Why did Roman armies adopt the Spatha & abandon the Gladius?
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 06. 2024
- The Roman military of he Republican and Pricipate periods seemed to have a winning combination of gladius, and scutum (the rectangular Roman shield). And yet, starting at some point in the late secondr early third century AD, both of these began to be phased out, and the Romans would adopt a new sword--the spatha. Why did they do this? This video atttempts some sort of an answer.
As has been pointed out, while the narration is correct, the data for lengths for gladius and spatha on screen were switched and I did not catch it. So just swap those as you watch the video
The overall point is that we have long examples of the gladius, particularly the hispaniensis, and some of those are quite similar to the lengths of various spathae. So, “long” and “short” are not particularly useful classifications for the blades, and rather than swapping from a short to a long sword, the romans appear to have been actively experimenting with finding the correct tool for the job
Hope you all enjoyed this! I would highly recommend the books listed in the video
-Mike
Haha, I was so confused, I went back 4 times to the graphic to try to make sense of it…
Ah thanks. I was about to comment that your video did not make sense because of some of the graphics. The spartha were a lot longer and more narrow than the shortish gladius.
The Spartha were a lot more like medieval swords than the gladius which were far more like the more ancient bronze swords (I have a reproduction irish short bronze sword which is exactly 54.5 cm long - I just measured it)
its a calvary wepon you morron
Is the narration correct? You outright say that the gladius has a length of between 540-815 mm and the spatha 430-770 mm. Is that correct or is the 540-815 mm figure supposed to apply to the spatha?
The point of a supposed "Roman" sword being replaced by a "Gallic" sword to symbolize larger barbarian components in the Roman army falls apart when you consider that the gladius itself wasn't a Roman sword. It was originally a Celt-Iberian sword, and thus, barbaric in origin.
It comes down to fighting style. Their fighting style changed over time and the weapons reflect that.
This. Same for the Galea helmet and the Scutum. Either Celtic or Iberian. The Pilum could have originated in either of those; it might even have been Samnite.
The only arguably and purely Roman component of the classical Principate era armor was the lorica segmentata. Everything else was barbarian in origin.
The only time when Rome did not look barbarian...was arguably when they doned hoplite gear during the Early and Mid Republic 😂
The pilum was Etruscan in origin
The scutum was italic (supposedly Samnite) it was in use in the Roman army since at last the servian reforms (aka kingdom era) but it became popular only during the Samnite wars ( replacing the greek opponent shield)
@@MrAlepedrozaand even then, also used gear based or copied from Greek stuff like the attic and corinthian helmet
@@MrAlepedroza Where did the cingulum originate?
There is also a possible economic explanation for the switch to the spatha
From the end of the 3rd century, the Romans began manufacturing their military equipment in large centralized factories. Central production makes it possible to produce a higher quality sword that requires more iron more cheaply in large quantities.
(Contrary to popular belief, the spatha is more complex to produce. Its size means it requires more iron and man-hours.)
The Gladius, on the other hand, comes from a time when swords were still manufactured in small local companies, not in central factories.
Problem with that thought is that the Celts, Germans and Dacians all had longer spatha length swords when the Romans were using their gladius. The gladius is the earlier sword that the Celts were using. The Romans adopted it from the Celts in Spain hence the original name gladius hispaniensis and why the Romans started wearing their swords on their right hip. Prior to that they wore their swords on the left hip in Greek fashion something which the senior officers continued to do. The Celts then developed longer swords but the Romans stuck to their shorter gladius which obviously worked for them.
It should be noted the Romans considers most celtic longswords as made of inferior metals.
So them choosing to switch to longer swords being partially due to being able to make those swords but with higher quality should atleast be considered as a potential factor
@@matthiuskoenig3378 The main supplier for metal equipment of the roman army were the celtic tribes of Noricum who produced the famous ferrum Noricum, the noric steel which was the superior metal of its time.
@@denniseggert211 hence use of "most" and not "all"
@@matthiuskoenig3378 I want to suggest that the influence of Noricum as romes armory might have pushed to the adoption of the celtic-longsword like spatha. The Germanic tribes also adopted the germanic spatha around the time when celts got smashed between Roman and Germanic culture spheres and absorbed into one of the two groups suggesting that celtic smiths influenced the germanic weapon technology.
In practical terms a longer sword provides you with reach and that lets you hit things that are further away, like mounted cavalry, or just control more space in front of you, being able to strike before being struck or simply keep an enemy further away. Along with the adoption of the Spatha, Roman legionaries also began to move away from the Scutum, which is what dictated how they fought more than the actual swords in previous eras. I think they should be seen as a package deal, smaller, more mobile shields = longer sword to compensate.
But some of the late flat shields were bigger than the scutum.
This
Scutum was too complicated in production. Armies became larger, needed more simplistic equipment. Making flat oval shield from wooden planks was far quicker than making curved shield in several layers, covered with hide.
@@nicolafiliber3062 I don't think the armies got larger...
@@alyenendrovtsorokean7406 You do not think, but they did. The army of Diocletian was close to half a million total. Armies of Augustus were no more than 300 thousand
On a personal note the Emperor Aurelian was the leader of the cavalry under Emperor Gallienus. It might not be a coincidence that a cavalry sword rose to prominence at the same time an Emperor who was a former Cavalry Officer was restoring the empire through military conquest.
