure, salutami i pesciolini dell'acquario, io sono veneto, but nevertheless I can not hate the Romans.
certainly in medieval forges were working for.
during my visit to San Marino, I have seen many medieval two hands swords , but they were very long (1.3-1.4 meters). Great works.
In San Marino, there are huge armories, where they sell (without making too many requests) ornamental weapons, but also realistic reproduction weapons.
I have brought home a sword of steel similar to the old (not chrome and color very dark, almost black), I have given to 19.90 euros.

I read in some book of my "squalid" library of the province that the Etruscans had already realized that certain types of steel were more resistant than others. them and the Greeks knew that increasing the percentage of carbon swords were more rigid and resistant. The carbon also promotes the hardening heat treatment that makes the material hard, but it greatly reduces the impact strength (resistance to shocks instant). However it was not easy for the manufacturer then determining the correct percentage of the elements. But the swords had toughness that could not simultaneously have a high stiffness, so it is plastically deformed (ductility = tough), then I do not think is quite unlikely the story of Polybius.
Have you read the speech of "damascatura"?
The Greeks and Romans knew, maybe the Celts do not.
Or the Celts were so advanced to do the spade in 24NiCrMo6 (stainless steel).:drunk:
You who devote their lives to the study of history, I can not think off even in metallurgy (my work).

But the site contubernium you like for the arguments or for the many women in them? :grin2:

Important note:
if you want to help the earthquake victims of Abruzzo send a sms to 48580 (you give them some euros).:thumbsup:

[Aper]

ah ah sei ligure, salutami i pesciolini dell'acquario, io sono veneto, but nevertheless I can not hate the Romans.
I was joking :)
So you are from Veneto... Caecina made me imagine you were Etruscan! I know some fellow fencers from Verona...


during my visit to San Marino, I have seen many medieval two hands swords , but they were very long (1.3-1.4 meters). Great works.
2 handed. I wrote bastard, or "hand and an half: it's different.


I read in some book of my "squalid" library of the province that the Etruscans had already realized that certain types of steel were more resistant than others. them and the Greeks knew that increasing the percentage of carbon swords were more rigid and resistant. The carbon also promotes the hardening heat treatment that makes the material hard, but it greatly reduces the impact strength (resistance to shocks instant). However it was not easy for the manufacturer then determining the correct percentage of the elements. But the swords had toughness that could not simultaneously have a high stiffness, so it is plastically deformed (ductility = tough), then I do not think is quite unlikely the story of Polybius.
Have you read the speech of "damascatura"?
The Greeks and Romans knew, maybe the Celts do not.
Or the Celts were so advanced to do the spade in 24NiCrMo6 (stainless steel).:drunk:
You who devote their lives to the study of history, I can not think off even in metallurgy (my work).
So you are a smith? Very interesting! BTW I didn't wrote your library is "squalid", I wrote that if an amateur chooses books without the guidance of some real expert, he can buy good works or complete thrash, he cannot really know what have actual scientific value or not.
About steel, it's not only a matter of metal quality, or the percentage of carbonium, the point is the method of crafting: the celtic (and early medieval) technique was this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_welding. This method allow the smith a good degree of control about the percentage of carbonium in the different parts of the blade, something romans could not achieve; not only, the edges where added separately later, and were made of much harder steel, so you have a final product that combine a great thoughness and a great hardness & sharpness togheter; obviously, as Polibius pointed out, this is true only for the weapons of the "nobles", common warriors had inferior blades.
The technique of Pattern Welding was erroneously assimilated in middle-ages to Damascus steel, a mistake that endures today http://digilander.libero.it/forgiaberg/acciaio_damasco.htm, as you can see, that our friends from Bergamo call "damasco" is simply pattern welding; the real damascus steel was indeed the islamic version of the exceptional, somewhat mithical Wootz steel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wootz ; http://materials.iisc.ernet.in/~wootz/heritage/WOOTZ.htm, a great Indian discovery that present some uncertain aspects still today. And BTW, "Damascus" comes from an arabian word meaning water AFAIK, because of the beautiful "waves" on the surface of the steel.


