Was The Roman Gladius (Sword) Really That Good? Response to Schola Gladiatoria
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 07. 2019
- Schola gladiatoria channel made a video called "Was the Roman Gladius a great sword?". This is a response video to look at the same topic, but from an opposite perspective, focusing instead on the Roman shield in relation to the Roman sword discussing why I feel it was the Shield that dictated the length of the sword.
Link to the original video I'm responding (adding) to
• Is The Roman Gladius (...
Please subscribe to Schola Gladiatoria channel and send Matt my best regards from the community of the noble ones.
Gladius was one Latin word for sword, and is used to represent the primary sword of Ancient Roman foot soldiers.
A fully equipped Roman legionary after the reforms of Gaius Marius was armed with a shield (scutum), one or two javelins (pila), a sword (gladius), often a dagger (pugio), and, perhaps in the later Empire period, darts (plumbatae). Conventionally, soldiers threw javelins to disable the enemy's shields and disrupt enemy formations before engaging in close combat, for which they drew the gladius. A soldier generally led with the shield and thrust with the sword. All gladius types appear to have been suitable for cutting and chopping as well as thrusting.
Gladius is a Latin masculine second declension noun. Its (nominative and vocative) plural is gladiī. However, gladius in Latin refers to any sword, not specifically the modern definition of a gladius. The word appears in literature as early as the plays of Plautus (Casina, Rudens).
Modern English words derived from gladius include gladiator ("swordsman") and gladiolus ("little sword", from the diminutive form of gladius), a flowering plant with sword-shaped leaves.
Gladii were two-edged for cutting and had a tapered point for stabbing during thrusting. A solid grip was provided by a knobbed hilt added on, possibly with ridges for the fingers. Blade strength was achieved by welding together strips, in which case the sword had a channel down the center, or by fashioning a single piece of high-carbon steel, rhomboidal in cross-section. The owner's name was often engraved or punched on the blade.
Follow me on my social networks:
/ themetatron
/ metatron_youtube
Metatron-153...
/ puremetatron
/ realmetatron
Royalty free music by Epidemic Sound:
intro ES_Knights Templar 1 - Johannes Bornlöf
intro 2 ES_Medieval Adventure 01 - Johannes Bornlöf
outro ES_Knights Templar 2 - Johannes Bornlöf
Check out the facebook page of the photographer who works with me, he has lots of fantastic pictures
amedeo.capor...
and his instagram
amedeo.capor...
Check out my friend Salvo's channel
/ @littlesalvo000
#Metatron #Gladius #Romans
Clearly the Romans had high aspirations and designed a shield that would be optimized for the best of all activities, they could sled on them in the Alps.
Well in fact they did store gear on some shields and pull it behind them a few snowy climates
They also created shade for when they were golfing.
varanid9 they did invent golf... and shade.
@@LeviUlysses-mp5wg I guess you could say they liked to "fight in the shade" 300 style.
War can be boring, sometimes even the grim romans needed some fun time off.
"Is the gladius a great sword?"
No! It's a short sword!
I'll get your cloak.
Get out of this fucking tavern
I honestly thought that was it was about and I was like wut. Then I saw "a response to scholagladitoriac" and was like oh duh.
A long sword is not a great advantage over a man with a great shield.
lel
6:23 captions "A grown mans scrotum does not give you that option"
Can't help but agree on that Noble one
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that
Obviously no one would want to hold a guy’s ballsack for protection
You can't know that for sure unless you actually try!
The gladius was designed to work in conjunction with Roman infantry discipline, training and tactics. It was a great sword because the Romans knew exactly what tool they needed and then delivered the goods.
@mxt mxt cheap+effective= great sword
@mxt mxt I see. Who mentioned quality though?
mxt mxt That’s odd, it only performed great, but only for like 1000 years. Lousy sword.
@mxt mxt bullshit. Any factoria owner who sold poor quality swords to a Legion quartermaster would find himself in a Gladiatorial pit with one of his own defect swords to defend himself with or on a cross along the Via Appia for treason and sabotage before he could say Ave Imperator...
"Most of your opponents won't be armored." Stares in all those civil wars.
Also the Pyrrhic, Punic, Macedonian, Seluccid, and Parthian Empires would like to disagree.
you forgot the Tyranids.... oh wait, wrong Imperium...
@@lemonvariable72 you named countries against whom Rome had tough time.
Most means most, not all
As soon as I saw the Schola Gladiatoria video, I knew Metatron was going to add his thoughts. It's like a 2 for one.
"Anyone else come here from Matt Easton?" er, yes.
Scutum was a moving wall, gladius slipped through the sides to stab close enemy, repeat, repeat....simple but efficient.
