spatha or gladius?

[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:

[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.