But the site contubernium you like for the arguments or for the many women in them? :grin2:
:laugh4: Many womens discussing about history is surely a wonderful thing, but I was speaking about the arguments: the problem is that fans-of-something are very ready to jump to bold statements without having enough evidencies.


Important note:
if you want to help the earthquake victims of Abruzzo send a sms to 48580 (you give them some euros).:thumbsup:
Thank you very very much, I was wondering what to do, I thought about donating some blood but they said they have enough...

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

no, I am not a smith, I work in the foundry and I am a graduate in metallurgy.
Verona? that great city, but my city is that of Andrea Palladio.:rtwyes:

[Aper]

no, I am not a smith, I work in the foundry and I am a graduate in metallurgy.
Verona? that great city, but my city is that of Andrea Palladio.:rtwyes:
...Padova? :toilet:... I dunno for sure... :embarassed:
Awesome, btw, Genova is rich of marvelous palaces too, but Palladio was the best :2thumbsup:

One last thing, in the ARMA site I found this interesting article explaining "Why a sword is not just a sharp piece of steel", IMHO it's a very good introduction to... "Swordology" :laugh4:, valid also for ancient times, even if it speaks about medieval and modern eras...
http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/heymr.htm

Cheers :2thumbsup:

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

no Vicenza, but also Padova is beautiful city.
vicenza(vicetia) was an ancient Roman camp.

not this week because i have night shift, but next week(when i work on morning), try to join hamachi on evening (EB15):
we can discuss in chat. And if you can do 1.2 EB also a nice challenge.~:cheers:
Parlemo ciaro (dialetto veneto).
we hope that you are a little less acid. ah ah

[Aper]

no Vicenza, but also Padova is beautiful city.
vicenza(vicetia) was an ancient Roman camp.

not this week because i have night shift, but next week(when i work on morning), try to join hamachi on evening (EB15):
we can discuss in chat. And if you can do 1.2 EB also a nice challenge.~:cheers:
Parlemo ciaro (dialetto veneto).
we hope that you are a little less acid. ah ah
Vicenza?:idea2: http://www.baccalaallavicentina.com/it/
I just love baccalà soo much...:laugh4:

I was serious when I said I'm sorry... I feel a lot of pressure on my shoulders in this weeks (I wasn't accustomed), and my manners suffered accordingly... my apologize again. :bow:

[Watchman]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the spatha (and by that token, the "international standard" longswords of the Migration Period) more or less a direct descendant of the Celtic longsword ? If that's the case it was likely actually a pretty damn light as swords go... for the sake of the argument, compare the weights and lenghts of the following reconstructions (which if I've understood correctly are very "high fidelity" respective the originals) - Celtic longsword (http://www.myarmoury.com/review_alb_latene.html), Migration Period longsword (http://www.myarmoury.com/review_alb_mig.html) and straight flush of gladii (http://www.myarmoury.com/review_alb_gladii.html).

Anyways, as for the longsword being unsuited for close-order combat, poppycock. Such obsessive shieldwall fighters as the Vikings and Migration Period "barbarians", whose infantry mainly fought closely enough packed to easily rival the Greek hoplites, cheerfully used longswords, axes and similar "swinging" weapons as their primary sidearms to good effect.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

So see if the accounts add up.
The Long Sword is useful for cavalry to hit farther down the infantry.
It could be that 4th century, with the exponential increase of the cavalry in the army, the long sword was used by infantry to hit higher up the knights?
Then against cavalry: short sword < long sword < spear

returning to the speech of the Celtic blacksmiths: making their items complex and valuable by virtue of the fact that workers usually soft iron (ductile, tenacious, but not very hard).
This material, however, did not allow them to run efficiently on a hardening metal part.
This is because, as mentioned above, they did not know well the carbon used in metal alloys.
carbon is in fact responsible for the hardening after tempering (heating and cooling fast).:smash:

[Watchman]

The standard universal anti-cavalry infantry weapon was ever the spear, though... and in some contexts it has been noted infantry actually found short swords quite useful when mixing it up in a whirling melee with horsemen (ones presumably first checked with spears, mind); good for disemboweling and hamstrinting the horses at close quarters or something, apparently.
My guess is that the Romans' preferences just drifted over time; short and long blades have different advantages, and the soldiers may simply have come to prefer those of the latter. The shift was one of gradual lenghtening of the infantry blades over the span of a better part of a century or so, after all, not some kind of overnight jump.