And any enemy who was not dead got trampled and stabbed by every passing legionary rank as the line moved over them
SonsOfLorgar...My favorite was the buzz saw formation at Battle of Watling Street. The Romans were an absolute war machine. Any Briton caught in the ‘V’ was funneled into a violent death by a gladius.
Precisely.
@Brian Hensley
How can you be so wrong and still bold enough to post in public?
@Brian Hensley They WERE better fighters, but war is kinda expensive so, if i can make that 2 of my enemies kill each other and then I take over the remains, why not doing it? I'll spare lot of my legionaries and expensive chain supplies.
Boudica never face an actual legion until the battle in Watlin Street, then her army was annihilated by Paulinus legions, 10.000 vs 60.000 (or 230.000 depending of source) and the legionaries crush them
Vercingetorix was humiliated by Caesar in a 2 fronts fight where Romans were caught in the middle in Alesia
Teotoburg forest? no army can survive that scale of ambush, not only by the ambush itself (I'm totally sure that no army can withstand such prepared ambush, not even Alexander armies) but for the treason that Ariminus made, and this is something that people forgets, it took decades for Ariminus to get his opportunity
. If it wasn't for him, Germania was going to be totally conquered.
The only catastrophically defeats that Romans suffered was entirely caused by VERY bad leadership, this was not all the time and this can affect any army in the world. Even modern US armies can suffer extraordinaries defeats if a pathetic general takes the command, it doesn't matter if he have top tier troops.
Going back to Romans Legions, just do a little research about the Battle of the Sabis, just one of the multiple battles where Romans demonstrate that they were superior. Then rush to Aqua Sextiae, Magnesia, etc.
wanna go on?
In that last clip where you guys demonstrated a testudo, (9:46) it struck me that the center-grip made it easier for one to fully cover the man ahead. That would be more difficult and awkward with an arm-strap-style shield. The Roman way of war was filled with subtle genius.
A
A long, long time ago, in Latin class, while translating Veni Vidi Vici, our teacher told us that crashing into a roman shield wall was tantamount to jumping into a meat shredder! Fini.
your school teaches you latin?
@@pedropedrohan102 From 6th grade to 12th grade. It has changed since I graduated, and it is only taught from 10th grade to 12th grade as an elective.
@@stevewaldorff4327 but why would your school teach you latin tho?
@@pedropedrohan102 Language classes began in 3rd grade. Choice of French, Spanish or Esperanto. One of my Grandfather's was French-Canadian, so I took French. At sixth grade, they dropped the French and Esperanto classes.
Latin was a required language for college preparatory classes, so that is why I chose Latin.
@@stevewaldorff4327 ok
They used defense, offensively.. well said!
"Was the Roman Gladius Really That Good?"
Yes, next question
@@allan7380 they got rid of the gladius for the spatha.
Also the majority of the roman opponents lacked metsl armor.
They typically experienced their worse military defeats and disasters against opponents that were on roughly equal ground to them.
Case in point Hanniable. The carthoginians weren't nearly as armored as the romans but they did have metal armor.
Hannibal used the medium infantry and war elephants of Carthage to great effect against Rome.
Also the Romans did suffer defeats in the other twonpunic wars.
In Greece they took advantage of being seen as fellow greeks (an thus technically not foreign invaders but returning greeks) to sow discord and strife between the city states. The greeks were never truly united against the romans.
Numbers do work, even a "poorly" equipped force can use sheer mass of numbers to inflict heavy casualties on superior forces.
Case in point the revolt that lead Sparta to saying "you know what? We should occasionally go genocidal and cull our own tributary states and slaves. Keep them in check."
Or the slave revolution of spartacus.
Enough numbers makes even poor equipment decisions and tactics work.
There is a limit to this but numbers always help get things done, even in the age of guns were a single man could kill a few hundred.
That depends what kind of answer you're seeking. Simple answer or thesis-like ones with a lot of contexts.
@@allan7380 are you seriously gonna sit there and deny numbers and armor help? Almost every battle was won by the numerically superior force.
Battles like Agnicourt are famous in part due to the numerical inferior side winning.
@@allan7380 did you not read? I never said those weren't important. I said almost every battle has been won by a numerically superior force. It is actually uncommon for the numerically inferior force to win. Particularly in melee which was how humans fought for literal millennia.
Even NAPOLEON did his BEST to make sure in almost every engagement he had the numerically superior force.
Alexander the great on numerous occasions actually got pretty close to loosing his life to the persian king and his army. Saved by the king's cowardice on numerous occasions because Alexander got close to him.
An that ruined a lot of near total victories over the greeks for Persia.
@@allan7380 Where the f*** did I say "numbers are the predominant deciding factor"?
