Why Did Rome Abandon the Gladius?
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 05. 2023
- Have you ever wondered why this iconic weapon stopped being used?
Get this months audiobook here: www.chirpbooks.com/history
Support me on Patreon: / stakuyi
Subscribe to my channels and let me know what more you would like to see.
We organize games through
discord: / discord
Twitch / stakuyi
Podcast: historyofeverythingpodcast.com/ - Zábava
I remember reading that the Romans were very quick in adopting new strategies and weapons to fight there current enemies, and this is a perfect explanation of this war doctrine. The Gladius will always be the face of the Roman legions, but it was a product of it's time and the Romans realized that
Quick to adopt tactics and tools that had beaten them.
*their current enemies *of its time Now, write that out a hundred times: if it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off!
As cool as the Gladius is, I feel like the Spatha is an underappreciated weapon in history.
It reminds me of a really stupid list that someone put together on history's greatest weapons, and sure enough the gladius was on there, alongside the AK47 and drones. The gladius was very borderline worthy of being on the list, the latter two were not even close.
Probably because the spatha looks like a long gladius and most people can't tell the difference.
The Spatha would later influence the design of Viking, Middle Germanic, Norman and early Arabian swords. Almost all of them are clearly designed in the manner of the Spatha.
It was in essence the precursor of what would become the common arming blade, the most common type of infantry sword used in the medieval ages - both Spatha and Arming Blade became a good all-around weapon for infantry, it had the right length and capabilities for most tasks and were reasonably affordable to make compared to other types of swords.
Underappreciated? The Spatha Kick is still widely celebrated
I’d say that the gladius being nabbed from the Iberians and made better is actually the most Roman of all backstories. It truly exemplifies what made Rome truly great for a good long while.
But then they ditched the weapon that built their empire
The early Greeks were quick to adopt knowledge and weaponry fro the world around them. And Rome emulated the Greeks (among others) right down to their gods and science. Their ability to adapt and utilize new ideas and technology made them a formidible war machine.
This is how the American Empire works too. Technologies, language and cultural practices etc, almost all of it is from somewhere other than the 13 colonies that were the original States
@@julianbrelsford America isn’t an Empire. We are a republic of 50 war tribes with a high enough defense budget to fight god.
@@KnightofGaming6721 Rome was a republic too for a long time of its existence
It is amazing how lots of things associated with Rome is not actually Roman, they had the best way of thinking take the best things from your neighbors and improve it
Italy’s great gift was taking good ideas and making them better: they took noodles from China and made pasta, took the Walther p38 and made Berettas, took orgies from Greece and added women.
Literally all they did like even there god dam boot wasn't there design
Probs the best thing that they improvised is the corvus on their ships since without them i doubt they can beat carthage
It's the key behind every successful Empire. Take good ideas and adapt to the circumstances.
You can see it with the Mongols as well, the "Mongol" army that conquered southern China was much more classically Chinese, cause the traditional Mongol style of warfare simply didn't work well there, so they adapted.
If they put the time and effort into it (probably a century or so, and lots of money) a Mongol army capable of conquering Europe would have fought in the style of the Europeans, as all the stone fortifications made the mongol style of fighting for conquest less feasable
jeet kun do thinking
Please do a video on how effective the Byzantine Empire army actually was…
Which is why the Roman Empire lasted over 1000+ years, and they only were weak due to constant civil wars.
I have heard this claim (can't actually remember the sorce) that the gladious was very advantageous in close formations with the shield. That would lead to a let say Galic Warrior with a longer sword needing more room to wield it. It would give the romans a 3 against 1 advantage in melee even if out numbered. One can sort of see how it will end you (Gaul) trying to get past in between the shields while having to guard against three stabby swords
Choosing the right shield formation of the line helped a lot too. A known tactical formation was to make the shield line ahead look like a saw blade. Men making triangle points so they partially pointed diagonally towards each other. When the picts or celts in Englad tried to mass formation Smash their shield line they would literally be ran through like a chainsaw.