Well, maybe. You could also argue as a cavalry officer he knew that cavalry and infantry functioned differently.
Longer swords had already been used by Roman (auxilary) cavalry at least since the early Imperial age. They were also generally more popular with the "barbarian" infantry which made up large contingents of the late Roman army. It was easier and cheaper to have the "barbarians" fight in their own style than to re-equip and re-train them. See round shields and the use of spears instead of pila.
Most spathas were also perfectly capable of thrusting. And of course you could use a gladius for slashing.
@@ottovonbismarck2443 Possibly used due to more skirmishing against barbarians where the longer reach would help in looser formations.
@@mich722 The late Roman army was made up of barbarians who pretty much used the same equipment as the barbarians they opposed. The barbarians fought in formations, but not as tight ones as the Roman legions, thus you had more space to slash a sword. The somewhat smaller and lighter round shields (as opposed to the scutum) also worked better with slashing swords and spears. The use of spears instead of pila is a sign of a more defensive attitude.
@@ottovonbismarck2443 You haven't kept up with the scholarship in the last 30 odd years have you? Hugh Elton's work gave a figure of 23% for the late fourth century army and 31% for the late fifth eastern one after it'd dissolved. While the methodology, even by Elton's own reckoning, has flaws the work has gained widespread traction within academia, especially within the larger framework of the pushback against the notion of barbarisation.
Furthermore, the question of how the roman army fought is also disputed, with one group favouring a more open formation. Michael J Taylor's Visual Evidence for Roman Infantry Tactics is one such work, using both period literary and artistic works to derive an answer.
That the very video you are commenting under, let alone their other on the topic, rubbishes your own ideas is telling to how out of touch you are.
I have tested the Spatha and the Gladius. I own replicas of both swords. Based on my own testing of the Spatha, I find it's difficult to swing easily and thus achieve a cutting action. The blade has a lot of weight in the front half and the hilt is only large enough for one-handed use, thus manoeuvrability feels compromised. In order to make an adequate cutting motion, the blade needs to achieve considerable momentum during the swing before coming down onto its target, with the bulk of the force of impact present at the front half of the sword (due to mentioned weight distribution). To make the swing fast and effective enough, I typically find myself having to start my swing motion from a resting position on my shoulder or trap and somewhat perpendicular to my neck (kind of hard to explain). This way, the swing path is curved, starting from behind one's neck and ending up in one's front, at the target. This results in a sort of diagonal cutting motion, instead of a vertical one. You can make a vertical stroke as well, but once again the blade's length and disproportionate weight require a long swing originating from behind one's head. For the soldier to achieve these motions optimally, he would have required strong deltoids, triceps/biceps, forearm muscles, rotator cuffs for stability, and upper back muscles (especially the latissimus dorsi, rhomboids, trapezius). The long swing seems to make sense for a cavalryman who, atop a horse, has a lot of space to swing it vertically -- you can do a 360 degree swing if you like, which would generate even more momentum. The front-heavy weight distribution of the sword could cause a devastating hit when made during a pass-by on a horse at speed. It could also be swung in reverse (bottom to top/clockwise) and cause damage to the head of an enemy. However, for infantry, on foot, there is less flexibility. I would imagine that, when fighting in formation and requiring a swing motion, the Roman soldier would have required some extra space around him in order to make an effective cut. I cannot imagine how a cut could be made in close ranks as it would end up endangering fellow comrades behind or beside you. In close ranks, I suppose it would have been used as a stabbing sword -- perhaps as a backup to the spear, which was the primary weapon of choice for late Roman armies.
That is dependent on how the spatha was made, the weight could just as easily be moved towards the hilt to make the blade more nimble. I think what you are saying is more indicative of your reproduction, than the actual historical spathas. The spatha is most similar to a viking sword. Also, many cutting weapons such as the falchion have heavy front ends because that is conducive to chopping motions, being nimble was not the point of the weapon, any agility is of secondary benefit. Also, your difficulty in wielding it might have something to do with your personal physical strength.
@@user-qj6vg8gp3l I was definitely not trying to complain about the Spatha. I think the sword has pros and cons, like any other weapon, and was employed for very specific circumstances in order to achieve maximal tactical advantage. The one I have is a 5th century replica, and would be considered more "barbarian" at face value, so it aligns with your reference to viking swords. As for my personal physical strength, I am guilty for not having more of it, though I do train with weights 3-5 times a week. My point was to do with technique when using the sword -- as any weapon would require -- and attempting to understand how to use it for best impact and efficiency. I realize that it's merely my own testing and that I really cannot immerse myself into a scenario of an ancient battle, wherein I would certainly encounter situations that I simply cannot guess at when testing it on my own in an open space.
less cutting and more using the pointy end. Not used as the gladius - lateral of the shield but with the shield - supported by the shield.
An important qualifier here is who made these replicas? Anything made by Deepeeka, for example, can be disregarded due to their sloppy manufacturing processes with non-existent distal taper or just plain wrong dimensions meaning anything they output is more for display than practical purposes. Compare and contrast this with Albion swords, who are dedicated to making swords usable for test cutting.
@@docholiday7975 You;re right. I'd have to check who made them. I purchased it from Kult of Athena, which is only a supplier.
