Decline of the gladius

[LegioIIavg]

I have been curious as to why the late roman army moved away from the gladius to a longer sword. I can understand that with a more cavalry centred mobile force the now more numerous mounted troops would need access to more longer swords to use from horseback but we constantly remark that one of the principle attributes of the gladius was its ability to be used efficiently at close quarters. Why then would the infantry give up what had been a very effect weapon for a weapon which, by its nature, utilized the edge of the blade more than the point, something that the romans used to mock their enemies for.

All I can come up with is that maybe those elements of the army that were barbarians and taken on en masse fought with their own weapons and that the majority of the army at this point in time were not romans per se. Any ideas ?.

[Urselius]

The Late Roman infantry moved to a close order type of combat, with locked shields, in formal battlefield situations. In the earlier combat method the 'ball was opened' with one or two volleys of heavy pila then the legionaries charged, with each man then working essentially as an individual warrior using the heavily curved scutum and gladius to fight opponents.

In the later system the front ranks locked shields and presented a hedge of thrusting spears whilst the rear ranks kept up a continual barrage of missiles over the heads of the front rankers. The sword of the soldier is no longer a primary weapon, as with the gladius, it is there for use if the thrusting spear is dropped or broken. If you are in a form of shield-wall then a gladius will not reach far enough forward of the locked shields to cause any harm to the enemy. Also stabbing is virtually impossible in this sort of formation. A primarily cutting sword with a long blade is the logical secondary weapon for this sort of fighting.

[LegioIIavg]

Thanks for the reply. I take your point as you know much more about this than me however your description sounds like they have gone back in time a thousand years and re adopted the phalanx to a degree.

[Urselius]

Thanks for the reply. I take your point as you know much more about this than me however your description sounds like they have gone back in time a thousand years and re adopted the phalanx to a degree.

Or that it was anticipating the Anglo-Saxon 'scild-burh.' It could be a very effective method of fighting; the Battle of Strasbourg resulted a few hundred Roman casualties, whilst the Allemanni lost 6,000!

[Joe_71]

Another theory is that as metalworking technologies advanced, the gladius no longer had to be short if it wanted to maintain its strength. Caesar mentions the long swords of the Gauls bending when hitting the metal rim of the scutum, but over time metalworking improved to the extent strength could be maintained when the sword was lengthened, and that's when we see a move away from the short gladius type.
This ties in quite well with the psychological side of warfare; where soldiers much prefer to engage from a distance than face-to-face.

[SigniferOne]

The Late Roman infantry moved to a close order type of combat, with locked shields, in formal battlefield situations. In the earlier combat method the 'ball was opened' with one or two volleys of heavy pila then the legionaries charged, with each man then working essentially as an individual warrior using the heavily curved scutum and gladius to fight opponents.

I don't understand, isn't it completely the opposite? Long swords are completely useless in close order combat, which is precisely why Gauls who used them for centuries were famous for having a very loose and disorderly way of fighting. By contrast the gladius is very ineffective compared to a large sword when in an open, individual, combat. It becomes only useful when the ranks are closely locked in and when the wild and wide strikes of the enemy bounce off the combined shields.

If you are in a form of shield-wall then a gladius will not reach far enough forward of the locked shields to cause any harm to the enemy. Also stabbing is virtually impossible in this sort of formation.

Why? I have seen plenty of reenactors do quite well in stabbing while at the same time keeping close formation. In fact the stabbing motion is the only possible movement during close-order, while slashing is impossible. And likewise in a loose and open order, slashing becomes viable and stabbing is the weaker option. That's why the loose and disorderly armies of the Gauls often didn't even have points on their swords.

[A_Volpe]

Another theory has more to do with ethnic makeup and current fashions trends as to why a longer sword becomes favored in the 200's AD onwards. With the massive expansion of the Empire incorporating more and more people from farther and farther foreign borders, who were also joining the ranks of the military in probably larger numbers - or - having their children being recruited into the army.

It could just as well be that the Romans were 'adopting/adapting' to what they were seeing as a popular style of fighting, inasmuch as they were having the 'barbaric' soldiers bringing in more of their 'native' weapons and tactics.

I don't think we have any definitive answers as to why and when the gladius goes out of style. It could just be that it goes literally out of style or fashion.

