The Gladius vs. the Spathia

[DemonArchangel]

Why did the roman's adopt the spathion, when obviously it was weaker than the gladius when used in formation? (because the formation widened with the length of the swords)

[Hurin_Rules]

Must've been all those barbarians teasing the romans by saying, "Mine's bigger than yours." http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Hakonarson]

Perhaps it wasn't "obviously weaker".

Why would width increase? Swords would not be used foir many horizontal strokes, and overhand chops can be made in the same space regardless ofhte length of hte sword.

Perhaps part of the answer lies in the gradual shift of Roman weaponry away from extrmely close quarter weapons (a heavy javelin with short range and a short sword).

It seems to me the Romans found that it was a good idea to kill hte other guy as far away as possible - so the pilum was replaced by successivly lighter spears until they were essentially just javelins, and supplemented by martioboulli - large lead weighted darts - that could be thrown perhaps 80 paces. Added to these were legionary archers who could skirmish in front or shoot overhead from the rear of the "close quarter" legionary foot.

This makes a great deal of sense when you consider that many more of the Empire's foes were mounted - a longer sword and lighter weapons that can shoot furtehr are very appropriate vs horse mounted soldiers - especially if those cavalry are riding unarmoured horses.

[Sir Chauncy]

It's been a while since i posted here as i have got a job now and don't have time to enjoy myself anymore....

*sniff*

But, as far as i understood it, the Gladius was about 2 feet long because when it was first made, bronze swords could only be made that long because otherwise, they broke. As metal composition and blacksmithing improved so would the swords. I could be talking out of my bopttom though...

[Kraxis]

Ahhh... but the gladius was made of steel.

I personally believe the spatha was instituted because in time more and more 'barbarians' made their way into the Roman army. In the beginning this was good and well and the army could easily train them to the Roman ways. But later they came such numbers that the lowering of discipline meant they wanted to cling on to their old ways of fighting and using a longer sword. That might also explain the adoption of the flat oval scutum compared to the square scutum.

[Hakonarson]

AFAIK there's no evidence that "barbarians" recruited to the legions were any different to other recruits in the ease of training or discipline. Also of course the spatha came into use in the 3rd century - which is well BEFORE the mass induction of barbarians to the legions.

IMO one of the major reasons the Gladiaus Hispanicus was so idolised by Romans was probably BECAUSE it was made of good steel - as opposed to the average iron and bronze that Rome itself made. This would give it a good advantage in close quarters.

[lonewolf371]

lonewolf agrees with Harkonarson, after all, if I'm not mistaken the mass induction of barbarians began in the late fourth century beginning with emperor Theodosius, the very one who took over after that other guy (can't remember name) completely managed to get the East army torn to pieces at Adrianople.

As for the switch, I honestly don't know, perhaps combat may have (though unlikely) began to evolve to a more personal level, which is in my opinion the only legitimate military excuse for such a switch I can conjure up at the top of my head. Though there may have actually been other reasons besides the military. I know that at least in our modern society economics and political power can play a little bit in deciding what Congress gives its stamp of approval to, even the emperor could be subject to such forces, as unless he was strong he often became little more than a figure-head for the military.

[DemonArchangel]

errr... i find extreme close quarters to be better when dealing with a foot-bound foe, especially one wielding a large axe. But the spathia is useless as cavalry would just charge down sword wielders anyway. the romans should have gone back to the spear.

[DemonArchangel]

The spathion is also worse for stabbing wounds, which hurt more than slashes, due to it's longer length.

[Hurin_Rules]

But think of it psychologically:

We're about to fight, and I pick up a broadsword. Which would you prefer to have at that point-- a pocketknife or a claymore?

The reason might be that the Romans no longer had the ability to force their soldiers (many of whom were now accepted as federati with no real 'roman' training anymore) to fight in tightly-drilled formations with a stabbing shortsword.

Edit: in terms of ethnicity, the Roman army was heavily 'barbarized' in the third century. The difference was, I think, that until the late fourth century new recruits were still trained in the traditional roman manner with roman arms and equipment, rather than fighting essentially as mercenaries with their own national techniques and weapons.

