Why change to the Spatha?

[Paullus Scipio]

Davide said:-

If I remember correctly the Gauls make fun of Roman short stature not sword in Atuatuca siege after Sambre battle.

Caesar,"Gallic War" II.30
(referring to the Romans efforts to bring up a siege tower) "... By what handiwork, they said, by what strength could men, especially of so puny a stature hope to set so heavy a tower against the wall ( for, as a rule, our stature, short by comparison with their own huge physique is despised by the Gauls)..."

[Felix]

Swords go with shields, at least up to the late Middle Ages. To evaluate the sword change, it is important to look at the shield. The Roman shield also changes in the later period, from the deeply curved oblong or rectangular type to a more shallowly dished, nearly circular shield. These shields also behave quite differently from each other. Steven Hand published two papers in Spada I and II with some very exciting ideas about the uses of these shield types.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

we have Caesar's comment that the Gauls made fun of the Roman 'short sword'.

If I remember correctly the Gauls make fun of Roman short stature not sword in Atuatuca siege after Sambre battle.

I hope that's true. I only have the most vague of recollections of the passage, but if it is the stature of the Romans, rather than the length of their swords, then I would be pleased.

Matthew James Stanham

Yeah well, those short ba$£rds still kicked their asses!! :lol:
Sometimes, size isn't so important.... :wink:

[Matthew Amt]

It could also be the mentality of the fighter. During the time of the republic, they didn’t really have professional soldiers with a tour of duty, men were called up when needed. Their style of fighting also reflected the period they lived in. Their style was more brutal, there philosophy of fighting was simple, there are certain spots on the body that when punctured, kills or immobilizes an opponent...

Wellllllll..... That may be stretching things a little. During the Republic, after all, the sword was the *longer* gladius hispaniensis. It was only with the professional army of Caesar's era and after that the shorter blades come into use. I do agree that a shorter blade encourages aggression! But a longer blade doesn't necessarily make one a wimp, and maybe in the later Empire they liked the intimidation factor of longer blades.

And don’t forget that that during the imperial age, the enemy had improved its armor after repeated decades of loses

Had they? Didn't the enemies of the 3rd and 4th centuries include mainly Germanic and Gothic people with little or no armor? The late Republican foes included many Hellenistic cultures with at least their front-rankers armored (Macedonia, Pontus, Carthage, etc.). Also bear in mind that Romans simply did not win all the time! So there were plenty of enemies on all sides who felt that going to war with the Romans was not suicidal, whatever the armor and weapons involved.

and the great killing weapon, and Gladius had a more narrow pointed tip that could break off easier in battle, while the Spatha could withstand more punishment.

But they wouldn't bother to hit anyone in the armor--the idea is to strike at the UNarmored parts! If you have to hit armor, you don't use a sword, you use a mace or a pick of some sort.

Put these two together, and you get the legionary with years of service, that learns to attacks and fight with a style acquired from years of fighting, now with a weapon that still allows them to get in close and kill but doesn’t force them to get right up into their opponents faces.

Sounds like you're saying that it took them 300 years to figure out a better way to fight? AFTER giving up the longer hispaniensis and THEN conquering the Gauls who were most famed for their long swords? Hmmm, I don't think so. I still say it was mostly--mostly!--a fashion change.

Valete,

Matthew

[Tarbicus]

But wasn't the mainstay of the Roman military by this time pretty much Germanic and Gallic? Not so much "fashionable", but more "traditional"?

[Natuspardo]

Steven Hand published two papers in Spada I and II with some very exciting ideas about the uses of these shield types.

Could you please tell the main ideas? I dont know the articles.

Thank you very much!

[Felix]

Basically, when two fighters are confronting each other, a shield can be used as an offensive weapon, as you know. A deeply curved shield gives excellent protection, and the fighter stands within the curve of the shield. Its offensive use lies in striking with the lower edge, or with the curved face of the shield. The sword arm is quite vulnerable when extended in front of this shield type.

A flatter shield was often not held before the body, but angled to the left and partly extended. It could be used to strike or hook with the bottom edge, the leading (right) edge, or even backhand with the left edge. It can be extended to protect the sword arm when the sword arm is stretched out; an altogether more dynamic method of fighting.