I don't think I ever told you, but thanks a ton for the different colored dots marking different items found, it helps keep up with your fact bombs so much easier.
I've always considered the transition to be due to an increased need for flexibility.
The Spatha may be less formidable in close order fighting due to its weight and length, but they would have been the weapon of choice for assaults and other forms of open order combat.
To compensate for the loss of COC ability, the weapon of choice for those circumstances would have been the Hasta.
Clash of Clans mentioned 🗣️🗣️💥❗💥❗❗
Probably used due to a change in fighting style, which included more skirmishing and more smaller-scale battles. For skirmishes, the longer reach would be more useful as troops would not be in tight formations. From I've read it also seems the later Roman army was more hesitant to risk large-scale battles, as it was more risky as losses could be harder to replace.
Probably not: Maurice's Strategikon specifies that infantry should have long swords and he describes a very dense formation. Similarly, it's widely agreed that Rome adopted a closer order fighting style at the end of the 3rd century AD, as opposed to the loose (up to 6 feet per man) formation used when the gladius was common.
@@Cahirable referring to small scale skirmishes, and not battles which would of course be in tighter formations. The longer spatha allowed more flexibility in fighting style, to fight in closer formations in conventional battle and also in skirmishes and raids.
@@mich722 But that's the thing: the existing style of fighting was much more suited to skirmishing. The initial drawn out skirmish phase (best but boringly elaborated on in Sam Koon's "Infantry Combat in Lucy's Battle Narratives") was a core factor in how the Romans fought their battle from at least the 2nd century AD to the 1st century AD, and probably through to the 3rd. It almost certainly took up the largest part of the battle
Given the wide variety of opponents faced, it was also clearly a very effective method of fighting large scale battles as well.
So, any changes that brought about the spatha are unlikely to be because existing weapons and fighting styles were poor for skirmishing and smaller battles
Yes and no. That's another myth based on the assumption that early legionnaires stood nearly shoulder to shoulder and shield to back...which is beyond asinine, since they would have risked stabbing each other, cutting each other (the Gladius was also used to cut) and lacked space to either throw their Pilum, rotate tanks and move swiftly as a unit.
On the contrary, according to sources like Polybius, Caesar and Vegetius, we now know that the legionaires needed at least three square feet of space to fight properly. Whenever they stood too tightly, it was mainly when they were demoralized or scared , their generals (such as Caesar) would ask them to space out.
The early legions were more like individual swordsmen and javelineers who needed space to harass with range weapons, to suddenly switch to melee or maneuver quickly to outflank the enemy.
On the contrary, the late legionaries stood more tightly packed, since their main weapon was NOT the spatha, but their SPEARS, which do not need as much space as swords to be useful.
@Cahirable Interesting, I would think it the opposite, the shorter the blade, the denser the formation, the longer the blade the more open. 6 feet seems quite a large gap for Republic to early Imperial era. The Gladius was used primarily as a stabbing short sword opposed to the Spatha, which was more of a longer slashing weapon, seems odd that the formations would become more densely packed while using a longer swinging weapon.
Great job. I enjoyed this very much. Excellent, comprehensive work.
I would say it was due to a change in tactics which was spurred on by many things such as changes in overall goals, changes in enemy tactics, etc. If your lines are spread further apart & you have more room to swng then you can use a longer weapon.
Wrong. That's another myth based on the assumption that early legionnaires stood nearly shoulder to shoulder and shield to back...which is beyond asinine, since they would have risked stabbing each other, cutting each other (the Gladius was also used to cut) and lacked space to either throw their Pilum, rotate tanks and move swiftly as a unit.
On the contrary, according to sources like Polybius, Caesar and Vegetius, we now know that the legionaires needed at least three square feet of space to fight properly. Whenever they stood too tightly, it was mainly when they were demoralized or scared , their generals (such as Caesar) would ask them to space out.
The early legions were more like individual swordsmen and javelineers who needed space to harass with range weapons, to suddenly switch to melee or maneuver quickly to outflank the enemy.
On the contrary, the late legionaries stood more tightly packed, since their main weapon was NOT the spatha, but their SPEARS, which do not need as much space as swords to be useful.
The adoption of the Spatha and its abandonment of its supposed "winning strategy", was not as dramatic as one might have believed. Weapons, Cultures, Politics, Religions and ways to conduct wars changed. To ignore that change and stick to the old ways was a way to cause a civilization to stagnate. From the 3rd century CE, the Roman military abandoned the Gladius as the rectangular shield was large, heavy and cumbersome. Economic problems also forced the Romans to change strategy and reduce wood use. The Spatha is only slightly longer than the gladius. It is still capable of slashing, hacking and stabbing with great effect.
Roman military lines were not as tightly packed when engaging enemy lines. Usually around 2-3 feet spacing apart from their comrades to give more room to slash, hack and stab. Roman soldiers didn't just stab in one repeated motion. It was many moves. Roman soldiers also seem to rely on spears as their primary arm more and more with the Spatha as the side arm. Of course various units used javelins instead of spears but late roman troops would rely more and more on spears and using the Spatha once their spears broke or they were forced into CQC.
Fascinating. Elucidating. Excellent in every respect. Can’t get enough.
Thanks. Nice graphics.
1:56 Is there a mistake here, where the stats for the Gladius and the Spatha got switched?
Yeah
i love your attention to detail
Great video man! greetings from Argentina!