[Urselius]

The Late Roman infantry moved to a close order type of combat, with locked shields, in formal battlefield situations. In the earlier combat method the 'ball was opened' with one or two volleys of heavy pila then the legionaries charged, with each man then working essentially as an individual warrior using the heavily curved scutum and gladius to fight opponents.

I don't understand, isn't it completely the opposite? Long swords are completely useless in close order combat, which is precisely why Gauls who used them for centuries were famous for having a very loose and disorderly way of fighting. By contrast the gladius is very ineffective compared to a large sword when in an open, individual, combat. It becomes only useful when the ranks are closely locked in and when the wild and wide strikes of the enemy bounce off the combined shields.

If you are in a form of shield-wall then a gladius will not reach far enough forward of the locked shields to cause any harm to the enemy. Also stabbing is virtually impossible in this sort of formation.

Why? I have seen plenty of reenactors do quite well in stabbing while at the same time keeping close formation. In fact the stabbing motion is the only possible movement during close-order, while slashing is impossible. And likewise in a loose and open order, slashing becomes viable and stabbing is the weaker option. That's why the loose and disorderly armies of the Gauls often didn't even have points on their swords.

There is a difference between a shield wall, with overlapping shields and merely close-order. With straight sided scuta if you overlap your shields (difficult due to their convexity) there is no room for a sword to be used at all. This is why the testudo was just a way of moving under missile fire, whilst the Late Roman shield wall could be used in close combat situations - the curved sides of the shields allowed spears to be thust though the v shaped notches formed in the overlap.

Soldiers armed with straight sided legionary scuta need to open a gap between their shields in order to use a short stabbing sword, there is no way around this geometrical limitation. However, in a Late Roman shield wall there is little ability to open up the shields in order to deploy a short stabbing sword, open up a gap and your next-door neighbour in the line becomes vulnerable, and the psychological working of the whole formation is based on trusting those near you to cover you with parts of their shields. Consider then, you break your spear or it is knocked out of your grasp, a short stabbing sword would be useless to you in a shield wall, the extra reach of a longer sword, though far less useful than the reach of a spear, will give you some chance of striking the enemy over the top if the interlocked shields. A spatha as a side-arm is better than nothing. A gladius in the same circumstances would be as bad as having nothing.

[Conal]

I don't understand, isn't it completely the opposite? Long swords are completely useless in close order combat, which is precisely why Gauls who used them for centuries were famous for having a very loose and disorderly way of fighting. By contrast the gladius is very ineffective compared to a large sword when in an open, individual, combat. It becomes only useful when the ranks are closely locked in and when the wild and wide strikes of the enemy bounce off the combined shields.

The Gallic sword was on a par with Roman swords right up until late antiquity. At their hiatus as conquerors the Gaulish swords were 60-65cm in blade length ... Hispanienis size. Dont believe all you read about Celtic long swords only being useful for slashing ... or the bent sword propopganda ... they did ther best work with a relatively short cut and thrust sword.

Why? I have seen plenty of reenactors do quite well in stabbing while at the same time keeping close formation. In fact the stabbing motion is the only possible movement during close-order, while slashing is impossible. And likewise in a loose and open order, slashing becomes viable and stabbing is the weaker option. That's why the loose and disorderly armies of the Gauls often didn't even have points on their swords.

The blunt pointed Celtic sword is somewhat of a false lead when talking of infantry tactics as they were in a small minority as most late Celtic swords have very viable points ....the long blunt examples (and they tend to be the longer ones) were most probably cavalry weapons as the length of Celtic swords rose with their increased use of cavalry (as bigger horses became available) after dumping chariots as transport into battle.

It seems quite daft to me that it has in the past, and continues to be, assumed that a sword with a blade of 90cm would have been used as an infantry weapon.

You might like to reassess your view that Gallic armies were inherantly disorderly ... they held their own for quite a long time so taking this as read can be counterproductive. Take a look at Ceasar's battle at Gergovia .... he effectively lost that one ... the Gauls were just not as good as the Romans ... but then who was at their height????

[Marcus Mummius]

Thanks for the reply. I take your point as you know much more about this than me however your description sounds like they have gone back in time a thousand years and re adopted the phalanx to a degree.

Some fashions come and go...and come back again: