spatha or gladius?

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

In my mind you are not offtopic Bucefalo because the thing you ve say it's very true (also if it's a game).
With spatha you can't bring a rectangular shield, you can only bring a oval shield and this second give you less protection to arrow or low attak.
I think the massive use of armour in Middle Ages was naturally conseguence of use of oval shields, then the long sword.
This shows that the majority of medieval troops had little discipline and little value.
For bring rectangular shield and gladius effectively must be well trained and know how to act in harmony with the companion you are next.
This is according to me the secret of strength of ancient legions than the post Constantine legions.

[machinor]

I think that the assumption, that medieval troops had little discipline and value on the battlefield is quite a wild generalization. First of all, the Middle Ages are quite a long time period in which there were quite some changes of equipment. Secondly feudal knights or men-at-arms were professional fighters much like ancient professional armies if not even more professional since they were trained from childhood on. Sure, they had a different battle doctrine than the rectangular-shield-Romans, but that does not mean that they are less capable. You're comparing two different kind of battlefield tactics that are more than 1000 years apart. It's not like people didn't invent new weapons and equipment in that time. Apart from that, there still existed shieldwall-formations in Medieval times.
Furthermore I think the contrary concept is accurate. The more and more heavy Medieval armour was not a consequence of the use of oval or non-rectangular shield-forms but the other way around: ancient soldiers tended to have large shields because they were not able to produce such high quality armour like in the Middle ages. As soon as almost full body plate armour was available the shield became obsolete and vanished more or less. After all it is quite handy in melee combat if you can afford to use both hands for fighting instead of only one.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, it depends on the period. The shield dropped out of favor when you had the proliferation of large plate and large pole weapons to defeat plate. After firearms appeared though, shields saw a small revival in sword and buckler men.

Stationary large pavise-style shields were used throughout the period.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In my mind you are not offtopic Bucefalo because the thing you ve say it's very true (also if it's a game).
With spatha you can't bring a rectangular shield, you can only bring a oval shield and this second give you less protection to arrow or low attak.
I think the massive use of armour in Middle Ages was naturally conseguence of use of oval shields, then the long sword.
This shows that the majority of medieval troops had little discipline and little value.
For bring rectangular shield and gladius effectively must be well trained and know how to act in harmony with the companion you are next.
This is according to me the secret of strength of ancient legions than the post Constantine legions.

The Spatha was in use at the same time as the rectangular tower shield for about a century.

So I'm afraid none of that held up.

[Aper]

Aulus, you are FAAAAAAAAAAR too much simplicistic in your view of history, especially military history.
My god, I don't even know were to start... No offense here, but all you wrote in this thread is completely crap & obsolete & wrong.
Read carefully the replies (some very good infos here), study some NOT OUTDATED history books (academic, not history channel stuff, maybe your next university can be of help) and maybe try some practice with qualified medieval fencing master, before throwing s**t on the longsword and the knights, and posting odd theories with that bold attitude, thanks.
I know I have been quite rude, but it was necessary, trust me.

some links I hope you'll find useful

http://www.warfare.it/tattiche/costa...entiniano.html
http://www.warfare.it/tattiche/presu...edioevale.html
http://www.thearma.org/essays.htm
http://www.scherma-antica.org
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=70698

As I guess you are italian, if you want to understand better medieval warfare try the books of Aldo Settia, he is the greatest italian autorithy in middle ages military history IMHO.

Regards

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Dear Aper, I read with great interest your documentation.
I have always interest to enrich my knowledge.

But what makes you think that my sources are outdated, and your sources are the truth?

I do not believe that anything I say is "cast gold"(as they say here in italy), I say to discuss and exchange information and opinions, freely and with respect.
I and anyone: we do not have the presumption to know everything, but we interact with others for answers, start provocations, laugh together.

Have you perhaps the presumption to be infallible?
I this case, I thank you for your information, but avoids trashing everything in advance that he disagrees with your ideas.
Here we discuss togheter! do not criticize others! we have respect for people!
This last thing that we do not learn from books, unfortunately for you.

all regards to your respectable person

[Aper]

But what makes you think that my sources are outdated, and your sources are the truth?
I do not believe that anything I say is "cast gold"(as they say here in italy), I say to discuss and exchange information and opinions, freely and with respect.
Have you perhaps the presumption to be infallible?
I this case, I thank you for your information, but avoids trashing everything in advance that he disagrees with your ideas.