Thoroughly enjoyed this, because I had previously thought that by and large, the Republican Roman Army was primarily infantry using huge scutum for cover, pilum for initial contact and a stabbing only gladius for attack and defence. Having read Marius, I thought the standard tactics were to advance in formation, throw the pilum at 30 to 50 paces, draw gladius, continue to advance to contact, use scutum to punch forward and push opponent off balance, stab to the right skewering your right hand mate's opponent, while your left hand mate does the same for you, stamp forward as your opponent goes down, smash your scutum onto his face, then stamp on him. Then move forward and repeat.
For this a short 20" bladed gladius is ample. My reading was that this was the standard Roman tactics through the Republican and early Empire eras. Cavalry and Auxiliary forces used longer Sparta swords for extra reach from horseback.u reading also showed that as the Romans encountered different enemies, they adapted and changed. Over a period of 100 to 150 years, various units adopted different weapons and tactics as the standard Roman Army became mounted. The standard sword became the Sparta, the Scutum became lighter and rounded for easier use on a horse, and the pilum became lance like, but not really used as a lance.
This video shows the overlap period was probably longer and very dependant on terrain and opponent.
Romans always adopted weapons of their enemies. Pilum was originally from sabines, scutum shield was adopted from the samnites. The famous gladius was iberian in origin even roman helmets were adopted from their enemies. The famous legionare helmet, is called galea helmet. It was modified version of celtic iron helmet. And if I had to guess. Lorica segmentata was probably inspired by armour the parthian catapracht used.
Another quality video buddy!
Perhaps I'm wrong, and more than welcome to be told so, but would a spatha style sword be more useful for a swordsman fighting against man on horseback because of its increased reach? It doesn't seem coincidencal that the spatha gains more widespread usage as Rome finds itself fighting more and more hordes from beyond the frontier
Well done. Cheers 🍻
I always found strange that 'gladius' wasn't used to name a sword in neo-latim languages, now I see the evolution and origin of the word 'espada' (pt/es, 'spada' it).
About the same time period the Roman Rectangular Shield was replaced by a Oval Four foot wide shield. You also see the development of the “Shield Wall”. A Shield Wall, started with the first line of infantry putting they shield upward on the ground with a Spear put every where two shields meet. The Second line of Infantry would put their shields on top of those spears and put their spears where ever they shields meet, The third line of infantry would do the same. The line behind the third line would put their shields over the heads to protect themselves from arrows and other “indirect fire” weapons. This is a much more defensive formation then what the Romans had used in the times of the Roman Republic and even the early empire.
This defensive formation appears to be caused by two interrelated events;
1.First was the need for more troops starting with the crisis of the Third Century and
2.Second with more and more Romans becoming de facto serfs, serfs who could NOT enlist into the Army with out their master’s permission, permission almost never given,
You ended up with a severe shortage of troops.. In effect the Roman Army could no longer endure the losses the earlier Republican and early Empire army could lose, thus the aggressive tactics tied in with the short sword and Rectangular Shield had to give way to the more defensive formation of the shield wall.
You just can NOT just look at why the Gladius was replaced by the Spatha, but why the Oval Shield replaced the Rectangular Shied, and how did the introduction of true heavy cavalry affect how the infantry fought? The adoption of heavy cavalry had an affect in that the infantry could become a base the heavy cavalry could attack from and retreat behind. The Heavy cavalry became the decisive arm of the army, where in the days of the Republic it had been the infantry. Thus the aggressive tactics of the infantry of the Roman Republic was no longer needed and a more defensive formation was found to be more effective.
00:07 You missed out on the opportunity to say the gladius had a "blady" rather than 'bloody' reputation👀
I wouldn't be surprised if Romes enemies changed their strategy over time as well. In the modern era we use the term "arms race".
A sword's a sword. We didn't get a new rifle just because a new enemy came up. And Rome's enemies changed with the decades
they did.
@@samsonsoturian6013are you saying that all swords are the same? a sword is NOT just a sword😂
@@steviechampagne not if you intend to murder someone with it rather than have it as a trophy
Change in tactical set-up.
From heavy infantry based army (Gladius for close up formation and stabbing) to heavy cavalry ones.
I'm not really sure where the idea that the gladius being a stabbing weapon primarily comes from either. Anecdotes from battlefield experience describe hacked off limbs and men diced to pieces in a frightening way that would traumatize Roman and barbarian alike - that doesn't seem indicative of a weapon meant mostly for thrusting, moreover long thin blades are more ideal for thrusting than fat and short ones. This isn't to say that you cannot thrust with a gladius, but it doesn't feel like a blade built to serve as a thrusting weapon. Plus Romans from the era of the gladius are described as fighting in fairly loose formations compared to the Macedonians (and possibly even barbarians such as the Goths or Gauls iirc are described as favoring spear phalanxes?).
Plus when it comes to arms and armor, the gladius exists in a period where heavy body armor is fairly infrequent among Rome's enemies, while the migration age brings the Roman state up against steppe cultures or more armored and organized Germanics where very long hauberks become more common compared to the very short armors of classically envisioned hamata which mimics Hellenic tube and yoke aesthetics. Thus cutting with a sword like the gladius becomes less favorable compared to thrusts, either to exposed pieces or having a blade so long you can actually lift the hem of your enemy's maille and stab him in the groin similar to how Saint Olaf bit the dust.