[stevesarak]

Wellllllll..... That may be stretching things a little. During the Republic, after all, the sword was the *longer* gladius hispaniensis. It was only with the professional army of Caesar's era and after that the shorter blades come into use. I do agree that a shorter blade encourages aggression! But a longer blade doesn't necessarily make one a wimp, and maybe in the later Empire they liked the intimidation factor of longer blades.

Matthew, I think you missed my point. I never said that longer blades makes one a wimp, I was saying that an experienced fighter will use their head more, they don’t just blindly go charging in, or at least not to many times. A longer blade give one a chance to maneuver a little more and use a little more defense as well as offense. To emphasize my point, you and a sparring partner trying using a small rubber knife and go at it. It’s a totally different type of fighting, then using a sword. With a sword, you have the advantage of being able to use a little strategy, or technique, to get in and deliver the killing blow. And of course I’m not saying that the Gladius was like a knife, but you get my point.

Had they? Didn't the enemies of the 3rd and 4th centuries include mainly Germanic and Gothic people with little or no armor? The late Republican foes included many Hellenistic cultures with at least their front-rankers armored (Macedonia, Pontus, Carthage, etc.). Also bear in mind that Romans simply did not win all the time! So there were plenty of enemies on all sides who felt that going to war with the Romans was not suicidal, whatever the armor and weapons involved.

When your fitting your army, you certainly don’t think about the soldiers with the weakest armor, you plan on going against the strongest, or at least keep in mind the trend where the armor’s headed. True most of Rome’s enemies at the time wore nothing more then blue paint, but that’s not the focus when your fitting your legions for battle, you think of the what gives you the biggest problems, then plan against it, the rest, (shirtless enemies) are gravy. I think a smart general or whoever had the voice of how to best equip the legions, planed against the 10% of the enemies that was the hardest to kill, rather then the 90% that relied on numbers.

But they wouldn't bother to hit anyone in the armor--the idea is to strike at the UNarmored parts! If you have to hit armor, you don't use a sword, you use a mace or a pick of some sort.

As all of us knows, in the heat of battle, your opponent doesn’t always respect your wish to kill him and stand still so you can deliver that nice sweet shot. During the battle, he’s trying to avoid you as your trying to kill him, and sometimes your shot doesn’t always go where you’d like. How would you like your opponent to have crouched down a bit as he was trying to avoided a face shot, then you go for the neck, and slide the tip of your sword into a loop of his armor or imbed into a primitive chest plate made up of strips of wood, then he suddenly stands up, scared by your shot, and oops, their goes the tip of the Gladius. Sure your going to get pissed and kill him anyway, but you now have a sword with a broken tip. My point is that your shot doens't alway go where its planed.

And what do you mean, “If you have to hit armor, you don't use a swordâ€

[Matthew Amt]

Matthew, I think you missed my point. I never said that longer blades makes one a wimp...

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you had implied that!

...I was saying that an experienced fighter will use their head more, they don’t just blindly go charging in, or at least not to many times.

Sure, no problem there. Though there would be experienced fighters in any era, regardless of the weapons. And there's no evidence that veterans *selected* longer weapons just because of a more cautious approach. (I don't think we can count Republican triarii here, since they were apparently spear-armed to be able to serve better as a holding force.) Of course, there would always be at least a few cautious or timid newbies, and veterans who had decided that being more aggressive gave one an advantage sometimes. Check out the description of the battle of Forum Gallorum, fought between veteran legions, it's fascinating.

A longer blade give one a chance to maneuver a little more and use a little more defense as well as offense. To emphasize my point, you and a sparring partner trying using a small rubber knife and go at it. It’s a totally different type of fighting, then using a sword. With a sword, you have the advantage of being able to use a little strategy, or technique, to get in and deliver the killing blow. And of course I’m not saying that the Gladius was like a knife, but you get my point.

Fair enough. A longer blade gives you more options, more effective cuts if nothing else. Though I remember from my days of padded weapon combat years ago that I was always very aggressive with sword and shield, charging right in to bash and swing. Whereas going one-on-one with daggers against an opponent who I knew was good, I was much more cautious and focused, knowing that I would probably have only one chance to nail him before getting killed. (Nailed him twice in a row, in fact, to both our surprises!)