I apologize for my manners, if I can't control myself maybe I should avoid posting.
Btw, I didn't posted "my ideas" as you say, I simply suggested you the opinions of well known experts, based on facts and research, that in most cases I checked myself in many years of hard studying (I'm getting a II level degree in Archeology and I have years of practice of medieval and renaissance real fencing, not for show, based on ancient treatises like that of Fiore de' Liberi, Filippo Vadi, Achille Marozzo, and many others).
My criticism comes from my studies, and more than suggesting you links and books to see by yourself what I mean, I cannot do, because an internet discussion like this always end like "my idea vs. your".
If you are interested, I'll post or send you by PM the material I wrote about: I'm italian too, so I can suggest you some books in our language, easier to read (like that of Settia).

Basically, I can say some time ago like you I enjoyed a lot of "black vs. white: what's the best?" or like we say in Italy "what's the gender of angels?" questions: I slowly understood that this is pure nonsense, reality is far more complex and interesting than some fanboysh simplicistic theories, and if you want a real answer you have to spend much time on actual evidences before cry "this is common sense!" around... About the sword, what make you think that 10-20 cm of difference in blades made spatha and gladius so dramatically different to decide the fate of a centuries old empire? Different weapon, different fencing, what make an army successful have little to do with the weapon of choice... The small increase in lenght of the longsword didn't prevent it to be used with great success in dense formations for a millennium, but here's the funny part, when you say "solduros, rycalawre, etc. have longsword, so the EB team is wrong giving them a close and dense formation." What? Only because your prejudices tells you that a longsword cannot, never, be used in tight formations, this should make the professionals historians of the EB team and the evidences spread from La Tene culture to late middle ages wrong??? This is what made me angry, nothing personal, but this is a most dangerous attitude in proper understanding of history.

gladius:




spatha:

Look at that images: you say someone told you the spatha was primarily a slashing weapon: well, judging from that long, narrow blade, I say it probaly was a better thruster than the gladius, more agile and with a better reach, while the gladius seems more like a butcher cleaver...

About the shields, AFAIK people in history made shield-walls with an infinite variety of protective tools, for an amateur it's hard to say the Thyreos (oval shield) was unsuitable for the task, considering that the EB team historians included in game some descriptions stating otherwise. And BTW it was not the only shield they used... and maybe the less suitable was really the scutum, its shape preventing legionaries overlapping them... the only prerequisite for a solid shieldwall.

About the late roman army being a bunch of smelling barbarians... ... ... ... I don't really know what to say, the practice of recruiting germanic mercenaries, probably increased over time due to the lack of manpower, but you should take in account that there was not a great difference between western and eastern regular roman army, the eastern one was plenty of germanic recruits too, but it remained for centuries the most refined and effective military force in europe and middle east, so...

An interesting article about gross generalizations regarding the actual way of fighting with a sword
http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html

Cheers

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Ah sei italiano? Di dove?
Sono felice se mi dai documentazine a riguardo, ma non in PM, meglio qui: così tuuti possono vederla.

Polibio (II, 33):
“…I tribuni…avevano osservato nelle battaglie precedenti che i Galli in genere sono più temibili per il loro coraggio al primo assalto, finchè sono freschi, e che le loro spade sono costruite in modo da avere efficace solo il primo colpo di taglio: infatti si rovinano facilmente, ripiegandosi tanto nel senso della lunghezza che in quello della larghezza. E se non si dà il modo ai soldati di raddrizzarle col piede piantandole per terra, il secondo colpo risulta del tutto inutile…”

On the alleged superiority of the Celtic blacksmiths.


I am not an archaeologist and then by not speaking archaeologist.
now you talk to workers.

