The Abandonment of the Gladius for the Spatha - Why?

[stevesarak]

I think the gladius to spatha came about as the quality of the soldier changed. Some of you might disagree with this but I feel that Caesar’s men were probably near the last of the great roman foot soldiers, as proven when Caesar defeated Pompey. Caesar’s men were battle hardened from recent wars; Pompey’s men were excellent roman soldier but lacked the current experience. Pompey used excellent tactics but Caesars men held firm and eventually won the day.
Caesars soldiers were raised in the time of the republic, there style and out look of battle required them to get in close and you might say “Brawlâ€

[Robert Vermaat]

I think the gladius to spatha came about as the quality of the soldier changed. Some of you might disagree with this but I feel that Caesar’s men were probably near the last of the great roman foot soldiers, as proven when Caesar defeated Pompey.

Proven? How so?

[stevesarak]

Pompey charged with his cavalry, but Caesars men held firm, Pompey charged with his men who after getting their noses bloodied ran (yes I’m simplifying it). In their time, it was a disgrace to run, in fact it was more, it was the soldier’s mentality to hold, true there were instances where they did not, but on the whole they held firm. Pompey’s men were the new bread of roman soldiers. If they had held their ground, their superiority in numbers should have won the day considering that both sides had the same training, if you don’t count current hard field experience.
When Caesar fought the Gauls (if I remember correctly), and found himself between two forces with his men being cut down, his men held. He had time to pull his last reserve and charge himself, winning the battle.

[Felix]

Getting back to sword design:

The Mainz and Fulham design blades are both leaf-shaped. This moves the weight of the blade forwards, and increases cutting power. Even though these are both short blades, they probably did cut well. I have owned an Albion Fulham gladius, and it is more of a chopper than a slasher - but very brutal, and I am sure it would have cut flesh and bone quite nicely, if given a chance.

It is noteworthy that the Pompeii gladius has a much less acutely pointed tip than its predecessors. Now, this sword was in use in the heydey of the Empire, with the archetypal cylindrical scutum and segmentata, but its tip is clearly not as well suited for thrusting as earlier models. This is not consistent with a school of swordsmanship that emphasizes the thrust over the cut.

There are other short cutting blades as well. The landsknecht's katzbalger was generally a short broad blade with a rounded tip. The kukri is a very effective close-quarters weapon (and another leaf-blade, by the by) and falls, I think, into the chopping rather than slashing category.

[Matthew]

Heh, heh.

I agree, this is an interesting topic, but looking at the forum archives it must be the third or fourth time it has come up in recent years. The age old Cut or Thrust debate coupled with the why a change from Gladius to Spatha?

My interpretation:

A large part of the discussion comes down to Vegetius and his assertion that Romans of old mocked those who relied on the cut, favouring the thrust.
In my opinion, the key is in understanding the context in which he appears to be writing. He's discussing the reformation of contemporary infantry through ancient examples. There is no clear indication that he makes any distinction between the contemporary sword and the sword used by the ancients. What he means by Gladius, Spatha and Semi Spatha are somewhat open to debate.
He rightly recommends the thrust over the cut as a more effective blow, but does not relate it to any particular sword; he only says it was the practice of the ancients, which we equate with the 'Short Sword', but he may well have made no such connection. Consequently, I would infer that he is recommending using the contemporary 'Spatha' in this way, which implies that he thinks the infantry of his day are relying over much on the cut.
Going back six hundred years or so to the introduction of the 'Spanish Sword' Polybius (relying on a translation http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/polybius6.html ) is clear that it is an effective thrusting and cutting weapon. He also suggests how far apart individuals should be apart from one another to use their Scutum and Gladius effectively. His emphasis is on the flexibility of the Roman Legion over the Macedonian Phalanx.
Apparently, increasing evidence in the archaeological record suggests that this early Gladius had a 27" blade ( http://www.larp.com/legioxx/gladius.html ), which is none too much shorter than the later 'Spatha', 'Migration Sword' or 'Viking Sword', which themselves seem not that different from the Imperial Gladius anyway( http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEqui ... ttack.html ).

In short, I think the situation is a good deal more complicated than a transition from Thrusting Short Sword to Slashing Long Sword. Both 'types' seem to be fully capable of delivering either type of blow, with the thrusting technique being technically favoured. The transition from Short to Long bladed swords is itself a process that is somewhat unclear and also bound up with the continuing debate about the usefulness of the Heavy Pilum as a Spear as well as being dependent on specific tactical considerations, which both vary over time and from theatre to theatre.

Some Cut and Thrust Articles:


http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html

http://www.thearma.org/essays/howacutworks.htm

http://www.thearma.org/essays/hype.htm

Thanks for reading, I look forward to any corrections...


Matthew James Stanham

[Casmin]

Well, I don't know if this relates to the second argument, but Connolly says that the gladius was designed for the use by a smaller man (e.g. Italians) against a bigger man (e.g. Germans).

So when you have two men in the same height range, isn't the man with the gladius left at a disadvantage ?

