|
Post by Siward on Sept 14, 2019 11:25:27 GMT
So this is something I’ve been wondering since Rhemus’s excellent post on the difference between the leaf style early Roman blades and the later style parallel edge blades.
The Romans had already faced and defeated people’s that used long sword blades, the Gauls and Britons for instance. So, did the adoption of the Spatha by the late Roman Empire infantry, then leave them with an inferior weapon subject to the same limitations the Gauls found when facing the Romans, or had something changed which meant the shorter gladius had to be dropped ?
|
|
stormmaster
Member
I like viking/migration era swords
Posts: 7,647
|
Post by stormmaster on Sept 14, 2019 11:39:25 GMT
the romans adopted and used technology from many different cultures they defeated, it did not mean the swords were inferior because the gauls or britons lost, it was more because of leadership and discipline that the romans managed to win, in the face of often overwhelming odds at times it came down to the wire in many battles for the romans for example the siege of Alesia. I would think the spatha offered more reach which was a bonus and so over time it just became the preferred weapon of choice, im sure there were some weirdos who didnt follow along and kept with the gladius
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Sept 14, 2019 11:50:42 GMT
The Roman legions of the late empire were almost completely made up of Gauls and Germanics. They fought like they always did, with - if with a sword at all - a spatha and round shield in less tight formations compared to the classic legions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2019 15:45:57 GMT
Another factor to consider is that the nature of the enemies fought in the later empire changed. The classic Roman legion had always struggled against armored horsemen and horse archers like the Parthians and the Sassanids, and over time fielded higher proportions of cavalry to infantry in response. After the empire collapsed in the west, trend continued in the east with the ascendancy of the Byzantine cataphract. The gladius was a great infantry weapon, but a longer blade was always more effective from horseback.
|
|
|
Post by bebut on Sept 14, 2019 17:38:45 GMT
The magic of the gladius was the shield. Calvary needed longer swords.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Sept 14, 2019 19:13:33 GMT
The magic of the gladius was the shield. Calvary needed longer swords. A symbiotic unit for sure, along with your buddies on each side of you in trained formation.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Sept 14, 2019 19:17:03 GMT
The Roman legions of the late empire were almost completely made up of Gauls and Germanics. They fought like they always did, with - if with a sword at all - a spatha and round shield in less tight formations compared to the classic legions. Yup, looser formations (and more cavalry) equal longer swords.
|
|