What i said was: "Numbers do work, even a "poorly" equipped force can use sheer mass of numbers to inflict heavy casualties on superior forces.
Case in point the revolt that lead Sparta to saying "you know what? We should occasionally go genocidal and cull our own tributary states and slaves. Keep them in check."
Or the slave revolution of spartacus.
Enough numbers makes even poor equipment decisions and tactics work.
There is a limit to this but numbers always help get things done, even in the age of guns were a single man could kill a few hundred."
" There is a limit to this but numbers always help get things done, even in the age of guns were a single man could kill a few hundred."
I don't understand what your issue is with admitting its easier to defend a hill with a hundred than twenty.
Another reason for the center grip (that seems especially necessary for the scutum) is so that it can be dropped more easily when needed. For example, if a javelin was stuck in it.
Celtiberian/Celtic reenactor here. In my experience the scutum is a great defence. The only way to hit a Roman is stab the feet (if you are fast enough with a spear), stab the face (not really done in reenactment), or try to get the Roman to lunge out too far so the scutum moves to the side a bit.
Celtic shields are a bit more versatile in my opinion. They're lighter and not curved or not curved as much as much.
Highly probable
There’s a contrast in size with the gladius and scutum which makes them a perfect combination.
Would love to see you do more videos at Italian ancient Roman sites and museums.
They're everywhere! Here in the area near Rome you can't dig a hole without finding something.
Excellent points Rafael! Love when you go into detailed thoughts and practical explanations. The fact that you also demo is a plus. Keep up the excellent content! 😀👍
The content you make is really awesome, I've learned way more from your videos than for 11 years of historical reenactment. Videos about Roman Legion and feudal Japan are my favorite, even though I was never really interested in those topics :)
Oh, by the way, have you seen another video from Top Tenz - "Top 10 Horrifying facts about ROMAN LEGIONS"? Judging by their video about Samurai, I'm hesitant to watch it, not to get wrong ideas...
@Nguyen Le Hoang yeah, I might not watch it, but what about other people who do?
2:04 No wonder the romans were so great at marching with those high quality running shoes
I own a gladius for home protection. Great sword.
Jacob Berry add a scutum to your home defense arsenal. If I break into someone's house and see someone come at me with a freaking short sword and shield, I'm outta there.
@@xezazase I will bear that in mind. Thanks.
I thought about this aswell. A pistol and a gladius for hand to hand combat lol. Just put them on the same belt and put it on if you hear something sketchy lol
Me when I see a «Answer to» video on the rest of YT: «Oh man I pass it will be random drama full of sh#t on an uninteresting topic!»
Also me when such a quality channel post a «Answer to» video: «cool, probably a respectful and friendly answer to an awsome video to add even more interesting information!»
Thanks!
Love the clips you put in! Great job on the video!
As I continue to watch your channel from time to time and see your consistent work, I think you may have many if not all the same aspirations as I do. The difference may be in that I want to do more than simply rediscover roman tactics such as everyone since 1400s-1700s tried to do while you may want to keep it to only academic level.
It makes me so happy that CZcams has such a great history community. You, shad, skallagrim, scholagladitoria, overly sarcastic productions,Lindy, the collective knowledge of all you guys is great and so refreshing to see, a multi shoutout to all of your great channels.
Your love and endless recognition for the Roman scutum throughout all your videos makes me smile. A lot of interesting insights in this video.
Roman infantry was trained and equipped overall, to fight en mass and in tight quarters. It makes good use to wield a gladius in this situation. It took away any advantage using long swords (which needs room to use). The Romans deliberately did it this way after their encounters against the Gauls and other groups.
you brought up a interesting topic and i enjoyed the video also i loved the intro it made me laugh cant wait to see more
You are the most knowledge teacher and I will support your opinion in this video,I love learning about the roman and u teach how are a roman were and i thankfully for that :)
The military historian Victor Davis Hanson has described
the frontline combat in the ancient world as a giant shoving match. Large centerboss shields would give the Roman infantrymen a tremendous advantage. The added weight would also be an advantage.
Wrong. That was just the greeks, and their combat, at least amongst themselves, was very ritualistic.
I need no channel youtube! Read some military history before you make uneducated comments.
@@procinctu1 I am fairly certain I have read more of that than you did.
the shovin theorie is highly debated, and the romans would be at a disadvantage with that shield as the aspis suposedly lets you breathe while beeing shoved, but is the only shield that does that, the romans also need more space to fight 3 to 6 foot, and the records spesificly say that if they get to close to each other they will make a oo out eachother
About how the roman's used the defense of the shield offensively. It's worth noting that offense and defense goes together. While the shields were needed to make the best use of the Gladius, it's also so that the Romans needed weapons to make the shields useful. Without a weapon, an enemy can just grab into your shield and pull it out of the way. Armor is harder to make ineffective that way, but armor does work less effective when an enemy has grabbed you and you have reduced mobility, something you can much easier prevent with a close quarter weapon than without.