[Mr Frost]

As armour gets better , a warrior needs weapons more able to project damage through it ; a long hacking sword will hurt an opponent through armour that a short stabbing sword would turn against as swinging a length of steel generates more force than merely pushing it . {Weapons such as an estoc gained favor in the late middle ages only because armour became so good , that the only way to be SURE you could penetrate was between the joins etc , which were only protected by light mail but could not be effectivly targeted by more forceful swinging weapons} .

As modern body armour improves , future soldiers will begin to feild heavier calibre weapons to get the force to put down their enemies , even though this will mean a sizable reduction in ammunition carried {7.62x51mm NATO weights about twice as much as 5.56x45mm NATO , thus equiping to a 7.62mm standard would reduce the typical U.S. line infantryman to only 180 rounds carried , but if his enemies are heavily armoured it would probebly be worth it ... many have been calling for an intermediate round lately -6.??mm- and this is one reason why} .

The origonal reason for the Spathas' introduction was simpler however : cavalry need longer weapons if they wish to hit enemy infantry before said infantry can hit their horse or legs , and swords do more damage than spears {which Roman cavalry were also trained for , and by bracing themselves with their knees against four special protrusions on a Roman saddle have the stability to couch the lance somewhat} one a charge is spent .

[Hakonarson]

The Romans did retain spears vs cavalry - they always had - even the Pilum was retained in hand as a spear to stop cavalry charges.

My analogy with distance weapons was intended to be for use vs foes on foot, of which there were still many. Sorry for any confusion.

[DemonArchangel]

Noo.... a stabbing weapon concentrated all it's power into the point, while a slashing one does less because it's spread out. That's why i would prefer a gladius to a spathia when dealing with an armored opponent.

[Hakonarson]

Demon you'd probably lose then.

A stab has little pentrative power - the force is solely the muscle power behing it.

A cut however can build up considerable angular momentum, which can "smash and bash" even if it does not penetrate armour.

Certainly once the armour is penetrated a stab is likely to cause more damage than a cut (on average so to speak), but a swinging blow has a great deal more armour penetrating ability than a straight thrust.

[DemonArchangel]

but why use a sword to bash if a mace or a heavy ass stick would suffice? I mean the blade and cutting edges could be fragile and difficult to replace.

[Sir Moody]

Quote[/b] ]but why use a sword to bash if a mace or a heavy ass stick would suffice? I mean the blade and cutting edges could be fragile and difficult to replace.

u just anwsered your own question beacuase a "heavy ass stick" relys entirley on "smash and bash" and has no cutting ability what so ever while slashing sword is better for peicing armour and has a cutting edge to boot

i agree that the spathia was adopted when the majority of romes enemys began to use better and better armour and the gladius just couldnt compete to the smae extent as it could when it was used against lighter or unaroured foe (as has been said a stab wound puts u down faster than a slash but doesnt go thru armour very well)

[Vanya]

Quote[/b] (Sir Moody @ Sep. 25 2003,08:26)]a "heavy ass stick" relys entirley on "smash and bash" and has no cutting ability what so ever
GAH

That is why Vanya always told -- and still tells -- His arquebusiers to clobber enemies with the butts of their guns instead of wasting Vanya's time shooting firecrackers around to amuse the foe. Gun not sharp, but gun is real heavy. Guns smash heads

GAH

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

So we are back to square one; when it comes to head, what's the best? Cutting or smashing?

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Louis,

[shingenmitch2]

About the stab vs. cut:
From Di Grasse's work on fencing "Without a doubt, the thrust is to be preferred over the edge blow. Not only is it faster, but it can cause the greatest hurt. This I lay down for a firm and certain rule.

"When moving in a circle, always be sure that the left (rear) foot is always shifted so that there is always a straight line from sword tip to hand to rear foot. In this way, the lunge attack with thrust can be the strongest and longest. Further, as the lunge completes, draw the hind foot forward a half-pace to ensure that the blow is longer and stronger. The attack should be measured to just reach, but not to overshoot, the mark. At the completion of the attack, the rear shoulder and arm should be turned away from the opponent, and so out of reach of a counter thrust. It is not possible to frame a longer blow than this."

This was written about using the rapier (big solid rapier not that wire-whispy thing most peeps think of), which was arguably the pinacle of sword development.
The lunge adds considerable weight to the stab as the force of the entire body's momentum is behind it.

My understanding is that 3" of penetration is fatal and this is more likely to occur through a stab then a cut.