One thing I keep seeing too is how the sword creates air tight wounds, that one would have twist and yank the sword out to remove it from the body
That's a nasty way to go, like seriously nasty
Most of the battles they encounter during later times also changed, most of the time they had to deal with raids than a large pitch battle, gladius are not meant to deal with highly mobile enemy.
Many of the iconic things we consider "Roman" really aren't Roman in origin at all. The Gallic Helm was from the Gauls, the Lorica Segmentata from the Parthians, hell even the aqueducts came from the Etruscans. What made Rome great was their ability to adopt enemy tactics and technology into their own system.
Its the nature of big organizations to "aquire" such assets. This is why "China" is stated as origins of so many things. Either they made something cool with their vast resources, or they adopted and mass produced something that some other little tribe/kingdom made.
This happens to be true of every militarily successful nation, particularly those that created empires.
I'd like to point out that Manipular tactics were a more standardized version of Samnite tactics that the Romans adopted shortly after the caudine forks disaster since it was more adaptable for hill fighting. The Gladius might also have come from the first Punic war. Remember weapons are designed to fit tactics, not the other way around. The SAW wasn't created till after squads had automatic riflemen for decades. Tactics only change when there is a complete revolution in weaponry, and a lot of people die from old tactics, and the Gladius was an improvement on what they already had. Less musket to bolt action, more M-60 to 240.
Edit- Testudos were only used for sieges and when facing massed archery, since it doesn't allow for aggressive melee fighting. For evidence see Ceaser on the Gallic wars when facing the Nervii, or Polybius on Cannae, two battles where the Romans became too bunched up to properly fight. Just started watching this channel and while entertaining, I think a degree of specilization is necessary to prevent misinformation from spreading.
Very informative, which channels would you recommend following on the subject?
@@TheEfruge508 In my opinion there are many channels much better than this one specific to history or ancient and roman history, here is a list in no particular order:
Epic History TV
Hoc Est Bellum
Maiorianus
BazBattles
Kings and Generals
Flash Point History
Real Time History
Timeline - World History Documentaries
Historia Civilis
Eastern Roman History
Romaboo Ramblings
Filaxim Historia
HistoryMarche
The Historian's Craft
Ancient Rome Live
Dan Davis History
House of History
@@TheEfruge508 Thanks man, I appreciate it. I'd also reccomend Invicta for Roman specific, but I think I learned the most from the excellent History of Rome podcast by Mike Duncan. I also read Caesar and Polybius, they're a lot less dense and more entertaining than modern historians, though Adrian Goldsworthy's Roman Warfare is also excellent.
yea i fully agree. as you seem to be an history lover, the reason for why they used a (short) sword, is (propably) bc they fought as individuals in a Open formation. This is a violation of the rule that the denser force allways wins. There is one main advantage to an open formation, and it is that you are more mobile which allows you to engage and break contact as you wish and thus are able to only take on favorible excanges (people didnt fight hand to hand for hours, but in short periods).
Cannae was a desaster bc they where to densly packed to fight probably as well as to break contact.
There was also some other defeat where a general placed his legions with a river in the back leading to defeat.
Good video. But one thing I think you missed is formation density. Like you said Spears are better for horses but a big reason for that is not just length but density. Roman Maniples and Legions were loose-ordered formations with several feet between each soldier. This helped enabled Rome's ability to cycle fresh troops to front lines, and gave a swordsmen plenty of room to maneuver their shield and sword. Great if you're fighting other Heavy Infantry formations. But bad against cavalry since they can run through the gaps. You want to create a dense wall that horses either get stuck in or outright won't charge. And when you're in a dense formation like that the sword loses a lot of potency because you have no room to swing it around.
Yeah, in order to understand the use of the weapons we must understand the battle tactics and evolution of formations. I still don't find clear the development of battle formations that lead to the abandoment of the classic legion formations and what was the next step in warfare.
You can stab with a sword, too. At a lot closer range than a long spear
No, you just stab with it, Romans also carried a hasta spear, which can be used as a spear if you don't throw it.
@Hugo Fernandez I think alot of it was the advent of superior mobile horse archers. To the point that later on the Roman's had to rely on foreigners and tribunals for support calvary. Crassus died from the parthians Neverending arrow stream
@@kelvinw.1384 Crassus died to Parthian heavy calvary. Horse archers were never the killing blow.