If you adopt a low stance you can reach your opponent with a shorter weapon even though his is longer. If the legionaries crouched behind their scuta aiming for lower targets (i.e stomach, armpit) this would've allowed them to gain a geometrical advantage despite the sword length difference.

[Theodosius the Great]

Interesting. I really didn't know, which is why I asked. Thanks for the straight answer, Michael. It took only took about three months to get one :lol:

Maybe this question has been discussed before many times like Matthew said.

[Goffredo]

If Connolly's theory is right then the gladius should have phased out when the provincials became the great majority in the legions. There is a possible correlation but a weak one at that, essentially useless. A good theory should make stronger claims and make a credible effort to explain non-trivial things. Connolly has to explain why the Po-valley and southern gaul provincials, the illyrians, the pannonian recruits, that were being recruited more and more as time passed, would be recruited at all it it were awkward for them to use the short gladius designed for short people. Or were just the germans tall. Of course not. Connolly also has to explain why one can find relatively long bronze swords in etruscan and pre-roman italic tombs. This Connolly theory is, in my opinion, quite weak and, quite franckly, banal.

[Alexandr K]

Hi,
I agree with Goffredo. We must also keep in mind, that the Germans weren't the only enemy of Rome. Gladius was certainly used in the East, in Africa etc. Or were the Romans by far the smallest people in the whole Mediterranean?
Greetings
Alexandr

[Tarbicus]

So when you have two men in the same height range, isn't the man with the gladius left at a disadvantage ?

If you adopt a low stance you can reach your opponent with a shorter weapon even though his is longer. If the legionaries crouched behind their scuta aiming for lower targets (i.e stomach, armpit) this would've allowed them to gain a geometrical advantage despite the sword length difference.

This Connolly theory is, in my opinion, quite weak and, quite franckly, banal.

Is it therefore any coincidence that the shorter the gladius became the longer the helmet's neckguard grew as well? Once the spatha became more common - a weapon with longer reach - neckguards shortened again and provided less cover for the shoulders and upper back. Doesn't that support Connolly's theory of the neckguard's evolution and crouching stance, in which there seems to be a relationship between sword and helmet size?

[Goffredo]

My critiscm refers to emphasis on short height of "roman" legionary not to crouching.

[Tarbicus]

But by the 3rd C most actual close combatants were of provincial origin (swords are longer), whereas in earlier days the army was mostly latin (swords were shorter). The former were on average taller than the latter; all makes sense to me.

Changes aren't made overnight, so as the average soldier became taller the swords still grew shorter in keeping with traditional training and tactics, but then the increasing lack of citizen recruits drove the gladius length longer to fit more with the ever increasing height of recruits from the provinces. Those men probably brought with them elements of their own martial traditions which through necessity became more and more accepted by the army, especially if more officers, the decision makers, were also of non-latin provincial origin.

Theoretically.

[Goffredo]

I suggest you visit italian museums where you can see etruscan and pre-roman swords relatively longer than the gladius. Also do not forget that the gladius length was not a constant but got shorter well into the period when northern "italians" from the Po-valley and provincials were quite numerous while the "romans" (latins) were less and less.

I too believe in gradual changes (unless something new forces a major change) but then the height-theory (short roman hence short swords) is embarassingly weak as it does not explain why the length of gladii (plural?) did not simply get longer and longer. Were roman legionaries getting shorter then taller again, or maybe they were selected to be short in the first place, or simply selected if expecially masochistic.

Sorry but the short-roman theory doesn't make sense to me as it doesn't explain why the roman used the gladius for centuries!!!

[Tarbicus]

I suggest you visit italian museums where you can see etruscan and pre-roman swords relatively longer than the gladius.

Absolutely, I know about them, and the early gladii that could be as long as 76cm. But that isolates taller latins as being the mainstream, whereas a more overall view would see the army as being generally shorter. Dismissing the idea that the Italians can't have adopted short swords because some recruits were tall is similar to saying that rifles should eject empty cartridges to the left because some modern recruits are lefthanded. Armies don't work like that; Lefties are still recruited, and if they have a problem with it they'd better learn and train harder, because this is how the Army does it.

We know that commanders and the men were willing to try knew things, and if it was realised that there was more success with "this" method than "that" they would surely continue to use the successful one. I doubt they said "We're shorter so we need to start doing this." But after a battle won no doubt they discussed it afterwards, coming to some logical conclusion.

I dare say that the whole method of group combat and weapon type was influenced in some way by stature; not wholly, but to a degree. Adopting the low crouching stance behind the large shield with a "stab, stab, stab" technique within a usually taller opponent's reach transforms the percieved disadvantage of height into an asset. To me, the most telling thing is that as recruits gradually consisted more and more of past and taller enemies the sword also gradually, with a fully logical delay, grew longer again.

[Matthew]

It's just way too neat a theory for my liking and based on some precarious and generalised assumptions about relative heights of combatants. I have to agree with Goffredo, it's a pretty weak theory, but I admit it's no more proveable or unproveable than any other at the moment.
I would be more inclined to accept it if there were other instances of a relatively shorter people employing relatively shorter swords to fight relatively larger opponents with relatively longer swords (or spears or whatever). I can't think of any offhand, but would be interested to hear of some.