The sword used to cut is a poor man's axe and in many ways the axe is preferable. (heavier concentration of weight at the tip) The axe has a smaller area with which to make contact, so the sword is more forgiving of a misplaced cut, yet the most effective part of the blade is near its tip (top 1/3 of blade) anyway so I suppose that is a bit of a wash.


-------------------
Spatha vs. Gladius
I think the spatha/gladius question also comes down to employment. Since they both have sharp tips, if you are talking about 1v1 individualized combat, I'd take the spatha for its reach.

However, the gladius, being a short sword, allows for easier employment in tight quarters. This translates into denser combat formations which means there are more peeps stabbing per length of frontage -- instead of dealing with a longer sword 1 on 1 its more often a 2 shorts vs. 1 long. So in formation/unit fighting situations the gladius is preferable.

My guess is that the spatha took over in the foot legions after there was a dissolution of the old tighter formation tactics, but I don't know this for certain.

[DemonArchangel]

Sword is poor man's axe, it's other way around, an axe is alot cheaper than a sword.

[Hakonarson]

De Grasse was writing about fighting men wearing no armour whatwoever, and the rapier was not the ultimate development of the sword - it was teh ultimate dead end of a line of thrusting only-swords that weer too specialised to be of much use outside a particular set of social rules.

There were armour piercing thrusting swords tho' - I forget the name but Polish "Winged" Hussars carried a long one the name of which escapes me.

Why not jsut use a mace? Because maces are another specialised weapon - swords are generic - you can find a use for them in any situation - even cutting your firewood

Also the sword in Europe had a certain social prestige that developed over hundreds of years - it was an expensive weapon compared to axes and spears, and was often the sign of wealth and high rank - chieftans would carry swords in teh dark ages when their followers couldn't afford them, while the "Cross" hilted sword of the knight has become almost iconic.

Men who carried various armour piercing weapons such as maces, halberds, etc invariably also carried swords.

And of course there's nothing at all to stop a long swod being used to thrust with, so there's little or no reason to carry a specialised thrusting sword.

And any re-enactor will tell you that 10" difference in sword length MATTERS and definitely gives you an advantage in 1-1 combat, whereas short swords, daggers and the like are useful in a "scrum" situation - and of course most combat was in relatively small groups - huge battles have always been relatively rare.

[shingenmitch2]

Demon ---
use the whole quote "the sword USED TO CUT is sort of a poor man's axe..."

i.e. my point is that chopping is not necessarily the best employment of the sword and if chopping was the be-all-end-all of combat, then use an axe. However, it isn't. Obviously a sword (at least most of them) is more versitle than an axe in that they can thrust/stab and are double edged and better balanced for ease of return stroke. This is why they are to be preferred to the axe and why they are worth the expense and time to make over the cheaper axe.

---------------------
Hak-
"the ultimate dead end of a line of thrusting only-swords that were too specialised to be of much use outside a particular set of social rules."

Perhaps that could be said of the final stages of rapier development, but for much of the 1500s/early 1600s rapiers were substantial, double edged weapons that could both cut and thrust. They could easily penetrate chain armor and their thrusting techniques were extensions of longsword development designed to defeat heavy armor by striking at its gaps.

I wasn't trying to discuss the merits of a thrust-only technique or say that chopping with a sword isn't important. I agree that the sword's versatility is its beauty. However we were discussing the relative merits of chopping versus thrusting and I was attempting to illustrate that the thrust is more important to a sword than the chop.

If you said to me "we're gonna sword fight 1v1" and you give me a choice of 2 swords: a long Celtic slashing sword that has no point OR an end-development rapier that has only a point, I'll take the rapier every time.

-------------
This passage describes the medieval longsword:
"Advances in armor technology toward the end of the Medieval period, specifically plate armor, decreased the protective need for a shield and thus freed up the off hand. [i.e. chopping wasn't getting the job done] Because of this, special techniques called half-swording were developed. Half-swording generally involves holding the blade of the sword in the second hand, which enables greater point control and increased thrusting power. This in turn enables the long sword to puncture heavy armor and stab into the joints and gaps between plates. "

---------------------------
"And any re-enactor will tell you that 10" difference in sword length MATTERS and definitely gives you an advantage in 1-1 combat, whereas short swords, daggers and the like are useful in a "scrum" situation - and of course most combat was in relatively small groups - huge battles have always been relatively rare."