The notion is largely borne of Vegetius writing in the late 4th C, well after it'd been abandoned. Despite lacking any military experience he wrote an influential manual on wide military matters where he argued for a return to a blurred combination of mid republican and principate era military systems. He's also responsible for, among other things, the notion that late roman soldiers didn't wear armour despite archaeological and literary evidence otherwise.
A large, light shield like the scutum was likely made from plywood, which was a very expensive process at the time. If the state wishes to save money, or some bureaucrat wishes to steal money, substituting a cheaper shield would be a way to do that, but it might necessitate a change in fighting style.
Hi Mike, didn't you do a video on this subject years ago? I think it may even have been one of your first few
I did! This one actually has a script!
@@TheFallofRome You came a long way! Been a fan of your challenging and yet highly informative work ever since your series on the Huns (and that disgusting Samurai headhunting practice 🤣). You never mollycoddle your audience with convenient narratives - I Iearnt the term historiography from you!
The gladius is a perfectly good and adequate sword, I bet it has a great personality too. 😢😢
I think it's very, *very* unlikely that thd Romans adopted a looser formation as opposed to a denser one in this period. The Polybian legion fought with a file spacing of six feet per man and, although it's been speculated that by the 1st century AD this had changed to three feet per man, a relatively loose formation was retained for the life of the gladius.
The switch to spears as a primary weapon and the adoption of broader round or oval shields happens at a similar time to widespread infantry adoption of the gladius and, from Ammianus' descriptions it's unlikely these were looser formations than were previously used. This is backed up by the 6th century Strategikon of Pseudo-Maurice, which specifies that the long "Herulian" sword should be used in preference to any shorter sword *and* which describes an extremely dense infantry formation.
Strategicon says dense formations with longer swords by your own words, so doesn't that contradict your idea they were less dense with longer swords?
@@matthiuskoenig3378 That's not my argument? Not sure how you're getting me arguing for looser formations with longer swords from my argument that longer swords came into use at the same time as denser formations did.
I'm a bit confused. Your panel around 1:53 shows the 'average' range of the Gladius to be longer than the Spatha. Is this due to the various incarnations relevant to set time periods so a Gladius could be longer than a Spatha simply by chance depending on the times of each chosen to compare? Or is it an error and the ranges should be reversed? Just curious.
Thank you for listing the reference works also. I have been looking for a good reference for the Roman Army and will definitely check Pat Southern's work out.
Thinking about this too. Maybe my concept of a Spartha and Galdius is incorrect by a great deal.
-Edit- then again the lengths do not vary significantly.
Also shows the Spatha is wider, which doesn't fit the narrative. Something isn't right.
Considering the variations in length for each;
Do we have evidence that a longer Gladius
and shorter Spatha were issued/in service
at the same time?
Are the lengths blade lengths or total lengths? I know I've been unclear about that in the past, and the scholarly articles are often unclear as well.
There is a Chinese saying about weapon "One inch longer means one inch stronger. one inch shorter means one inch riskier". When two soldiers trying to stab each other. The soldier with the longer weapon will have the advantage.
Could any of this be attributed to changes in manufacturing technology or technique? A change in how the craftsmen went about things?
Yes, there is also a possible economic explanation for the switch to spatha. From the end of the 3rd century, the Romans began manufacturing their military equipment in large centralized factories. Central production makes it possible to produce a higher quality sword that requires more iron more cheaply in large quantities. Contrary to popular belief, the spatha is more complex to produce. Its size means it requires more iron and man-hours. The Gladius, on the other hand, comes from a time when swords were still manufactured in small local companies, not in central factories.
@@anitaibele7743 Then why was it adopted by the infantry a century prior, around the same time when inflation was taking hold making it more expensive to maintain the legions?
@@docholiday7975 At least the production of spatha is unlikely to have been disturbed by inflation. The workers in the factories were paid in kind, as were the soldiers. The iron was collected directly as a tax.
It should also be noted that inflation was largely neutralized by Constantine's reforms. After him, the silver coin system was switched to the non-debased gold standard (the solidus).
I always thought the switch to the Spatha signalled a decline in manpower since needing a sword with greater reach implies each solider had more space to cover.
I was about to ask if Roman metallurgy improved around that time, so longer narrower blades could be made. However, c.2:10 it seems I was mistaken and the earlier gladius was the longer and narrower one, not the later spatha.
I think that's a mistake as the narration states that the spatha is the longer weapon so the labels have been switched.
The spartha is 100% the longer 1, infact the only difference recorded by the Romans is that the spartha was longer. What historians lable swords as is based on blade geometry and construction method. Hence the overlap. (also contributing to this is these numbers are for pre-fabricae {said in 1:39}, meaning pre-standardisation). The longer gladii were probably called spartha by their wielders.
Adtionally the longest I have ever seen/read a gladius is 770mm and 430mm ones existed so the lable is probably switched as this is the lable for spartha. Meanwhile the shortest I have ever seen before this for the spartha is 540mm with 815mm as the longest, which is the numbers here for the gladii, so I think he 100% mixed the labels up.
The graphics are wrong people. The Spartha was the longer sword, and the gladius shorter.
The channel owner has commented and pinned the message to correct it.