This also holds true for modern weapons like guns. Guns have next to no direct defensive capabilities. If someone shoots at you, you don't use the gun to block an incoming bullet, you defend yourself by shooting that person so he stops shooting at you. Also, if someone shoots at you and you take cover, that cover will not last unless you have a gun as well. Without a gun, the assailant can just walk around the cover, but if you have a gun yourself, then the assailant also has to stay in cover, which limits his ability to walk around your cover.
Unless the other guy has grenades too... then your cover instantly turns into a death trap regardless of if both of you have guns.
Those legionarii wearing red bed sheets and adidas shoes are hilarious. :D
In all fairness, modern adidas shoes are probably more practical for the battlefield than what the historical Romans used.
@@tudornaconecinii3609 For urban setting and modern streets, adidas shoes are better. For battlefield and natural/rural setting, caligae are the best. It's how they bite into the ground, giving you extra stability, plus how they never overheat and dry out really fast.
God damn this video makes me want to buy a roman shield
Already did, best buy of my life :D Well maybeafter Pompeii Gladius.
I tried to make one, I sort of failed, sort of succeeded, but it isn't finished anyway, so it's still possible to salvage.
I've made a boss from 2mm thick sheet steel, cheated by using 6mm plywood for the core which I tried to bend with steam over an iron frame, was not satisfied with the curve.
Then I covered it in multiple layers of linen fabric affixed with watered down white wood glue brushed on to soak the fabric through and eliminate bubbles. Two layers on the back, four layers on the face, plan is to rim it with copper plate strips cold riveted through the wood, and then fixing the boss with hand forged Iron nails bent over washers on the back.
Why do you want to buy a grown man's scrotum?
@@franciscodanconia3551 nice to hang on the wall??
@@DatBoiOrly it was a joke about the captions. It says that instead of Roman scutum somewhere.
Thank you for this video.
Gladius is a good addition to the great Scutum.
Great video Ralph as usual!
I sorta get annoyed at that question, because of how often it gets asked, and how obvious the answer is. Some people say "the Gladius conquered the world" which is TRUE but it doesnt tell ALL; and because of that some people take it upon themselves to try and debunk that true claim for whatever reason.
The fact is a Roman Soldiers "kit" and his TRAINING(even more important than the kit) are what conquered the world; the Body armor, Mail or Segmentata/plate armor depending on what you can afford and what your rank was, but still mail on its own with a padded jacket underneath can stop almost anything esp small arms blows and arrows/missiles; and thats assuming the enemies attacks are capable of getting past your shield which covers your entire body, and MUCH like a Muay Thai boxers, or a Western Boxers, defensive guard(his hand placement; we keep a VERY close, tight guard defending our entire head since this is unarmed combat and the head is the primary target not the body like with weapons in warfare nor do we wear helmets obviously lol just padded headgear quite standard) ; how close the Roman Legionary was to hold his shield makes LOTS of sense and also reminds us of effective and proven unarmed(but still punching/kicking range, which is the range a fight between enemy soldiers with swords and spears and maces and axes and so on are going to fight at, after throwing their pilum and darts before closing in with shield and sword) combat techniques; which I have NO DOUBT was initially BASED ON Boxing in the ancient world, but with weapons. They influenced each other; they also had a form of MMA back then, but more brutal with less rules called pankration. but they also had normal Boxing(clinching was legal back then of course, and also it appears elbow strikes were also used, but no kicks or knees or ground wrestling).
Like I said, the Gladius AND the Scutum used by a WELL TRAINED Soldier(trained and heavily drilled AT LEAST a couple years with Experience every single day in the Armatura or what the Romans called their sparring/training which they would do in full armor with their full gear and their scutums equipped, but use Wooden Gladius that were twice the weight of a real steel gladius in order to strengthen the soldiers endurance and strength and speed when using the real weapon of course). But I believe the Armatura and the training and discipline associated with it, IN ADDITION to the post marian reforms standard issue legions all with Metal Body armor high quality, with advanced and complex and very protective steel helmets, the pilum, and last but not least the Scutum + sword combo.
