01-16-2006, 09:44 PM
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 ?
And besides, by the late second century I think the barbarians would've learned by now to change their fighting techniques to compensate for the Roman technique of thrusting into exposed abdomens. This is in part because (I think) some barbarians were recruited by the army and later went back to their homes to share what they've learned about how the Romans fought. The other part is, you can only do the same trick so many times before the enemy catches on (on his own) and compensates to not fall prey to it again.
So, I just think the gladius wasn't the asset it once was. In fact, it became a liability.
So when you have two men in the same height range, isn't the man with the gladius left at a disadvantage ?
And besides, by the late second century I think the barbarians would've learned by now to change their fighting techniques to compensate for the Roman technique of thrusting into exposed abdomens. This is in part because (I think) some barbarians were recruited by the army and later went back to their homes to share what they've learned about how the Romans fought. The other part is, you can only do the same trick so many times before the enemy catches on (on his own) and compensates to not fall prey to it again.
So, I just think the gladius wasn't the asset it once was. In fact, it became a liability.
Jaime
