11-06-2008, 07:45 PM
It is interesting to read about the changes that lead to the fulcum, since my primary interest is in the hoplite phalanx. A couple of points:
The sword of the hoplite became shorter as the phalanx became deeper, presumably correlating with more pushing and belly to belly combat.
My understanding of the fulcum comes wholly from Rance's paper, so any other opinions are welcome, but he describes the formation as shields ovelapping to the boss and possibly in two levels. This is a very different formation that a hoplite phalanx or a simple one-rank shield wall with round shields. Even oval shields would provide little in the way of a "v" at the top to fight over in a fulcum.
It would seem to me that the gladius evolved as a weapon specifically tied to a type of infighting against mostly spear armed opponents. Once Romans became the Romans most common and dangerous foe, they did not have this specific advantage with a small sword. Add to this that infighting is quite intimidating (I'd rather be in a sword fight than a knife fight any day!).
Then there is fashion. As spatha armed cavalry became recognized as superior troops, do you really want to walk around with a sword half the size? The threat to manhood is obvious :wink:
The sword of the hoplite became shorter as the phalanx became deeper, presumably correlating with more pushing and belly to belly combat.
My understanding of the fulcum comes wholly from Rance's paper, so any other opinions are welcome, but he describes the formation as shields ovelapping to the boss and possibly in two levels. This is a very different formation that a hoplite phalanx or a simple one-rank shield wall with round shields. Even oval shields would provide little in the way of a "v" at the top to fight over in a fulcum.
It would seem to me that the gladius evolved as a weapon specifically tied to a type of infighting against mostly spear armed opponents. Once Romans became the Romans most common and dangerous foe, they did not have this specific advantage with a small sword. Add to this that infighting is quite intimidating (I'd rather be in a sword fight than a knife fight any day!).
Then there is fashion. As spatha armed cavalry became recognized as superior troops, do you really want to walk around with a sword half the size? The threat to manhood is obvious :wink:
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