And it is apparent just how important the old legionary discipline and training and standardized equipment was as well as morale; because all that had practically vanished after the times of he Barracks emperors; in fact its one of the many reasons the Western Roman Empire(THE Roman empire as it was based in Rome - or sometimes Ravenna which is at least in the same country as Rome) fell was not only because they had made a whole bunch of Barbarian Goths the "Roman Army" and WORSE made Gothic generals BEFORE these people were subdued into Roman generals....and that ended quite poorly of course. Because these so called Roman soldiers had NO REASON to defend Rome or Roman interests; in fact we hear of practically ZERO resistence in Italy against the Goths when they take over. And their successors too the ostrogoths after the visigoths. Its cause the actual ROMAN citizen population after the goths took over were forbidden not only to carry arms but were also forbidden to join the Legions of Italy therefore gaining no military experience; yet they at the same time held the highest civilian offices of course like the senate and others. Which had little power, but much dignity. IF the Roman state in the West had the MORALE and if the Romans in italy and in the Western Provinces were allowed to still join the legions, if they had continued their high level of military training and discipline and their high level and standardized equipment, such as say when the Republican armies were defeated in the field what like 14 times and about that many generals killed by hannibals plunderers and murderers; and they STILL kept up the fight and in fact WON the second Punic war and came out of it the worlds sole superpower(that anyone living in the Western half of the world knew of; China was a legendary land to our people back then, same as the Roman Empire was a legend to the Chinese people back then, so for all intents and purposes Rome was THE world).
And yet because of internal strife because of the continual and unceasing "donatives" and basically flat out bribery and raising of ALL of the soldiers pay(which was NOT deserved and IN FACT made the soldiers LESS LOYAL and WORSE SOLDIERS) which did nothing but make them feel more importan than they actually were and far less loyal to the Roman state and Emperor; which is why the crisis happened to a large extent, because of the pampered soldiers getting mad that Rome no longer had the ability OR the inclination to spent their entire annual budget(AND plunge themselves into debt in order to bribe soldiers who frankly should have been serving for their country as their primary reason or for the benefits involved....not for BRIBES if they wanted unearned easy money/BRIBES they should have went into politics or tax farming/publicani) into military expenditure and WORSE FAR WORSE - getting absolutely NOThING OUT OF ALL THAT MONEY SPENT - nothing except the disloyalty and corruption of the legions. And the Western Empire should also have MADE SURE that they only recruited Barbarian auxilliares to the extent of 1 barbarian per every 3 Romans AT LEAST give them NO CHANCE to betray you or the Empire as they did. Its amazing how we can still get frustrated at the state ruining decisions of the late westsern Roman Empire even now 1600-1500 years or so after its fall. The Eastern Empire met its final fate just 500 years ago or so, sadly, occupied constantinople.
But, Metatron, can you do a video about the LATE Roman military structure? From the time Im talking of? Where they used rounder shields, longer swords like the Spatha the predecessor to viking/arming swords, thrust and cut swords...and apparently they had dropped the pilum by this point, and according to Vegetius, apparently the legionary infantry were equipped with five or so darts in clips on the inside of their shields; and either they threw the darts by hand themselves, or eles they carried some device or stick to throw these darts; it took the place of the Pilum but Im not sure what it was exactly unless someone can explain these new infantry 1 man missile weapons the Romans now used at this time instead of the Pilum; and also i have heard that many of the men in the various legions began using SPEARS/hasta once again after so long not using them. And that was of course less effective than their traditional method of fighting, though I have read they did that BECAUSE they switched to Rounder shields with less protection and also cause their tactics changed totally esp once the West Empire fell; they relied on horsemen from that point on, their horsemen could be horse achers or heavy cavalry/cataphracts whichever was needed and they excelled in melee of course as is said they did over the persians; whereas the persians excelled over the East Romans in terms of Archery and missile weapons and running away while shooting arrows(though the romans could do all this too, during the Byzantine/East Roman/Greek Roman empire period after the Wests fall). I would like some information on how the actual legions not the cavalry but the legions the heavy infantry how they were equipped first of all, and how they operated ESPECIALLY in Europe - and other places that are infantry country and hostile to cavalry, like other mountainous and forested places - similar to Europe.
I love your videos very much and you are undoubtedly an amazing person with a sea of knowledge
And I would like to ask if you can make videos about the armor used by Persians and other peoples in the Middle East in antiquity
And the Muslims in the Middle East in the Middle Ages?
Love the thumbnail. The lorica segmentata looks great
We were all just waiting for your reply Sir, it all makes perfect sense to me, short stabby, use a shield, be it light Zulu warriors or heavy assed well-armoured infantry.
Yeah, it’s a smaller part of a whole weapons system, primarily the legionaries, then their gear. I also wonder if the weight of the shield had anything to do with using pila, like a counter balance for when they threw them? Especially the heavier ones.
lol the reenactors with shiny blue sneakers marching around at 2:06
Talking about great ancient civilizations can tire a man just from pure awesomeness.