I mean this is basically Rome in a nutshell. They beat up an enemy, take what they used and turned the next enemy into mincemeat with it. Rinse repeat until you have the Roman Empire.
And more often than not, against their own.
0:18 to be fair, something of non roman origin being adopted and used by rome was kinda their whole selling point
I read that the Celts used long swords that forced them to stand farther apart then the Roman Legionnaire so at the point of contact the more numerous barbarians were outnumbered. Add the Pilum which when it struck a shield made the shield useless, making the gladius even effective.
This short was good, had to check out the full one❤
What a coincidence that he made this 3 weeks ago. And Ray Stevenson who played in the series Rome passed away 2 weeks ago. R.I.P. Ray.
Absolutely love all your videos and your podcast
Fascinating! Thank you
Good video, thanks for uploading it.
I don't see why its a problem that the gladius isn't roman. They took something that was good and used it. They made it iconic.
I don’t think it is one
and that was pretty much standar roman strategy on everything
Its not that its a bad thing, its that it is one of the main things of the Roman Empire. They took over places, absorbed what they thought was worth taking and integrated it into their culture
Good point - that's probably the super power of the roman army: Evolution, they adopted if the had to or find a more efficient way of fighting especially if they had to
Its a problem for those who think rome was a bringer of "civilization"
The Scutum was the primary weapon, not the gladius. Beating the enemy into a sandwiched wall against their own lines and then reaching around to stab now the enemy's reach is mitigated
Thanks for the interesting listen!
MAGNIFICENT VIDEO!!!!!!!❤️🙏
I'm gladius you finally talk about my favorite weapon!
Ok you hooked me in with that short.
Spatha was already in Roman service since the 2nd Century BC and was a Celtic weapon in origin.
The reason for the shift to the Gladius was part standardization of all fighting formations from cavalry to infantry. Another main reason was the encountering of very fierce and capable cavalry units that became more and more prevalent on the battlefield.
To note, the Alans with their armored lancers, Sarmatian heavy lancers, Parthian and Sassanid Cataphracts and Clibinarii + cataphract horse archers, Gothic heavy cavalry and the Germanic heavy cavalry units.
The gladius was just not that beneficial due to the short range of striking which was supremely efficient with shield wall tactics.
With the changes in shield types from rectangular to oval and the shift towards a Roman spear wall style which is a lance wielded by mobile legionaries like the Comitatensis and the Limitanei that could also be as well armed as Comitatensis in support of main armies, the gladius was just too specific a weapon.
Whereas the Roman spear wall/shield wall of the later antiquity period, plus the Spatha being the preferred main arm becomes the bulwark of Roman armies and future successor Germanic kingdoms up until the Norman age.
The Spatha would become the Carolingian Frankish sword, the Viking sword and then finally the slightly elongated Norman arming sword which was the penultimate variant of the Spatha with more than 1000 years of evolution
Really cool stuff
If your both glad and hilarious...you become Gladius
Roman republic also adapted a dagger as well from Iberian peninsula. Anyhow, no matter how many times Rome was defeated, they just kept coming back till they could state I came I saw I conquered . Amazing how a young Macedonian utilised pike , peltasts, bows and cavalry to achieve a corporate takeover in Eurasia.
Was it the pugio?
That's because the Phalanx formation with good use of Cavalry is best suited for flat terrain which is ample in the Middle East. There were actually times that the Romans had a hard time against the Phalanx when they fought on flat ground it's only because of the flexibility of the Roman military tactics and not the weapons that saved the day. Also the Roman gladius and scutum were not invincible, the Partians proved that when they annihilated Crassus' army.
Cool video, Thanks for the lesson glad I clicked on that link you suggested
You forget that the Gladius was made out of steel when most were still using weapons made out of iron
Love to see a video on the Irish tribes that run into battle naked. Ps love your CZcams channel
Great video! Any chance you can post a list of your sources for the background videos? I recognized HBO's Rome but none of the others and I feel like there was some must-watch content in there for me
You know the thing netflix did with Cleapatra? Serbia here has a person known as "Karađorđe" witch means "black George", he lead the 1st serbian uprising and i realy hope they don't get any ideas.