-I hold with my right arm a tube that weighs 6 kg and is 0.8 m long.
-With her left arm supporting a rectangular sheet.
-Now, if I want to lead a coup cut from left to right is necessary to rotate the tube above my head.
-If instead I want to sink to the right or hit the cut I have to do a broad movement to harness the centrifugal force of my pipe, otherwise my shot is pretty weak.
-These movements are quite difficult to repeat, will also portray the tube sank after a long time use (the good old inertia force), during this time, I have found my right side completely exposed to the enemy.
To harness the centrifugal force of the tube, must also do ample movements and leave open the right side.
For this reason, in a dense formation is easier than I wound my companion, who is beside me, compared to the enemy that stands before me (and Solduros died).

With a 4 kg weighs and 0.6 m long pipe I do not have these problems: I am less tired and my sink is rapid. the retreat of the tube is fast and is back in comfortable position to defend themselves.

This is simple mechanics, and common sense. You do not to hear a scholar of history to need it.

Remember that the fencing has nothing in common with a battle: fear and fatigue do not allow the soldiers to be casual and take precise attacks.
Is much more convenient to carry simple attacks and take as much as possible closed defense.

Read this it's more interestig debate (especially what say Flavius and Rufus):

http://www.contubernium.it/modules.p...iewtopic&p=468

Other sources:

http://italia.novaroma.org/arsmilitaris/telum.htm
http://www.roma-victrix.com/armamentarium/pvgiones.htm

See you again

[Mediolanicus]

This is [...] common sense.

Since when did history become common sense?

[Aper]

Polibio (II, 33):
“…I tribuni…avevano osservato nelle battaglie precedenti che i Galli in genere sono più temibili per il loro coraggio al primo assalto, finchè sono freschi, e che le loro spade sono costruite in modo da avere efficace solo il primo colpo di taglio: infatti si rovinano facilmente, ripiegandosi tanto nel senso della lunghezza che in quello della larghezza. E se non si dà il modo ai soldati di raddrizzarle col piede piantandole per terra, il secondo colpo risulta del tutto inutile…”

On the alleged superiority of the Celtic blacksmiths.

I miss the point: why a single, ROMANOPHILE, reference, should be taken as absolute truth?
Aulus, here there are people who devote their life to the study of history, and know far more you or me (I'm just a student) can imagine, trust me I know from bitter experience, don't be disrespectful.
About celtic smith, remember, every weapon is made for a purpose, it's stupid to speak of superiority of inferiority: for example, celtic sword were made in a world that know little body protections, and so probably the average weapon was forged using a quite soft steel, that is more prone to bend impacting hard targets, but is less prone to break like harder ones.
And BTW, there was enormous difference between the quality of the sword: the more money you had, the better you got, like today.

As early as 700 BC, the Celts were forging weapons, both spears and swords, by piling on layers of iron and forging the whole mess. This process continually improved until by 500 AD excellent pattern-welded swords were being made. In this process, bundles of carburized iron bars were welded together, and then a hard steel edge was welded on. This produced a sword, usually double-edged, with a soft, resilient body and a hard edge. The sword was flat, rather thin, quite light and flexible. Weight was in the area of 28 to 40 ounces.

This method produced blades almost as good as Damascus ones, and surely the romans had nothing like this.

-I hold with my right arm a tube that weighs 6 kg and is 0.8 m long.
-With her left arm supporting a rectangular sheet.
-Now, if I want to lead a coup cut from left to right is necessary to rotate the tube above my head.
-If instead I want to sink to the right or hit the cut I have to do a broad movement to harness the centrifugal force of my pipe, otherwise my shot is pretty weak.
-These movements are quite difficult to repeat, will also portray the tube sank after a long time use (the good old inertia force), during this time, I have found my right side completely exposed to the enemy.
To harness the centrifugal force of the tube, must also do ample movements and leave open the right side.
For this reason, in a dense formation is easier than I wound my companion, who is beside me, compared to the enemy that stands before me (and Solduros died).

With a 4 kg weighs and 0.6 m long pipe I do not have these problems: I am less tired and my sink is rapid. the retreat of the tube is fast and is back in comfortable position to defend themselves.

This is simple mechanics, and common sense. You do not to hear a scholar of history to need it.