I'm not sure about your point here. This is essentially what I said about 1v1 -- remember in the other half of this thread's discussion we're talking about the Roman legion here (spatha vs. gladius) so we ARE discussing huge battles and mass formation tactics.

[DemonArchangel]

Well, A 16th century rapier is the pinnacle of the sword, as were the armor piercing thrusting swords.

[Kraxis]

The rapier was only the pinnacle of a certain branch of swords. The flamberge was the pinnacle of another line (bash-/stab line) and the katana was yet another pinnacle (drawcut line).

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] ]If you said to me "we're gonna sword fight 1v1" and you give me a choice of 2 swords: a long Celtic slashing sword that has no point OR an end-development rapier that has only a point, I'll take the rapier every time.


There was no such thing - it's a popular myth. Celtic swords were perfectly capable of thrusting, and the references to bent ones after battle are thought to refer to funery sacrifices bent to "kill" them so they could join their former owners in the afer life.

If there's a shield involved then you and your rapier will soon be in the afterlife also. If there's no shield then whoever gets hit first is probably dead - the other person my die too of course....

"Rapiers" was a term that was initially applied to any civilian swrod from about 1470, but which rapidly developed into meaning specifically a thusting only sword - English documents by 1500 refer to a "rapier-sword" to distinguish cut-and thrust swords from "pure" rapier - "sword" meant a military and edged weapon.

A goos site for info on swrods of the era: http://historymedren.about.com/cs/fencingandswords/

However I'm stil not sure why any of this stuff about Rapeir is relevant to why Romans changed from Gladius to Spatha - AFAIK they didn't face plate armour, never used rapiers or estoc's or aythign connected to them, and managed to survive reasonably well for 200 years after the change - the Eastern Roman Empire going anotehr 1000 in various forms, so I don't think the change hurt at all

[shingenmitch2]

There were celtic slashing swords (I'm not implying saber) - many of their long 1-handed strait swords had a rounded tip, not exactly designed for the thrust. It wasn't a problem for the celts as their sword tactics was primarily to hack.

"However I'm stil not sure why any of this stuff about Rapeir is relevant to why Romans changed from Gladius to Spatha "
Gah It doesn't... please read my post more carefully... there are 2 semi-related threads going on simultaneously here: (1) the relative merit of hacking with a sword vs. stabbing with a sword, the other (2) why the Romans might move from the Spatha to Gladius.

For (1) I don't give a poop about rapier this or that... I was simply saying the stab is a more effective attack than the slash. Nothing more. The fact that a sword can do both is to its benefit.

For (2) My thought is that the longer blade requires more space for the individual soldier and thus the Roman unit tactics must have been changing at the same time that their sword of preference changed . (but it is a chicken & egg situation) Did the tactics become more individual (1v1) because of the longer sword or did more individualized tactics require the longer sword?


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

[Sir Moody]

Quote[/b] ]For (2) My thought is that the longer blade requires more space for the individual soldier and thus the Roman unit tactics must have been changing at the same time that their sword of preference changed . (but it is a chicken & egg situation) Did the tactics become more individual (1v1) because of the longer sword or did more individualized tactics require the longer sword?


or did the fact the roman gladius was having trouble getting thru the armour of its "subjects" meen that a weapon that could had to be implimented which led to more individulised combat or all of the above http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[DemonArchangel]

Gladius was like a pointed meatcleaver, you could seriously hurt an armor wearer with one

[Hakonarson]

I don't think it is true that a stab is a more effective ATTACK than a cut - a stab is more dangerous in that it can kill you with much less effort - a penetration of 3" will do - but only in hte right place.

A stab in het leg or arm is probably not going to reder your opponent hors de combat whereas a cut may well do so - severing muscles completely and leving the limb useless.

So each type of attack has it's own advantages.

the Spatha was, of course, a stabbing sword as WELL as a cutting one - as was the Gladius. there's no evidence that the Legio's fought in looser order with the Spatha than they did with the Gladius, and the Spatha allows you a few inches more reach for both a stab and a cut.

the idea that a sword might be only used for 1 or other is a modern invention - and only applies to rapiers and oteh highly specialised weapons - Romans were trained to use both the edge and the point of their swords from the beginnign to the end of what we know about their training methods.

[DemonArchangel]

unfortunately, the gladius was more useful than the spathia for stabbing, because you'd have to pull back further for a stab of the same power with the spathia, or do shorter, less powerful stabs.