PS. You should do more reenactments.
Good afternoon Metatron! First off I just wanted to say great video, keep up the work, and many good fortunes to you on this career! As a fellow videographer, though I will admit that I do not do it for CZcams recognition, might I recommend/suggest that you put some soundproofing padding on the walls in the background. You do not have to fill the walls with it, just put some on some strategic spots around the wall. I can hear your voice clearly as you speak, though its slightly muffled or you have the dB turned down slightly. But I just wanted you to know that I am hearing a faint echo of what's being said off the walls. Again I'm not an expert by no means, just giving a suggestion. Cheers!
Heh. That was almost a clickbait title! Great “reply” to Matt’s video. I love it when one item can cause a cascade of discussion. Scutum is under discussed so this was certainly welcome Metatron!
This is great, I love the demos!
Reeeeaaally liking the hairstyle Raf 🔥😃✊
Man you know what would make a good video idea ? 🤔🧐
A video about gymnasium training , soldier training, did they do greco-roman wrestling? Did romans lift weights ? Did the soldiers train like gladiators? 🤔🤓
I'm assuming the boss grip is made horizontal rather than vertical to accommodate a hanging carry. a vertical grip would require more energy and not allow the shield to hang freely so far as I can tell.
Correct.
It is, as he phrased it, a "briefcase grip" style of holding it.
Loved your video. I use shield and sword in a combat-like sport by 5 years and I never looked for short swords as a viable option over the more long and nimble swords. You video makes me think about my concepts and consiter to adapt the style and try something more roman-like. The best civilization the world as ever knew.
Best civilization? I love classical history but by modern standards the Romans were incredibly barbaric, with slavery, invading other countries and slaughtering and conquering their populace, gladiatorial games and religious persecutions. Their legal and political systems were massively corrupt. The Roman system also had major problems, slavery made the rich richer but forced the smaller landowners out of business. The personal loyalty the soldiers had to their generals combined with the fact a strong enough person could seize the Empire lead to massive infighting in civil wars. As fascinating as the Romans are if they were best civilization it would be a very sad reflection of humanity.
@@101Mant imo, the Romans taught us great lessons on how to build a stable democracy specifically through the failiures that paved their way to their fall.
You know, for the longest time I misheard "noble ones" as "number ones", like what Captain Picard calls Commander Riker.
same here
Just think of a rugby scrum, but with a shield and a wieldy short sharp blade, mind the fingers boys, this thing is sharp.
*Relevant and Supportive Comment*
(Excuse me Metatron, but could you please check out the game known as Exanima?
I thought you would enjoy the challenge that the game poses, but also how the armour works in game.)
Here's the video.
czcams.com/video/-U1huhxKKH0/video.html
Maybe the Roman close grip of the shields was inspired by the hoplite style army that preceded the usual classical Roman army? Maybe a mix of Celtic assault infantry doctrine with static hoplite warfare?
Now that we're talking about weapon systems, can we elaborate on the greek crescent hoplon and lakonia combo? (Lakonia back up weapon to the spear of course, just trying to squeeze in some pros and cons of all ancient weapons, if I could.)
koosh138 Not to be a douche, but the word is “aspis” not hoplon
Good video from Tennessee. Being in the USA, you have lost none of your Italian insight on Roman weapons. 💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Nice video! Both the scutum and gladius were designed and adapted to the way the Romans fought: close in, in very tight formations, with good protection and an initial onslaught of thrown spears. This is why it's not a good dueling sword, if you were in a dual, you'd already lost and were now seeking an honourable death.
The Romans actually fought in looser formations. Polybius says that each Roman soldier has an interval of at least 3 feet all around him. Contrary to intuition, this would actually *require* good cohesion and discipline. The looser formations gave them flexibility and depth, and great ability to cycle fresh troops to the front.
Contrast that with a phalanx. Polybius also said that when facing a phalanx frontally, each Roman soldier at the front is confronted by two phalangites of the enemy's front rank. In fact, due to the overlapping spears from rear ranks, each Roman soldier is facing more than two spears. Victory in those circumstances wasn't gained by overpowering the phalanx. Even when, in some cases, the Romans threw their standards into the phalanx to inspire their troops to attack and retrieve it, they still couldn't break it by direct assaults. Instead, the Romans won out by outlasting it, wearing it down, waiting for that moment when the phalanx lost cohesion.