Anyway, as regard period metallurgy, I'm pretty sure most weaponsmiths at least were familiar enough with the effects carbon content has on iron. AFAIK the still rather crude methods used for reducing iron ore produced small amounts of high-carbon steel (which was AFAIK often used to "build up" the edge of a bladed weapon; the "core" of the blade is better off as springier, softer iron anyway) as a side effect, and quite a few phases in the manufacturing process of a blade ought to have altered the carbon content of at least the surface layers. And if teh Wiki article Aper linked earlier is to be trusted, the Celts were quite familiar with pattern-welding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_welding#History)...

[mcantu]

the movement over time wasn't always to longer weapons. as the middle ages went on, many knights used short axes and hammers which were effective against the heavier armors that swords (no matter the length) could not penetrate...

[Watchman]

Fair enough; many of the dedicated cavalry "mass" weapons of the period seem almost ludicrously short-hafted (the museum I work in has a warhammer barely the lenght of my forearm, for example). My pet theory is that the short lenght made them usefully handy and agile in a whirling melee with other cavalry.

Swords, though, to a large degree only grew larger in the same period, as the extra control and power two hands gave was increasingly necessary for dealing with the increasingly formidable armour encountered even on common grunts... OTOH the infantry just as often opted for a shorter, handier blade better suited for close quarters, and easier to carry around.

[satalexton]

I'd opt the theory that improving metallurgy allowed for longer blades of better quality. A similar process happened in Sinae around 2 centuries ealier, where single edged proto-katanas gradually replaced the wide-sword as the main Han infantry sidearm.

A person skilled with a longer sword could easily transfer the same skills to a shorter one. The gladius was an excellent weapon for it's period. But that period was over as time went by...similar to the musketeers adapting into riflemen.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

I'd opt the theory that improving metallurgy allowed for longer blades of better quality. A similar process happened in Sinae around 2 centuries ealier, where single edged proto-katanas gradually replaced the wide-sword as the main Han infantry sidearm.

A person skilled with a longer sword could easily transfer the same skills to a shorter one. The gladius was an excellent weapon for it's period. But that period was over as time went by...similar to the musketeers adapting into riflemen.

WARNING, make swords longer does not mean that they are necessarily made in better material.
Metallurgy has been developed with the progress of man and the most advanced civilizations of Greece and the Middle East were most certainly evolved than Celtic.
Certainly the metallurgy of the first had nothing less than that of seconds (it was even better and more advanced).
But, despite this, the long sword was less common in Greece and Middle East.
The large availability of raw materials had become the Celtic smith good for what concerns the forms and the complexity of objects.
But to say that the Celts had a better metallurgy than Greek above me as a questionable assertion.
The long sword should be tough to resist at strong impacts due to centrifugal force.
If it were too hard and might break easily clique.
The soft iron is good at allowing long swords and Celtic had in abundance.
This implies a tough material, but also very flexible and deforms in a plastic (sometimes become unusable).
Unless the Celts did not know the harmonic steel, I doubt that the manufactures were better than the East (from the metallurgy).
I, as metallurgiy graduate, can easily believe this phrase of Polibio:

Polibio (II, 33):
“…I tribuni…avevano osservato nelle battaglie precedenti che i Galli in genere sono più temibili per il loro coraggio al primo assalto, finchè sono freschi, e che le loro spade sono costruite in modo da avere efficace solo il primo colpo di taglio: infatti si rovinano facilmente, ripiegandosi tanto nel senso della lunghezza che in quello della larghezza. E se non si dà il modo ai soldati di raddrizzarle col piede piantandole per terra, il secondo colpo risulta del tutto inutile…”

traduction:
"... The tribunis ... they had seen in previous battles that the Gauls are generally more fearful for their courage to first attack, until are fresh, and that their swords are constructed to be effective only on the first shot of cut: in fact it ruin easily fold both in the length than in width. And if you do not give way to the soldiers of the right it with foot planted for land, the second shot appears totally useless ... "

[Watchman]

Polybius' description there tends to make both historians and smiths go a little "o_O WTF", you know... one theory is that he's rather heavily misinterpreting the fairly widespread custom of "killing" swords by bending them.

