Is the Short Sword and Shield Overrated?

[Matthew Amt]

Evidently, of the 1500 years the Roman Empire (meaning having an Emperor), 1200 years it was defended by a long sword :?

I won't be so crass as to suggest that for those first 300 years the Empire expanded, but after they changed to a long sword it only contracted!

All joking aside, this is probably going to end up much like the debate of why mail replaced lorica segmentata. Bottom line, we simply don't know, but we have to assume that whatever they used must have seemed adequate to them. It simply doesn't take a hundred years to figure out that something is significantly wrong with your weaponry! Sure, subtle tactical considerations were probably part of it. FASHION may have been a factor as well--never underestimate it! The entire ethnic makeup of the army was changing, along with the look of its clothing and gear.

Henry, if Romans were the only culture to use short swords so heavily, so what? Maybe it's a weapon which simply takes a lot of training and discipline to use effectively. (Which is not to be saying that the later Roman army lacked training!) We also know that the Romans were very aggressive in combat, with the men personally competing with each other to display courage and virtus. (Read Jon Lendon's "Soldiers and Ghosts" on this one, it completely changed the way I visualize a Roman army in combat!) A shorter sword encourages up-close aggression and a very in-your-face attitude which is very intimidating.

Late! Gotta go. Valete,

Matthew