@@aurorastarfury thanks god finally sombody that knows about this
@@aurorastarfury an interessting thing is also that troups would abarently crowd eachother out of fear, so cesar would deliberatly space them out more. so the dicepline comes in keeping your spacing. The interessting question is how they would end up against an elite shield wall, of soldier of simular quality and training, as a shieldwall / spear phalanx greatly gets enhanced by cohision and training / professionalism. A spearmen with a big shield and sword isnt and the right training, to fight outside of a shieldwall, wouldnt be nearly as suseptible to flanking or broken tarain. to could net nessearly stop a legionary from closing in. but bc of the spacing required he would still face multiple spear of his enemy wile fighting the front rank (alone).
I would love to see a video on lesser known Roman weapons, or anything they had that is underrepresented/unknown
I just got a my first gladius from United Cutlery(a modern iteration that is), Now im hooked and want one of those shining ancient looking ones! Love this thing and It feels so powerful and authoritative, no wonder the Romans slayed.
Say, I´ve heard a lot around that the scutum´s metal rim was implemented to get further protection specifically againt iberian falcatas. Guess might know of this, so how true is that? great vid as usual, cheers!
Celtiberian reenactor here. In my research I also read they were reenforcing the shields after the first encounters with the Iberian/Celtiberian falcata. Or as the Romans mentioned it, the machaera hispaniensis.
Question: What are the dimensions of an late Augustan period (around 60 AD) Scutum? I've done quite a bit of research into this and have found many different answers. Your (imperial) Legio Rapax scutum looks about right so what are its stats? Unless of course you know some more accurate Augustan (round sides, flat top shape) measurements. Also love the all the Rome content!
Loved the video!
Thank you pie :D
Metatron 😘😘😘
I'd like to see a video named "the Roman scutum was good?" And in this video you analyze the gladius sword
:D
If you watch previously the other video, then, this have complete sense.
Wow. I have to admit I didn't realize that the scutum was carried like that. I thought that the boss mounted grip was in a different orientation. Or I imagined that they flipped it upside down instead of the suitcase carry. Hmm a video on Roman shield use would be cool. :)
What about the indian or persian swords? I cant find any video of their fighting styles. Is there any documents about it? If someone know please let me know
Those would be scimitars and sabers basically, vouldnt they?
I need no channel youtube! Ya but what about their fighting style? Its definitely not like the europian fighting style with sabers
@@nomad5083 indian fencing from what I have seen is for duels, is very acrobatic, and practiced unarmoured, against unarmoured opponents. That might just be a specific honor duel kind of thing.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 In our weather, armour would kill by heat stroke, before the enemy got to you.
2:02 those shoes killed my immersion!!!!
This reminds me how much I want to see you do a video on Zulu warriors! I think you'd genuinely enjoy comparing and contrasting gladius with assegai, cowhide shield with scutum, heavy armor with zero armor. Plus, the zulu age based conscription system is totally different from, but still oddly similar to the Republican maniples. It's just the weirdest historical coincidence to me how similar these two great militaries were, with 2000 years and thousands of miles separating them.
Totally expected the notification hahah
Also, as you can see inn the video, the grip is horizontal in scutum (briefcase style), while it is vertical in viking shield.
BTW. Holding smaller shield away from your body covers the access as good as larger shield close to the body.
In 1 vs. 1. Not that much in formation fights.
Slightly off topic, as best I recall, Pliny the Elder mentioned shields flying in formation in the sky before the eruption of Vesuvius. Reading a footnote in another work quoting him in English, it was unclear whether he was talking about round, oval, or rectangular. Also mentioned men on hilltops wearing silvery raiment .... Curious. Anyone remember reading anything like this?
as i did in the video i referenced about it being great sword, o as you put it "really that good", i believe that the superior steel the Roman possessed is an important element to the gladii being great. It can sustain damage that lessor swords would cause lesser to bend.
Hi,
Can you please do a video on roman auxiliaries? 😀
I knew you would respond to that video
It doesn't seem to be made clear that the Gladius and Scutum were designed together during the Marian Reform. They formed a single weapon system. This weapon system was layered with other combat systems, like the armor, and used in formations. It's like asking if the gun on a tank is the greatest gun, without the rest of the tank, it doesn't really make much sense.
Have you had a look at Tod from Tod's Workshop
, he does heater shields
A scutum always has a two points shoulder/neck strap attached at each end of the boss handle grip. The weight of the shield can be transferred to the upper body as long as you keep the shield by the handle and push it out just enough so as to put tension into the adjustable leather strap. This strap system palliate the fact that you can't let the shield rest onto one shoulder like a concave greek aspis, yet the scutum is heavier than an aspis but you have to fight with both of those shield UP most of the time.
I have a question about the reenactments shown in your videos: did the romans (and all ancient and medieval soldiers) really march in sync and did all those jerky moves when changing the guard? I heard in a podcast that the reason for those weird movements is to be found in the need for 18th century soldiers to move and fire in sync in line formations in order to maximise their firepower.