This is what I mean: please, don't take this as an offense, but you know absolutely nothing about swords. Follow my suggestion, speak with a good ancient fencing master, or with a scholar who cares about military history (they are very few).
1) As already pointed out, a one-hand sword had a maximum weight of 2 kg, so your experiment is just meaningless.
2) The weight of the sword is absolutely secondary in comparison with balance.
a sword is all about balance, if you have the chance, look for an ancient and medieval weapons vendor, and tell him to hold in hand swords of different quality, you'll see the better ones seems far lighter, even if they should actually be heavier.
And take in account, that few swordsmith in the world can reach the level of skill of medieval ones, according to comparisons made between the best modern replicas and the best museum longsword: that masterpieces seems to almost have life, modern swordsmasters say.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm

Remember that the fencing has nothing in common with a battle: fear and fatigue do not allow the soldiers to be casual and take precise attacks.
Is much more convenient to carry simple attacks and take as much as possible closed defense.

Yeah, so weapon training is useless, and Marius (and others) called swordmasters from the schools of gladiators to train legionaries because he was dumb.
In battle, you cannot surely use perfect academic techniques, but an expert fencer who trains with war weapons, like ancient and medieval fencers did, and not with specialized civilian dueling ones, as modern, have surely an immense advantage. I repeat myself, try some ancient fencing with qualified masters, some practice is far more important than a thousand words.

Ok, maybe I have been again disrespectful to you, and I'm very sorry, but this stuff is my life, and I get passionate quickly.
I apologize again, and thanks for the links.

BTW, sono della provincia di Genova, a nasty roman-hater Ligurian

Regards

EDIT: After a quick reading of the posts of "Contubernium" I can say my "prejudices" are confirmed: someone have real, documented, knowledge about some arguments, but have very odd ideas about others! for example, R. in the middle of an interesting and informative post says "the hoplite is the maximum expression of individual, disordered valor" ...
This is the subtle danger of homemade studies, usually books in the libraries are very very different in their scientific value, and are far inferior to academic ones, so it's almost unavoidable to fall in gross misinterpretation.

Look, I'm not saying that if you aren't academic you are comndemned to know nothing, you can just take a day of free time, go to the university, search for a good bibliography, and buy books that you are quite sure to be trustworthy, and that come from recent researches.

Forum interessante, comunque, grazie!

EDIT 2: a very important point not already taken in account: the critics of references. Reading the Roma Victrix site, I see that is common knowledge that most Gladii measured 60-80 cm: how much do you think late roman and medieval infantry spathae were long? Actually, there were little difference in the lenght of the 2 weapons! Longer swords are cavalry swords, medieval weapons confirm this: 100 cm of blade lenght is more typical of a bastard sword (used almost always with 2 hands), than of a medieval sword adept to be used with a shield! I fear our discussion comes from a misinterpretation of terminology...

[geala]

I would like to second the warnings to be not too oversimplicistic. When you look closer to medieval warfare you can find an astonishing amount of sophistication.

When you speak of the steel armour of the later middle ages as the main reason for the abandonement of large shields you should take into account that the percentage of warriors with such armour was always relatively low.

The development of the use of shields and weapons was always influenced by different political and social reasons and coincidence. The early Confederates f.e. in the 14th c. AD used mainly heavy two handed axe like weapons (halberds)which had connections with rural tools. They scarcely used shields although the use of armour was very rare. If they had had another tradition they might also have used strong longbows or big shields, swords and javelins.



Edit to Aulus: I just saw your last post too late. What do you mean with a 6 kg and 4 kg tube? The swords or the shields? The longest one handed longswords were by far lighter, between 0,8 to 2 kg, but more near 1 to 1,5 kg. The high medieval knights with large kite shields and long single handed swords were at least often able to fight in close formations on foot. I think the Celts and Germanics were too.

To Polybios: two theories, firstly perhaps he confused infos about Celtic sword sacrifices (deliberately bent swords) with battle use or, secondly and more probable, there was a wide span of quality with Celtic (and Roman) swords. I'm not a specialist for Celtic or Roman weapons but I know that there are quite a lot archaeological findings of Celtic swords with very good steel quality.