When your fitting your army, you certainly don’t think about the soldiers with the weakest armor, you plan on going against the strongest, or at least keep in mind the trend where the armor’s headed. True most of Rome’s enemies at the time wore nothing more then blue paint, but that’s not the focus when your fitting your legions for battle, you think of the what gives you the biggest problems, then plan against it, the rest, (shirtless enemies) are gravy. I think a smart general or whoever had the voice of how to best equip the legions, planed against the 10% of the enemies that was the hardest to kill, rather then the 90% that relied on numbers.

But we have no indication that they thought this way, do we? Equipment doesn't seem to have changed significantly (functionally, I mean) for hundreds of years, regardless of the region or opponents. Short swords had been in use since 1500 BC. Tactics were flexible to suit terrain and different foes, and generals would try to assure they had good auxiliary and allied backup (cavalry, etc.). But the Dacian campaign is about the only time I know of where we *think* the Romans actually altered the regular gear in response to a particular weapon. Oh, you could count Caesar's troops at Dyrrhachium, making padded coats to protect against arrows, but they seem to have done that on their own. And both of those are protection in response to weapons, not the other way around.

As all of us knows, in the heat of battle, your opponent doesn’t always respect your wish to kill him and stand still so you can deliver that nice sweet shot. During the battle, he’s trying to avoid you as your trying to kill him, and sometimes your shot doesn’t always go where you’d like. How would you like your opponent to have crouched down a bit as he was trying to avoided a face shot, then you go for the neck, and slide the tip of your sword into a loop of his armor or imbed into a primitive chest plate made up of strips of wood, then he suddenly stands up, scared by your shot, and oops, their goes the tip of the Gladius. Sure your going to get pissed and kill him anyway, but you now have a sword with a broken tip. My point is that your shot doens't alway go where its planed.

Well, okay, I think I can see what you're getting at. But the main obstacle would be the shield. If I could get around that and punch low and quickly at his groin, I wouldn't think it was too likely that he could crouch fast enough for me to hit his cuirass. Of course, he'd be hoping and praying just the opposite! Sure, nothing is certain in battle. But again, what I'm saying is that if the tip of a gladius is that vulnerable, there's no way it would have taken them THAT long to figure it out!

What's the "primitive chest plate made up of strips of wood"? Never heard of that one!

[quote]And what do you mean, “If you have to hit armor, you don't use a swordâ€

[stevesarak]

It was just a different way of fighting which they gradually adopted.

Yes, that’s my point, even though it may have taken me a bit to get there. The weapon is usually a reflection of the fighting style of the warrior.

Thanks, it’s always nice to discuss ideas back and forth.

[Matthew]

we have Caesar's comment that the Gauls made fun of the Roman 'short sword'.

If I remember correctly the Gauls make fun of Roman short stature not sword in Atuatuca siege after Sambre battle.

I hope that's true. I only have the most vague of recollections of the passage, but if it is the stature of the Romans, rather than the length of their swords, then I would be pleased.

Yeah well, those short ba$£rds still kicked their asses!! :lol:
Sometimes, size isn't so important.... :wink:

Or so Caesar would like to have us believe... :twisted: Of course, even Caesar didn't enjoy universal success and supposedly relied a fair bit on tall blokes on horses...

Matthew James Stanham

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Or so some people like to say :twisted: :lol:

[Tarbicus]

Matthew Amt\\n[quote][quote]And what do you mean, “If you have to hit armor, you don't use a swordâ€

[Hugh Fuller]

If you can consider Patrick Barta's Roman Riding Sword, No. 102, a spatha, then I can compare a hand-smithed spatha against some of the factory made reproduction spathae. The Barta sword, while definitely blade heavy as you would expect of a slashing sword, is not anywhere near as blade heavy as the very early Depeeka Koln Spatha that I played with. In comparison, the Koln Spatha felt like a crowbar. it was terribly unbalanced and I have wondered if Depeeka has improved it any. There is one other copy of the Koln Spatha that I have played with, I cannot remember whose it was, and it exhibited much the same balance problems as the Depeeka. They both made the Barta sword seem a lightweight dream to handle.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Wel, you can say the same for their mainz in comparison to Albions...ones a cudgel, the latters are warriors tools!