Oh man as a Serb I'm gonna start throwing bricks at their windows if they do that
Why he was called "Black George"?
@@elroma7712 the Otomans gave him that nickname, after he obliterated them multiple times during the uprising
@@elroma7712 lets just say he killed a lot of people in a lot of ways
@@elroma7712 black was often used as nickname to represent death or doom. Wasn’t always a skin color thing.
There’s a game called Ryse: son of Rome that does the combat very well.
Legend has it that the Centurion Iamus Burtonius wrote a scroll called "Bellum Que Castra Maximus", where he claimed the Legates were incredibly corrupt and the adoption of the Spatha was the result of bureaucracy, scope creep, and under-the-table bribes from iron miners and blacksmiths, and that the Gladius didn't need to be replaced. He even had the audacity to dub himself a "Reformer", and compare himself to the likes of Gaius Marius.
In actuality, he didn't understand much about infantry warfare or why the Spatha was even being adopted. He also had a significant chip on his shoulder because his proposal for Donkey Cavalry that could loiter close to the infantry they were fighting was rejected, and the Legate he proposed it to said that they at least needed to be mules.
Maybe a niche topic but I’m still dying for a video from you on the naginata
Every time I see one of your shorts here I am
Hey stakuyi
Love your content
Just one question, where do you find the source to research these types of videos and dumb events?
Id like to research myself a bit
That is going to vary depending on the source. As an example a lot of info here comes from a series of people like polybius and others
@@stakuyi I guess a better way to ask my question is, are there any places where I can read about the fun stuff of history and the crazy stuff. Like how the Achaemenids put cats on their shields so the egyptians wouldn't attack them and stuff like that.
Per this episode, the real break through for the Romans was use of a large curved shield capable defeating spears/pikes. Without being able to close the distance to the foes' shield wall, the gladius was not effective. As mentioned at the end of the episode, once the legions faced loose formations and/or cavalry opponents, use of the gladius declined.
Now that i think about it, the western Roman empire must have been incredibly safe in the latter years of the empire given that the only avenues of attack were over on the border with Germany and maybe whatever was on the west coast of Africa. Everything to the south probably wasn't very easy to get into given those choke points and had to have been a pretty cushy job in comparison to the East
Also, Rome became more defensive. The message of the Gladius Is "I'm coming to get you!" The message of the long sword us "Stay away from me!"
Cool thanks
To those among us who think horses beat swords, the more layered story doesn't really attested to that notion. There were Romans general who had employed successful techniques that could wipe up the enemy top echelon in just one battle (Yes, I am talking the likes of Ventidius). The thing is, horses are expensive and the animals don't like to charge into immovable objects, and they can grew tired too but how do you know how much stamina your horse has? Another thing to note is that there always existed an equal forces of auxiliary to the Roman infantry. What do they do? How do they fight? Well, the official records are quite dismissive. The auxiliary may be insignificant, but sometimes, they amount to state secrets that does not survive into our time.
Another thing to ask is the horse size involved. 2000 years ago, the average domesticated horse hadn't grew to today's average size yet. Also, note that even today, we only select the best horse to breed.
I have one at home, I love that sword.
What was different about the gladius that made it so effective at what it did vs other short swords at the time?
Because their battle style change necessitated a longer sword to use from horse back. When they shifted from legion focused combat to cavalry focused combat to compete with the large influx of Gothic-Sarmatian-Hunnic Armies of Horse Lords, as well as an ongoing war with The Persians. Rome following its long tradition of adapting their adversaries best weapons, armor, and tactics, adopted many of said Horsemen into their own Auxiliary and Foederatii Forces. Gaining their tactical knowledge and longer swords into their own armies. Copying their adversaries to be able to compete against them.
4:06-4:36
The strength of the gladius over the pike is that it allowed Legionaries to carry precursors. If your carrying pikes your not tossing javelins. As the pillum get thrown the pike wall gets disrupted and thats where the romans could find the gaps.