Anyway, the Celts were among the top ironworkers of their era; we can also thank them for mail, and they had access to some high-grade iron ore in Noricum and I think it was around what's now Hungary and Bohemia. And they certainly *were* the first to figure out the somewhat tricky art of making metallurgically solid longswords, anyway. Got copied quite widely down the road too.

Also, the Iranic "horse peoples" developed their own patterns of longswords. Those remained the Middle Eastern and Central Asian standard until the Turks eventually introduced the curved sabre (whose early Arabic name actually translates roughly as "Turkish sword") into the region.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Le Tene longblades are perfectly sound, though much stouter and heavier than later Migration Era blades.

[Watchman]

People don't spend centuries hacking each others' heads off with a particular weapon design, which then goes on to spawn a lenghty lineage, unless it works pretty well, that's for sure...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The great thing about the universal-straight-edged-with-a-point design is that it is simple to make, relatively easy to use, and is both a chopper and a poker, not to mention a slasher.

So, that gives you three basic ways to releive a man of his innards.

[Ibrahim]

Indeed. these straight swords are very much useful when fighting.


but I'll still prefer a short poking sword and a long wobbly cane spear any day. :clown:

[Megas Methuselah]

Also, the Iranic "horse peoples" developed their own patterns of longswords. Those remained the Middle Eastern and Central Asian standard until the Turks eventually introduced the curved sabre (whose early Arabic name actually translates roughly as "Turkish sword") into the region.

That's pretty cool, man. I remember seeing some cataphracts in-game with their sweet longswords. Does anyone mind telling me a bit more about these?

[Watchman]

Don't forget the occasional reference ot "Scythian longswords". You'll need to ask the steppe and Iranic guys about those, but given the nomads' penchanct for burying their nobility with some *seriously* opulent grave goods (AFAIK they were among the few peoples to commonly include armour), and the amount of digging that has been done in those kurgans, I would assume the archeological evidence is pretty solid.

'Course, given the Scythians' habit of importing or "subcontracting" their higher-end metalwork I wouldn't be surprised if that lineage was a spin-off of imported Celtic blades from Central Europe - the Danube trade route leads right to the Black Sea, after all. But could just as well be a parallel developement - such consummate horsemen would presumably have been early in realizing how useful a long blade is for a mounted warrior, and Middle East at least has a long enough history of fairly long swords going back to the Late Bronze Age, what with the Sherden and Assyrians and whoever. (Dunno 'bout Central Asia.)

[chairman]

There is at least one author that I read on the Celts who was of the opinion that period of Celtic ethnogenesis was one of strong east-west cultural and migrational co-influence between central europe and the north pontic steppe. He said that this would help explain how both the celts and scythians had such similar characteristics: love of horses, LOVE of GOLD, longswords, rich burials, disposition towards movable material goods (gold, cattle, etc) rather than territory or cities. This isn't saying that they were the same peoples, but that at least some minor migrations westward from the steppe took place. Just a theory, but it seems to have some merit.

Chairman

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

There is at least one author that I read on the Celts who was of the opinion that period of Celtic ethnogenesis was one of strong east-west cultural and migrational co-influence between central europe and the north pontic steppe. He said that this would help explain how both the celts and scythians had such similar characteristics: love of horses, LOVE of GOLD, longswords, rich burials, disposition towards movable material goods (gold, cattle, etc) rather than territory or cities. This isn't saying that they were the same peoples, but that at least some minor migrations westward from the steppe took place. Just a theory, but it seems to have some merit.

Chairman

Much that you say is more of an universal drive.

[delablake]

gentlemen, this is an extremely interesting and cultured thread! I really enjoy reading it!