spatha or gladius?

[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.

[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...

[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....

[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:




spatha: