Longsword vs Shortsword(with scutum maybe)

[Companion]

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.

...Sounds convincing.

The problem was with the Celts Ceasar & other Imperial Romans encoutered were mostly rookies and who got REAL close to the legions, so close that they can't wield their swords properly and get stabbed.

Oh and don't forget by 400BC the roman legions used the Hasta (a longsword) as their main infantry weapon. BUT they no longer fought like the legions of Ceasar, Titus, etc.

Gauls at Telamon are not fresh greens I believe... Superiority of Roman arms at Telamon is maybe another one of those Roman boasts I guess...

BTW, out of topic though, wasn't hasta a Roman name for spear and spatha a name for Roman cavalry longsword?

[stupac]

Well we know that in the late roman empire, when things were looking bad and the legions were in a sorry state having to deal with numerous invasions and having too few romans willing to serve, that the spatha saw widespread apoption over the gladius hispanis. I read somewhere that the multifaceted reasons included a breakdown in discipline, formations, and tactics on the battlefield as well as the inclusion of more and more germans in the legions who would of course bring their culture battlefield tactics. This is further seen by the adoption of lighter, oval shaped shields than the former scutum. I believe these would offer better mobility and better compliment a longer sword than the full scutum. Obviously, in order to swing a long sword you would need a good amount of space between you and your fellow soldiers, and when chaos insued on the battlefield and you were pretty well on your own it would be your best friend. But the gladius hispanis allowed the legion to fight in a coehisive unit, due to its short size which was none the less deadly for the short but lethal stabs it would produce, though I would imagine this would require more training. Well, I've said too much, I'm no historian and I don't consider myself informed on this topic, no doubt some EB historian will come along and dismantle everthing I've said.

[NeoSpartan]

Well we know that in the late roman empire, when things were looking bad and the legions were in a sorry state having to deal with numerous invasions and having too few romans willing to serve, that the spatha saw widespread apoption over the gladius hispanis. I read somewhere that the multifaceted reasons included a breakdown in discipline, formations, and tactics on the battlefield as well as the inclusion of more and more germans in the legions who would of course bring their culture battlefield tactics. This is further seen by the adoption of lighter, oval shaped shields than the former scutum. I believe these would offer better mobility and better compliment a longer sword than the full scutum. Obviously, in order to swing a long sword you would need a good amount of space between you and your fellow soldiers, and when chaos insued on the battlefield and you were pretty well on your own it would be your best friend. But the gladius hispanis allowed the legion to fight in a coehisive unit, due to its short size which was none the less deadly for the short but lethal stabs it would produce, though I would imagine this would require more training. Well, I've said too much, I'm no historian and I don't consider myself informed on this topic, no doubt some EB historian will come along and dismantle everthing I've said.

you are not 100% wrong...

...just don't make the mistake a lot of people (including me made) that the legions of 100-200 AD were "better" because of their equipment than the legions of 400-500 AD.

They were badass too.

[Centurion Crastinus]

Correct me if i'm wrong, the legions of the 3rd and 4th centuries were not as effective as they were in the 1st and 2nd centruies because of constantly reoccuring civil wars, not neccessarily because of the quality of the soldier and their equipment.

[Charge]

...just don't make the mistake a lot of people (including me made) that the legions of 100-200 AD were "better" because of their equipment than the legions of 400-500 AD.

They were badass too.

You mean their foes were much better than in 100-200ad ?

[L.C.Cinna]

Well we know that in the late roman empire, when things were looking bad and the legions were in a sorry state having to deal with numerous invasions and having too few romans willing to serve,

This is not true, the legions were not in a sorry state at all. some necessary changes to the static grouping of the army and it's different branches had been made since the time of the Antonines.

that the spatha saw widespread apoption over the gladius hispanis. I read somewhere that the multifaceted reasons included a breakdown in discipline, formations, and tactics on the battlefield as well as the inclusion of more and more germans in the legions who would of course bring their culture battlefield tactics.

It is true that the Spatha became the main weapon but:

this process already started during the antonine era (2nd century) with the introduction of the ring pommel swords and the semi-spathae instead of the gladius...so at a time when we are at the hight of "fanboy-segmentata -wearing-disciplined legions"... Same goes for the more frequent use of spears and other weapons instead of pila and more and more oval shields.

Tactics had changed and the troops equipped to fullfill more different roles. the infantry spatha is a bit longer but can be used like a gladius or more like a longsword in situations like smaller skrimishes or such things.

the Germanics have nothing to do with it. Germanic customs concerning swords were mostly influenced by the Romans not the other way round.

This is further seen by the adoption of lighter, oval shaped shields than the former scutum. I believe these would offer better mobility and better compliment a longer sword than the full scutum.

that's true

Obviously, in order to swing a long sword you would need a good amount of space between you and your fellow soldiers, and when chaos insued on the battlefield and you were pretty well on your own it would be your best friend. But the gladius hispanis allowed the legion to fight in a coehisive unit, due to its short size which was none the less deadly for the short but lethal stabs it would produce, though I would imagine this would require more training.

the republican hispaniensis like the Delos type have a lenght between 620 and 760mm, for example some 3rd century CE types vary from 557 to 800mm. not that big a difference if you ask me.

[O'ETAIPOS]

Many (majorty?) celtic longswords are completely unsuitable for stabbing due to rounded tip.

Roman scuttum+gladius combination allowed forming sth like phalanx with the line of closely packed shields. the result was that each solider was very well protected and can reach his enemy almost without exposing himself to attack. You can also slash with gladius - Livy mention even cut off limbs as the wounds romans inflicted on macedonians in early stages of II macedonian war.

On the other hand, if you use slashing longsword you need more free space to allow blade get momentum. Without momentum (for ex if gaul champions penetrated roman line and were swarmed by legionares) the longsword loses almost all its merit.

So in single combat I'd place my bet on celt but in formation with experience equal I'd choose romans

[Charge]

The key is to represent formation vs formation fight. It more seems that represented 1man vs 1man duel..

[macsen rufus]

So in single combat I'd place my bet on celt but in formation with experience equal I'd choose romans

Yay! It took a lot of reading, but eventually someone came up with the obvious answer. To the Celts generally the ethos was biased very much towards single combat. Rome's focus was on disciplined manipular tactics. Two very different weapons suited to two very different styles of warfare. Neither weapon is "better", both are suited to their purpose.

For the Celtic tribes a battle could be decided by a single one-on-one fight. The Romans didn't have the same honour system, and I can't remember which battle in particular but one "famous" Roman victory over the Gauls really boiled down to many of the Gauls seeing - "Oh, look our champion just killed their champion. We've won, let's go home and get pissed". Of course the Romans thought no such thing There was a command sent out to Roman officers to desist from single combats - because they nearly always lost (and anyway what's the point if you don't accept the result as binding in the same way the Celts did?) All of which points to longsword for single combat, gladius (itself a celtic word/weapon btw) for manipular tactics.

[Charge]

because they nearly always lost

bull shit. never heard about Roman (not remember exactly) , that killed gallic chiftain in head-to-head?

[macsen rufus]

Yes - that's WHY you heard about him - he was by far the exception!

[NeoSpartan]

...Sounds convincing.



Gauls at Telamon are not fresh greens I believe... Superiority of Roman arms at Telamon is maybe another one of those Roman boasts I guess...

BTW, out of topic though, wasn't hasta a Roman name for spear and spatha a name for Roman cavalry longsword?

I said CEASER AND IMPERIAL ROMANS!

Telamon was during the Republic..... and they outnumbered and hit the Gauls from the front & back.