I'll be honest, I never know if the measurements given are only about the blade or do they encompass the hilt as well?
Scholargladitoria has a clip about this topic
Emphasizing the presence and absence of either central fuller or spine
The pompei central spine terminates at the tip of the foible like a phillliphead screwdriver perfect for piercing mail armor
The mainz gladius tipe and most of the other ones had a fuller in the center better for cutting
Better metallurgy = longer swords
The spatha was longer? What confuses me is that at 1:58 the Gladius is showing a average lengh bigger than the spatha.
Yes this is part of the problem with using terms like “long” and “short”. The main study on Roman swords was done by Christian Miks in 2007, unfortunately it’s in German so I can’t fully read it, but he comes to conclusion that outside of a very general descriptor, those aren’t useful terms. Earlier versions of the gladius were fairly long, so it’s not like the Romans had no experience with blades like that prior to the widespread adoption of the spatha
@TheFallofRome I think your labels have also been mixed up as prior to this video I had read that the spartha was 540mm to 815mm and the gladius was usually 430-590mm with outliers as long 770mm. This lines up with your numbers if we switch the lables.
were gladius sharpened on both edges?
how sharp was it?
2:10 are you saying that average spatha was shorter than gladius? So what's with all this spatha being a longer cavalary slashing sword? It seems to be siginificantly shorter. 8:46 and then you go to say gladius was shorter. What am I missing? Is there a median for these swords that's different?
On average spatha tend to be longer, but shorter spatha and longer gladii are both known. So our conception of “spatha = long and gladius = short” is probably wrong and wouldn’t have made sense to the Romans
@@TheFallofRomeI believe the labeled and read out measurements might be accidentally mixed up between spatha and gladius at around 210
@TheFallofRome the gladius being short and the spartha being long come from tacitus though. I think it's more likely historians are labeling swords that the Romans would have called spartha as gladius and visa versa.
Should be why was Gladius abandoned in favor of the spear? Comitatenses primary weapon was the spear not the sword.
The traditional answer is increased fighting against cavalry and the "new" fighting style in a phalanx formation. The spear gives you more reach.
Technically speaking, it was not the sword that was replaced by the lance, but the pilum. Swords remained sidearms until the bitter end of the empire
@anitaibele7743 no the sword was replaced by the spear, because we are talking primary weapons. But also because late roman legionaries continued to use missile weapons alongside the spear. Most commonly the plumbata and the spiculum, the later (spiculum) is what replaced the pilum as the legionaries' primary javelin as its construction is an evolution of the pilum (some historians even argue it's just another name for pilum they are so similar).
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Until now I believed, that the Plumbata was a weapon used by specialists (like the matiarii) and was not used as widely as the Pilum. But I'm definitely not an expert here, maybe I misunderstood the text...
Anyway, carrying spatha, lance, shield and plumbata all at the same time must have been hard work
What about a change in the frequency of sieges? It seems that during the peak of Roman expansion they would have needed to take a lot more fortified cities. In a siege you need a big shield to protect yourself from arrows and sling stones. You can't form a testudo if you're carrying a long spear. You need a weapon system that works well in either a field battle or a siege assault.
Once all of the cities were conquered, you can fully optimize around field battles. You're getting hit a lot less with ranged weapons, and on level ground the reach of a spear is useful. Total weight of your kit is always a constraint, and a more nimble shield may actually be optimal, so you abandon the large square shield. The sword is a sidearm, and it needs to differentiate itself from the spear, which will be used when fighting in formation. The result is a general purpose weapon for use outside of formation fighting, often in single format. If you run into a few enemy soldiers while out on patrol, you fight with your smaller shield and longer sword.
Hm, the true ascendance of the Spatha corresponds with the first occurrence of stirrups on horse gear and with that gaining importance of the Roman Cavalry, which required a different weapon than the then ubiquitous Hispaniensis. To fight mounted with blades (as opposed to with axe and cudgel weapons) require the stability that stirrups provide.
Before the Spatha became available as the prescribed weapon, the Roman cavalry used speed and agility of horse transportation, but fought mainly dismounted initially with the Hispaniensis. This was found to be cumbersome and fairly ineffective, since adding the Scutum to this would be unworkable. With the Spatha that changed and with longer range and emphasis on sabre-like hacking, fighting from the saddle with stirrups became the favoured battlefield practice. This also eliminated delays and logistical effort to keep the horses at ready when their riders were busying themselves elsewhere putting holes in enemies. With the rise of Roman Cavalry, the heavy Infantry emphasis of the legions was somewhat diminished.
The intermediate Mainz blades was the compromise weapon where the Roman Legions toyed around with standardization and training. Please note that a so drastic change of main weapon from Hispaniensis tp Mainz and then to Spatha had tremendous impacts on production (Spathas, if made correctly to specification of balance and flexibility, were much more labour intensive to produce) and training (Infantry were taught and trained with practice weapons that were twice the weight of real ones. The heavier and longer Spatha would require vastly more individual power and agility to train with this way to reach combat effective proficiency.