[katar]

thrusting is better than slashing when you are fighting in a close order formation like the romans did.

also you expose very little of yourself when you do thrust as most of your body is protected by your shield and the shields to you left and right.

when you start slashing with a sword you imediately expose the armpit and inside of your arm to an enemy stroke and the soldiers have to be farther apart to enable you to do so, hence making for a looser formation.

as far as i know the spatha started out as a cavalry sword, made popular by the auxiliary cav and over time moving into infantry use.

with the increase in auxilary germanic/gallic influince, who were used to fighting in a looser formation, the gladius lost out as in open order fights the one with the longer sword tends to have a distinct advantage. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Hakonarson]

Who said anything about slashing? You can certainly CUT without exposing your armpit or any other part of your body - indeed with a longer sword you can cut from behind your shield more effectively than with a short one.

Your possible target areas are limited for either cutting or stabbing unless you expose yourself.

Roman swordsmen are recorded as using anything up to 5 FEET of frontage each (about 1.5 metres) - the only time they routinely used very close order that would limit their sword arm was when defending against a cavalry charge - where they formed shoulder to shoulder but used their pila as spears - so swords were irrelevant

[Sir Moody]

Quote[/b] ]Gladius was like a pointed meatcleaver, you could seriously hurt an armor wearer with one

yes the gadius's sharp edge made it a meat cleaver but as said allready stabing (with a gladius im not bringing up rapiers or med long swords here (which u may notice are LONG blades unlike the gladius)) will not be as useful against armour where the added momentum of a swing acts to crush the oponent underneath the armour (again not so with plate but that was roman only this era (and even then wasnt common as it used to be)) and while u can cut with a gladius the spartha's longer blade and increased weight would have had a major slashing advantage and as hark has said could stab JUST as well as a gladius (allthough as u said not in tight formations)

[Kraxis]

Quote[/b] (katar @ Sep. 29 2003,21:00)]as far as i know the spatha started out as a cavalry sword, made popular by the auxiliary cav and over time moving into infantry use.
Yup.

It only makes sense that the cavalry have longer swords. Afterall they need the longer reach to get at an enemy.

But the only true problem I can see with the spatha as to the gladius is the draw.
The gladius was positioned high on the right hip, perfect for a quick draw backwards (pointing forwards) that opens for a quick stab. This might be due to both the throwing of the pilum (enemy might be closeby when it is thrown) and close formations (if in very close formation drawing the swords across the chest is not so good).

The spatha was worn on the left hip, forcing a crossdraw, meaning that it was most likely drawn when there was still a lot of time. And that makes sense as what I have found is that the pilum was abandoned more or less when the spatha was being used in large scale.

But really, who knows for sure? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[DemonArchangel]

the byzantine spathion has a point, but it looks just like a common broadsword. The spathia's blade is somewhat more narrow than that of the gladius, either that, or the pictures are bad

[shingenmitch2]

Hak

I never suggested that a Roman wouldn't use the hack if the opportunity presented itself. But the stab was the preferred method employed by the Romans as it requires less space for a man to employ it (unless you confine your swinging sword cut to the verticle plane).
Full swinging cuts with the arm demand more space for the individual lest you hit your comrade. 5' is not a lot of space when swinging a sword -- my arm can add 2.5' by itself. (add as little as 1.5' for a short blade and that gives very little room for even a 45° chop and almost no room to move)

It was exactly the early Romans' sword methods that allowed them to have denser formations than their celtic enemies who used long swords with hacking swings (which are rarely confined to straight up and down) and thus need more room to operate. If the Romans adopted a longer sword, wouldn't it force the further opening up of their formations, diluting the effectiveness of those formations or at least changing the nature of the combat? The spatha could certainly stab, but when the soldier did swing his arm for the cut, it seems logical that he would have to have more room.

That said, I'm not sure how much difference that 7–10" of sword length makes. My guess is that it had to be somewhat significant as the spatha was around for a long time before the switch so there was some reason it wasn't instantly adopted into the legion.

---------

in regards to the stab in the arm or leg... I think you discount the effect of a stab too quickly. Assuming the stab was straight in for 2+ in. of depth, that arm or leg is pretty much useless -- not many peeps are able to walk after being shot in the leg, which is in many ways similar to a stab (especially one done with a broad/wide blade).