What's your thought on this?
Thank you
When pushing for really close range combat romans were not only leveraging their superior armor, they were also counting on their superior training and discipline:
Killing other human is psychologically really hard. And the closer you are the other person the harder it gets. And the more horrifying it is to face an enemy who is trying to do exactly that: get into "bad breath"-distance and stab you to death.
Training and drilling is one way to get around this difficulty. Imho romans pretty much understood this. They also took this into mind when constructing their chain of command: they were the first ones to use NCO:s.
For more details on this interesting aspect I recommend David Grossmans excellent book: "On Killing".
Very good video!
It's been a long time since you've said your first and last name. My allegiance is to you, Centurion Raphael!
What are those straps in front of the red dress or toga for?
I ate Neapolitan pizza today, and Raf has a video. Italy smiles on me today.
What about vertical grip vs. horizontal. The scutum has a horizontal grip, the viking shields were vertical - is that simply related to the altitude you usually keep the shield, or does it play into combat techniques as well?
Make a video on Marian Reforms!
Hey metatron, could you do a video explaining gladiator in for honor how his sheild works?
I don't think the second Punic war was the only case where Romans expected to face fully armored opponents, Italian Greeks and Epirotes were more or less matched to them, Macedonians would have fairly good if light armor, Parthians and Sassanids would have padded armor at worst and full coats of mail and lamellar at best. Celts were known for their mail, etc. Romans fighting clearly inferior enemies was more of a rarity than them fighting enemies that were clearly superior in one form or the other.
To be fair, the Celtic armies probably would have looked alot like Viking armies in terms of gear.
@@lemonvariable72: Vikings had mail, no?
DAMN, i love these kind of crossovers XD !!
Love your channel but you need to do something about the echo in the room
How about Triarii? Did they use scutum shield with the spear? Or did they use other type of shield?
I've heard of a saying that the Gladius and the Scutum combination together with the Roman infantry combat formation does not necessarily be the most effective tactical choice against all kinds of enemies upon first contact, but it alway buy enough time for the Roman soldiers to adjust their tactics.
The purpose behind both the Scutum and the Gladius was the Roman method of close infantry formation combat. This is also the purpose behind the Pilum - a ‘short range’ missile weapon designed to disrupt the enemy’s formation just before the time of impact between opposing infantry. I think this is the main point. Sure short sword and big shield could be effective in a ‘one on one’ duel or even a melee, but all things considered a warrior so armed would be at a disadvantage to a comparable warrior armed with a long sword and smaller shield (or even no shield at all). The medieval comparison point is the Viking-Saxon sheild wall: large overlapping willow board shields with warriors armed with either a small thrusting sword - the Saex or even a knife or perhaps a small axe to pull the opposing shield down. It’s the tight combat scenario that both the gladius and scutum combination were intended. Not a one on on duel or even a melee (if either happened it was because there had been a massive mistake causing the cohort to loose cohesion).
Do you know were you can get a historically accurate scutum?
In the US
Yes; historicallyaccuratescutumstore.com
The gladius was designed as a stabbing weapon used from behind a shield.
The combined effect from a whole, tight unit gave the effect of a slowly advancing buzzsaw.
In this role it was very effective.
How did you enjoy your visit to Nashville
Your house (that is your house, right?) looks like a museum. I wish my house looked like that.
Will there be a video on the Primus Pilum?
You also see that by the time you get full plate armor in the later medieval period, knights often use hammers, maces etc - short weapons - when fighting against other heavily armored opponents. But this is different because they're both sides in this case are armored and so they opt for blunt trauma weapons.
INCREDIBILIS!!!
I think you need to cover your shoulder when your demonstrating fighting with the shield. You would never drop it that low
Before watching the video, my guess would be:
It depends on what you mean by good (or great). Its great plus is _versatility._ So if that is what you are looking for, yes it's good, probably great even, considering the times. If you're looking for something else, then probably not.
The two dislikes are barbarians
The center boss also allows you to punch your opponent more effectively using the center boss as a huge brass knuckle.
The way modern day Riot Police operate and fight seems very reminiscent of the Roman Soldiers...
6:30 "you're confident of your superior gear, and your're confident about the fact that [...] most of your opponents won't be fully armoured. [...] You're using defense offensively"
They don't use swords of course, but those clubs they use are also rather short, and they have to get in close to strike an opponent with it.
"The way modern day Riot Police operate and fight seems very reminiscent of the Roman Soldiers..."
That's it. Against light and mobile gauls, you needed heavy fortress dudes with a big shield, especially when they started to literally throw stones or bullcrap at you (which they did).
the Romans with sneakers in the reconstruction are the top. Haha but the rest of the video is nice too😁👍