Longsword vs Shortsword(with scutum maybe)

[Companion]

Googling casually on Celt-Rome conflicts, I came across numerous articles(Webpages) stating "Celtic longswords are inferior to Roman gladius&scutum combo in close hand-to hand fighting so Romans gained an edge on the battlefield."

Then I remember that I saw some hellenic phalanx units in EB like Celto-hellenics or Hypaspists chose longsword as their sidearm although they usually fight in denser formations than Roman legionaries do.

I am under the impression that people are mostly rational in what they choose so I speculate there will be some logical reason beyond the preference but can't catch it.

Maybe "Heroic" culture of Celts required warriors to carry longswords which are supposedly better than other weapon types in 1-1 duels. But Greeks certainly did not dueled THAT much and still, some of them chose longswords over shortswords and Kopis. If longswords are so much inferior to shorswords in close combat then why use them? Esp. luxurious Royal Shield Bearers who could afford almost anything on the market? (albeit under the phalanx formation restrictions)

Somebody please Enlighten me

And please refrain from arguments like "Celts are so dumb and Greek geeks are just irrational enough to follow after them."

-Comp

[Leão magno]

Saw some History Channel program where they used the wepons of yore and they showed that what made the Gladius Hispaniensis so effective was its use together with the scutum allowing the bearer to get real close to the enimy, close enught to used the short Gladius sword... The long sword is not better nor worse, it is a question of tactcal adaptation of wepons, shields and armours...

[Spoofa]

yeah, im sure with a big huge shield you could easily block the first blow and move in and get in so close he cant use his sword too well, raise your shield up and stab him in the gut.

[Companion]

Then is it just that Celts/Greeks were just not aware of Roman shorsword&shield trick? Were they just immersed with some sort of "Longsword Bias"? (Sounds like I am the one who's biased here though)
Sorry, I just don't get the reason beyond preference for longsword.

[Leão magno]

Lomg swords were effective too, do not think that Rome won all battles and certainly do not think that Celtic gear was not efficient, as far as I believe, the question here is that Romans chosed the best gear for their close quarters, close combat and celtics choose their best gear fo their tatics too try to imagine that you have an scutum and some two meters tall, heavy muscled Gaul is attacking your shield with a long sword and all its weight... you can see that the Gladius Scutum combination may have had a hard time blocking, avoiding and counter attacking this... still, victories were not only Romans and can not be credited only to combat gears

[BigTex]

Think your missing the key point here. Romans were by and large money scrunging beaurocrats. Longswords were far expensive then any shortsword and took alot longer to make.

If longswords are so much inferior to shorswords in close combat then why use them? Esp. luxurious Royal Shield Bearers who could afford almost anything on the market? (albeit under the phalanx formation restrictions)

You hit on the exact reason here. Longswords are more expensive, thus the royal guards could afford them. It's not as though longswords couldnt thrust as easily as a shortsword could....

The reason the shortsword and scutum worked was that they were cost effective. Cost effective enough that if one legion was defeated, you could easily raise another with more shortswords and scutums. Personally I think the scutum is far more effective then the gladius hispanius ever was. Big, plywood shield, encases in leather and the edges protected by bronze.

[lobf]

AFAIK longswords require a bit of momentum to strike someone properly. The gladius could be used after a shield block and a step forward to poke you in the belly (or wherever) really quickly, which is why it is superior in a close fight.