08-29-2016, 11:43 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtJS1MziI98
In this video, he makes a very good point. Mail is primarily countered by thrusting swords, but not just any thrusting swords. The tip has to be extremely acute, to the point that it's able to slip into a ring, then tapered enough to allow it to split the ring open, allowing the sword to penetrate.
A sword without an acute/tapered point cannot penetrate mail, and will just mash rings together and be as ineffective as slashing. So, we know the Romans used mail around 500 BC and adopted the Gladius around the 3rd century BC from some outside source, maybe soldiers from Gaul or Carthage.
I see this is a primary feature of the Gladius:
![[Image: gladius_point.jpg]](http://arlinn-tower.com/Tinkers_shop/pics_gladius/gladius_point.jpg)
Here's a Spatha:![[Image: 800px-Spatha_end_of_second_century_1.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Spatha_end_of_second_century_1.jpg/800px-Spatha_end_of_second_century_1.jpg)
Now I understand that it comes down to individual examples, but the Spatha was a slashing sword. When thrusting, if you're trying to penetrate mail then a smaller, shorter blade actually provides you with a greater amount of force and leverage, than a longer weapon, such as a spear.
If you were trying to penetrate riveted mail armor, a thrusting weapon like a Gladius would be pretty much the perfect answer. It's short, very pointed, tapered, yet a solid bladed weapon that cannot be broken, or rendered useless - like a spear. Then we see Segmentata, and Scutum, pop up during the time that the Gladius becomes a universal weapon amongst the legions.
Then when we see some overlap of the disappearances of both the Scutum, Segmentata, and the emergence of the Spatha. I don't know which event was the chicken, and which was the egg but this doesn't seem to be a coincidence. Perhaps the legions, after adapting a larger sword due to foreign influence, cavalry, or for whatever reason, no longer saw the need for Segmenata. The weapon that countered mail wasn't as prevalent? Battles with the Gladius certainly tended to have high casualty rates, probably due to the close in dagger like nature of the fighting although this may be a false correlation.
All I really know for sure is that the Gladius was renowned for the terrible wounds it made. Doesn't really say if this was on armored soldiers or unarmored, and what percentage of soldiers in any given battle which wore armor would vary dramatically.
Anyway, just wondering if this has been discussed or if there's any possibility of any of this playing into the evolution of arms over this period? It's so hard to say because swords do not share features even when sharing the same classification. This Spatha is certainly very pointed:
![[Image: 320px-Spadalongobarda.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Spadalongobarda.jpg/320px-Spadalongobarda.jpg)
In this video, he makes a very good point. Mail is primarily countered by thrusting swords, but not just any thrusting swords. The tip has to be extremely acute, to the point that it's able to slip into a ring, then tapered enough to allow it to split the ring open, allowing the sword to penetrate.
A sword without an acute/tapered point cannot penetrate mail, and will just mash rings together and be as ineffective as slashing. So, we know the Romans used mail around 500 BC and adopted the Gladius around the 3rd century BC from some outside source, maybe soldiers from Gaul or Carthage.
I see this is a primary feature of the Gladius:
Here's a Spatha:
Now I understand that it comes down to individual examples, but the Spatha was a slashing sword. When thrusting, if you're trying to penetrate mail then a smaller, shorter blade actually provides you with a greater amount of force and leverage, than a longer weapon, such as a spear.
If you were trying to penetrate riveted mail armor, a thrusting weapon like a Gladius would be pretty much the perfect answer. It's short, very pointed, tapered, yet a solid bladed weapon that cannot be broken, or rendered useless - like a spear. Then we see Segmentata, and Scutum, pop up during the time that the Gladius becomes a universal weapon amongst the legions.
Then when we see some overlap of the disappearances of both the Scutum, Segmentata, and the emergence of the Spatha. I don't know which event was the chicken, and which was the egg but this doesn't seem to be a coincidence. Perhaps the legions, after adapting a larger sword due to foreign influence, cavalry, or for whatever reason, no longer saw the need for Segmenata. The weapon that countered mail wasn't as prevalent? Battles with the Gladius certainly tended to have high casualty rates, probably due to the close in dagger like nature of the fighting although this may be a false correlation.
All I really know for sure is that the Gladius was renowned for the terrible wounds it made. Doesn't really say if this was on armored soldiers or unarmored, and what percentage of soldiers in any given battle which wore armor would vary dramatically.
Anyway, just wondering if this has been discussed or if there's any possibility of any of this playing into the evolution of arms over this period? It's so hard to say because swords do not share features even when sharing the same classification. This Spatha is certainly very pointed:
Christopher Vidrine, 30