Brutal.
Most Roman soldiers equipment came from other countries , the chain mail came from the Celts. What made them special was the way they mixed everything up and as you say tactical use of this equipment
I think even the early republic helmets were Celtic of origin
Absolutely brilliant weapon for indoor and ranked fighting... I luv my gladius more than any knife or long blade.. like a huge commando knife.. the advent of smaller units mainly barbarian on horse back and spear welding infantry with round shields saw it phased out.. probably a good thing, in hindsight..🤔
How about a video breaking down the story of Basil II and the Myth of the Bulgarslayer?
The gladius, or an Anglo-Saxon or Viking version of it, was used in shield-wall combat. Probably until the Norman conquest, when everything changed again.
Gladius aside what most impresses me is the Pilum.
Just how much logistics you need for that and standardization is simply mindblowing for that time.
Also the Plumbata, i just want to know what went thru the head of the guy who thought of it.
Another reason that romans stop using gladius is the rising number of foreigners in army employment aka foederatii. Gladius usage decline can also be connected to roman recrutment practice outside of Italic peninsula.
Learning what others did right and adopting what worked well, was that made Rome as great as it was.
Btw hoplites is pronounce oplites with emphasis on the i
Would it be possible for you to cover how tanks changed warfare?
I mean to be fair it is a Roman thing to copy and if possible enhance the weapons and artifacts that their enemies used and then implementing them into their army/culture.
The Nigerian guy in heaven wondering why he has 13Million assists
Question:
Was the spatha drawn from the right like the gladius? Or from the left?
The spatha was really influential.
Sword in Italian still is spada
and sword in Spanish is Espada 😂
Believe the issue was that the scutum shield was totally defenseless against Maces and Warhammers and was always used in the front hand.
The Roman transition from the gladius to the spatha is in some ways similar to how other weapons of war became the new "normal"
The change from bows and crossbows to gunpowder weapons, the adoption of machine guns, shell artillery, aerial bombing, ground attack aircraft, tanks, missiles, select-fire infantry weapons (assault rifles), the temporary hey-day of chemical weapons, and the adoption of MAD levels of nuclear armaments.
What came before the Gladius?
The Xiphos. It’s the Greek style blade
I don't find the idea the Romans abandoned the gladius in favour of a spear and spatha because enemies were primarily horsemen convincing. Weren't the Parthians mainly comprised of cavalry and the Romans kept using the gladius despite their loss at the Battle of Carrhae 53 BCE. And it can't have been for defensive reasons, because the Byzantines kept on using the spear as their primary weapon, including during the reconquest of the West.
I presume saying the Romans charged in Testudo was a slip of the tongue? The Testudo was a tightly compact, slow, and cumbersome defensive formation that was used against projectile weapons but was too closely confined for melee combat or for charging. The normal Roman formation that they used to fight and charge was a more spacious formation where the unit had ~3 feet of space between each man.
What I find strange is that gladius models seems to have gotten shorter from the mid Republican era to the late Republican and then early Imperial era (with the longest/longer gladius types being from the earlier era). The size of the shields also got smaller from the mid Republica era to the late Republican/early empire era. Was this due to shorter swords being quicker and more cost effective to make when the state needed to equip a lot of soldiers cheaply and quickly to fight in the massive Roman civil wars and later invasions? Since the equipment of earlier mid Republican soldiers were provided by the soldiers themselves and were often family herilooms passed down from generation to generation, I assume there was a greater emphasis on quality and better technical specifications.
Ok the thing i see is that :
If you start fighting for the reach with pikes , the enemy will get short swords and get into grappling range ,
And if you get in grappling reach with short weapons , then the enemy will get longer reach stuff .
It's not a winnable situation it seems
hold both, one hand each :)
PULLO! FORMATION!!!
Can i just ask what movie/show this clip is from?
Tbh. The gladius not being Roman initially, makes it so much more Roman lol.
