01-18-2006, 02:08 AM
I seem to recall sometime earler the fact was brought up that the late Roman army, especially the frontier troops, would have fought fewer battles formed up in formations, mostly responses to raids, and that the spatha, again, a more versatile weapon would have been useful. I think that this is probably one of the main reasons.
But I also think that the spatha reflected an entire change in Roman warfare. First, as has been already said, the shield changed. But also, something else happened. Armor became more substantial. Rather than the short-sleeved curiasses of the imperial period, the late legionary frequently wore full-sleeved hamata that became increasingly similar to a hauberk. The helmets also became more substantial. In the histories of Tranjan's Dacian wars, it was remarked that wounds to the face were common. But soon, you see huge helmets like the Von Gravert style, which almost completely encloses the face.
All of this probably contributed to the spatha being preferred over the spatha in this style of fighting.
But I also think that the spatha reflected an entire change in Roman warfare. First, as has been already said, the shield changed. But also, something else happened. Armor became more substantial. Rather than the short-sleeved curiasses of the imperial period, the late legionary frequently wore full-sleeved hamata that became increasingly similar to a hauberk. The helmets also became more substantial. In the histories of Tranjan's Dacian wars, it was remarked that wounds to the face were common. But soon, you see huge helmets like the Von Gravert style, which almost completely encloses the face.
All of this probably contributed to the spatha being preferred over the spatha in this style of fighting.
-thanks for reading.
Sean
Sean