Also, there is evidence that the Spatha was mainly used by Auxiliary units which made up the tactically deployed Roman Cavalry (in contrast with the mostly Roman Legionary manned mostly ceremonial and communications tasked cavalry and leadership.).
it makes sense that the Auxilia used the spatha in their looser formation fighting styles and with oval shields, which allow for more room to perform a variety of cuts and slashes, but also because they would be more of an advantage in more singular type combat
One is meant to stab,the other to slash. There is some overlap sizewise. The later Roman Armies had lots of barbarian mercenaries and the discipline and training in the legions was not as good. The tendency was to go from infantry to cavalry. All the steppe people rode horses and their archery was a major problem.
The use as a tool is at least as important; the nature, terrain and roads, if you can call them that, was so much different that the use as a tool is often forgotten, to cut through bushes, removingn undergrowth for encampment, cutting small wood and twigs for campfires, rough cutting up meat, bones and food before cooking etcetera.
Any sword is only usefull as a weapon in real close combat, as the spear was the main weapon mostly with a shield, for thrusting and keeping at a distance, only to be thrown when spare spears were available. Having a back up weapon as a gladius or spatha is very usefull indeed when in battle but more
At least we know why Lorica segmentata fell out of use becuase of this wonderful channel, though same can not be said for Gladius .
it's important to remember that in most historical periods the sword was NOT the primary battle weapon. That is most often some type of polearm, spear or lance etc. Swords were usually a secondary or backup weapon or a self-defence weapon.
1:56. Did I miss domething? This graphic indicates that an average gladius is longer than an average spatha. But elsewhere, you imply the spatha was the longer of the two.
The Gladius is a weapon for very well trained compact formations. The other swords are swung and are used by less well trained soldiers fighting on looser formations. The sword choice is then a marker of the tactical formation and soldier training.
2:20 aren't the lengths switched here?
One point that isn't really brought up here is that during that later phases of the Roman Empire, the sword was "not" the primary weapon of Rome's foot soldiers, but rather the spear. The sword, the spatha, was a side arm. The infantry fought as densely packed spear and shield walls, while the cavalry did the bulk of the maneuver. This may have had something to do with abandoning the gladius.
Changing times, changing tactics.
I would think the the shorter but wider sword would have been better for the close formation style, close quarters fighting they used. Seems a longer sword would not be as effective. Just my thought.
My curiosity will be with the associated equipment.
- Shields;
- Javelins;
- Slings;
- Plumba;
- Spears
- long spears.
- Composite bows
What changed?
Another excellent but if research.
Well because they didn't use the formal tight shield fighting Tortes formations?
Tactics change. From foot to cavalry. Different weapons required.
If it was a little later in history, I would guess that it had to do with the break down of tight unit tactics. The longer sword needs more room and its advantages would come from swinging -which does not work well in the tight cohort formations. So i think the change in "style" is obvious but it also a change in discipline, training and professionalism.
I don't think so, this later period is that of the fulcrum. Ie fighting in even tighter ranks than earlier periods.
Its probably got more to do with the switch to the spear as the primary melee weapon. When you are in tight formation your weapon is the spear. The sword is for other situations.
Also contrary to popular belief the later period was probably more forfessionalised than earlier periods as the sons of soldiers were forced to be soldiers, and raised that way. So a large % of soldiers had been nothing but soldiers compared to earlier periods were they choose to be soldiers later in life.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 The Pilum had been standard for hundreds of years in the Roman army. And as the rest of Roman society slowly broke down, with other educational institutions (such as grammar schools and engineering schools) fading away it is unlikely the Roman army somehow bucked the trend. Its military record shows otherwise in the west that was becoming more "barbarian' style.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Barbarian warriors had never been anything else all their lives, but still did not know how to march in step, fight in tight formations with complex formation changes etc. Soldiers have to be rigourouly trained and disciplined they don't do it on their own and family members might be the worst people for that kind of training.
I hypothesise that the classic Roman Army was a winning force based upon professionals working closely together in tight formations competing with loose tribal opposition whose greater numbers could be neutralised by the Romans being able to locally outnumber them at the point of contact. In time their neighbours, via contact and actual Roman service, learned to operate away from the Roman strength by using mobility and Roman standard operational discipline. Thus the Romans had to adapt to increase their mobility to avoid losing the initiative. Hence more cavalry and looser infantry units largely abandoning the classic logistic burden of marching fort construction. Crudely put, moving from armed engineers to light infantry. Thus the Gladius was the correct answer to the classic question and the Spatha to the later one. The Gladius was wieldy in close packed formation, the Spatha when individual troops had the space. One must be wary. The later Northern European ‘shield wall’ troops used Spatha length swords in close formations but their chief ‘wall’ weapon was the spear reaching out from the locked shields. The sword being a sidearm. The Romans used the spear more as a thrown weapon. Naturally I am grossly generalising.
I often hear that most Roman military equipment was of Gallic origin, or at least that there was a large overlap.
I wonder if that also represented an attempt to appropriate the Gallic reputation for valour.
@@alanpennieDoubt the Romans had any need of validation. They simply adopted the most pragmatic choices.
To me it boils down to a *true roman virtue*: learn and incorporate from your enemies (like with scutum, pilum, gladius hispaniensis, lorica hamata ect.)
Two popular but misleading arguments come often accross:
1."Barbarization" of the army is not convincing since the "typical" imperial roman legionary changes already in the 3rd Century, so prior to large parts of the legions being made up from none-romans (though I wonder if auxillary troops are also taken in consideration).