The shortest answer is that they got good enough with obtaining and refining iron to dump piddling things such as 'lack of resources' and 'structural flaws'. The size of the gladius (and other old weapons) was cuz the originals were made of bronze - a very soft metal that needs to be short and thick to be useful as a sword. Extending the length of the weapon was just natural design coming from the properties and availability of iron.
Bronze stopped being used for weapons long before the romans showed up
@@Imperial_Navy03 True. But I was pointing at reason for the geometry for the gladius being that it was cast from bronze in the first place and then the design was embedded into habit/tradition until there was a need to take it a step further.
I think also the enemies got more heavily armored
nice
So the lesson teaching how effective the gladius was was a little on the sharp side? A bit pointed?
The gladius was effective because Roman Military Docturned required each Legion Infantryman to carry 2 Pilums, a javalin type of weapon. Pilums were designed to deform after penetrating opponents shield so they coould not be removed and thrown back. This forced Rome's opponants to throw their shield down as a shield with a pilum stuck in it became useless for defense. This in turn exposed them to a Legionary Shield and Gladius tactics used in close combat. Without the Pilum its questionable as to how effective Roman close combat tactics would of been. A classic example of Roman's not being able to set their formations and use their Pilums to affect a battle can be found in the Roman defeat in the Teutoburg Forest.
It's like the Katana, these weapons look awesome, and just the idea of the damage they can do make people feel powerful or terrified, depending on which side you're on. But the reality is, chopping someone's torso in half is overkill and unnecessary, especially when you have to risk getting hit yourself, in order to do it. The much more practical way to fight is stay away with long pointy stick, do just enough damage to wound the attacker while keeping yourself safe.
The Roman Empire was like John Carpenter's The Thing.
Well i have the theory that the blade was so effective because it was durable, it had a hard time bending, and it was perfectly used for stabbing, but if the metal changes, enemies use different formations and well Rome had to adapt to enemies that basically just discovered the new tactic and coquered everything with them, and used that to fight the romans.
The history is constantly about that, one group of people decides to adopt something new and effective, and during a few decades they become unstoppable and they have something really good. Spain created the Tercios and they wrecked all the military forces of the world with that. Napoleon did the same, The British has a constant history of focusing on controlling the sea so nobody invades their island.
Your intuition is right. One the reasons they decided to go for a shorter blade was due to the quality of iron back then (unlike in medieval time where with coal, higher fire temeperatures could be reached in order to temper the metal), a shorter blade was less prone to bending and damage, which, with a longer blade with low quality iron, would occur. Not to forget, much cheaper, not a detail when you have to muster large armies.
Gladius sound cooler also the Spatha is basically a longer gladius.
In my opinion main reason is havey carverly of the Persians and thier advance metal armor that covers almost everything of the infantry. All blades are used less. Masses and axes as well 2 handed spears are the way to go.
Simple nothing to stab anymore. Although it still a good wepone.
Ask Crassus how that sword and style and strategy worked for him
Where is the footage from?
Today, in portuguese, we have "gládio" and "espada", both meaning sword
Unlike math or grammar I shall remember this.
New circumstances, new enemies. The Byzantines also changed their army drastically from the late Roman Empire's style to combat the various calvary-heavy threats they faced.
America has moved from the M1A Garand to the M16/M4 platform to the Bolter Rifle to secure the Imperium of Mankind. The Emperor Protects! 🇺🇸
At it's time the gladius was modem warfare, but then combat evolved
What movie were the clips of Roman soldiers using the gladius, is from?
Rome HBO, first episode, literally the very first scene. Also the source of the "Pullo, formation!" meme.
Interesting, but makes sense. But I want to know, do you consider the abolishment of the segmentata for the hamata is an upgrade or the downgrade?
Even during the peak of the Roman empire they still use hamata and it's not like segmentata is impenetrable. Yes it may offer better protection but it has it's own downside so it's hard to consider hamata to be a downgrade.. At the later period of the Roman Empire, segmentata simply became too impractical for economical and tactical reasons.
@@haroldcruz8550
I only know it became too much of an economical challenge, but what is the tactical disadvantage of the segmentata in the latter period? Didn't they change the military sytem to limitanei & comitatenses instead of standing legions? I get it if they think the limitanei don't need decent equipment, but I still don't see the tactical reason to abandon the segmentata.
@@KubernetePirata Segmentata has more exposed parts of the body, with the Roman Shields becoming smaller in the later period those exposed parts had become more vulnerable Segmentata because of weight distribution and it's structure makes the wearer less mobile compared to Hamata, Segmentata is fit for battles based on heavy infantry, the later Roman military doctrines no longer rely so much on heavy infantry because of the type of battles they fought during those times. It is also believed that Segmentata is harder to maintain but I am not sure about that.
@@haroldcruz8550
I guess I can see it, hamata covers more & lighter. But still, I am rather surprised that in those days, making mails is considered cheaper than a locking some few plates together for a torso armor. I mean, the manpower & the hours just to get 1 suit would've been immense.
@@KubernetePirata In terms of manpower I have no idea which one is more expensive but in terms of just material, segmentata requires more
Strike at zero hour, with overwhelming firepower.
Most weapons that are good. Are rarely invented totally in the the country that was using it. Take the American M60 medium machine gun, also the Russian AK-47. If you look at German machine guns of WW 2 you can see they are basically the parents of the 2 I listed above.
i don't know what sword i'll buy first, either the athlantean sword from Conan the Barbarian or the gladius
I'm finishing a gladius made from an old old leaf spring right now. 19 inches long with a 13+ inch blade. 2.25 inches wide, 3/8 of an inch thick and 2.25 inches wide. Very strong and straight and it should be very sharp. You know how on that forged in fire TV show they cut through the big pieces of green bamboo? If feels just as neato as it looks man.😁
The Hannibal thing is probably more legitimate as a source than the Byzantine writings of the two, considering the time span between the Roman conquest of Gaul/Punic wars and the Byzantine period.
The Byzantines/ Eastern Romans didn't make shit up. They preserved records from the most ancient periods of the Empire and frequently referred to them.
Short swords really don't get enough credit when talking about historical weapons imo. The xiphos, gladius, cutlass ect
I seriously want to know what movie is in the background at 1:06
Not a movie. A HBO series called 'Rome"
The gladius was abandoned because infantry was not the professional part of the army anymore, there was more emphasis on cavalry, in parts because who took over the role of professional soldiers were auxiliaries, most of whom fought as cavalry and mercenaries, who would fight with their own traditional equipment or whatever they had. The infantry became poor levies or civilian militia who, by not being professional, would have a better chance with a spear. Particularly in the early middle ages, militaries regresses considerable, and there was basically no uniformity anymore, no one would produce equipment en mass for an army as the Romans had done systematically for centuries.
All true -- or at least that's what I've read in several books. As Rome became powerful and corrupt, the politicians in charge stopped supporting the development of their armies, which is ironic, as the Roman armies are what gave Rome her power, not her politics. Conquered peoples were incentivized to fight for Rome with promises of a retirement plan and land for veterans. However, these recruits preferred their own customs and familiar weaponry. Rather than spend more time and money to equip and train the new recruits like "true" Romans, they were given a lot of leeway when it came to their weapons, tactics, and armor. I would like to point out that the Roman units were capable of standing up to cavalry, even with just a shield, spear, and gladius. This was proven many times. It was their intense training and rigid high standards, more than anything else, that made them a superior military force. (A soldier who fell asleep on watch would be killed; just a few soldiers running away from a battle would cause 1/10 of their unit to be killed -- "decimated" -- as a punishment for cowardice and as a warning to the other soldiers.) Once the standards for weapons and training dropped, the quality of the armies did too. I don't think it was so much that the gladius wasn't effective in different circumstances; it was used against cavalry and infantry equally well. It was more a matter of the lack of training and standards, over time, from a government that gave less attention to its military once it became internationally powerful. (Sort of like the USA is now.)
Was some of this footage from an assassins creed game?
The Romans were experts at adopting and improving good ideas. Every smart empire has done this
ChatGpt is going to be the death of channels that bury the lede like this.
hop lights
They abandoned the gladius the same way the Han china abandoned the jian. Because both sides found out it's easier to train soldiers using blades by doing slashing.