2.Economic drives, such as decline in tax revenue and subsequent financial problems leading to budgets for only "lesser" craftsmanship and equipment is also not really convincing. A spatha takes acutally more iron/steel and therefore more working hours to make it. Also other parts of the army evolved to higher standards such as cavalry and artillery -> why would you weaken the core of your army if the rest is being enhanced?(mind that I do talk about the roman army of the 3rd and 4th NOT 5th century).
This is all theoretical speculation and (in my humble opinion) hard to prove with our limited textual evidence.
We will (likely) never again see a time where massive field battles with sword and shield will be fought, but at least we have history enthusiasts and weapons enthusiasts who could provide at least limited insight in what "could" work better and what does "probably" not by simple usage or practical experimentation:
What can a "modern swordsman" tell us about the usage of a gladius vs spatha?
What can a history/weapons enthusiast such as Tod Cutler tell us about how good a historically accurate lorica hamata vs lorica squamata?
I think this is quite helpfull in myth-busting - take such tales that the late medieval knight was a turtle once he falls off his horse -> easily disproven with historically accurate armour and a guy who helpts out a genuiea pig : )
Changes to Roman swords are not strange, the degree of standardization of Roman blades across many centuries is strange. For comparison, guns rarely stay in production for more than 50 years with notable exceptions like the 1911 which is a base design for pistol variants, the ma duce which simply lacks a replacement, and the brown bess which was simply the optimized musket that required cartridges to be invented before it was replaced.
Except Rome never produced standardized blades, that's a modern misconception.
In the glorious era from Late Republic to the Third century, artisan workshops were hired by generals to manufacture military gear. No such thing as centralized design panel, each workshop crafted the sword as they considered best and even tried to outcompete each other by constantly evolving the designs. That's why there are at least 4 known variants of the gladius have been discovered, all with different shapes and legnths.
On the contrary, the Late Empire was closer to standardization, since the government was much bigger, being finally able to own and manage most workshops.
@@MrAlepedroza Ever see late medieval blades? That's what unstandardized looks like because there was no typical blade from that period
I also wonder if it could be because the roman legion marched less as one formation but was scattered in smaller units and huge battles/campaigns for new territories happened less and less and made way for smaller defensive skirmishes along the borderlands of the empire and internal strife and because of that soldiers needed weapons that gave them more range to be agile during a fight/battle and not dependent on tight formations because otherwise the opponents (eg a small band on a raid into roman territory) would just circle around those small(er) formations and completely ignore them or cut them down from the back. So those roman soldiers had to become more agile and develop more reach.
Interesting subject. Maybe advances in Roman metallurgy allowed for the creation of good quality longer swords, and that is why the spatha become popular. You know what they say, bigger is better 😁.
That's doubtful since the earlier gladius hispanises had similar dimensions to the spatha and was in use until around the time of Julius Caesar. That the spatha became popular with the cavalry well before it's adoption by the infantry doesn't support this either.
As much as I want to, I can't argue with your points👍.@@docholiday7975
Gladius was too short and disadvantaged, longer swords were preferred and adapted as standard sword all through out the ages, sparthar or longer swords had Reach, gladius close quarter were meant up close to the calvary let alone the footsoldier which dangerous particularly to calvary.
I summon because later Roman legions are less trained and therefore form looser formations, leaving more space for swinging, so it would make sense a longer sword is more fitted for slashing rather than thrusting
If changes in fighting styles and a need for greater flexibility drove the adoption of the Spatha, what caused changes in fighting style that required flexibility? Who specifically were the enemies that forced this new style? Barbarians seems not quite right as at some level the Romans had always been fighting outsiders. What was special about these Barbarians and the way they fought that rendered the old ways less effective?
Romans of the Republic and Principate did not fight professional full time soldiers, they fought mostly untrained barbarians and part time Persions to a lesser degree. The relatively limited fighting vsGreek phalanxes largely took place on ground that did not favor the phalanx formation, which was most effective on level and open ground.
Interestingly, the spatha began displacing the gladius when the professional Roman army began fighting barbarians that were better armoured and highly trained by the Romans themselves. Roughly in the same period the square scutum was replaced with a round shield, and the legion was reorganised to make heavier use of cavalry and light infantry.
Just comparing the size in terms of material and the economic situation in the later empire. It really looks like an economic decision
You got the measurements mixed up at 2:05
"The gaels have curved swords, curved... swords!"
I always figured it was because of a change of military tactics. Cavalry was becoming more important to the Roman Army, especially in the East.
Better reach, in an Era where cavalry was willing to engage infantry would be invaluable. Also the spatha is NOT the gallic weapon, but a shorter version of the Parthian sword, a much more advanced weapon, product of advanced metallurgy imported from India. These weapons were flexible and not malleable as the Gallic sword.
The same trend of extending reach was signaled by the return of the Hasta, the infantry spear that was abandons by Marius in favour of the Pilum.
by the end of Trajan Era, the Roman legion was fighting more as a shield wall, to protect from the more and more frequent Sarmatian and then Hunnic mercenaries. This meant that the thick hand to hand combat the legion was used to was less frequent and the close quarter fight not as important as the ability to hit someone riding an horse
It might be something as simple as receiving feedback from legionaries who appreciated having swords of increasing length (spears gradually lengthen during the Hellenistic period too, don't they?) and the state standardizing more and more on a consistent standard if not specific pattern. We see something similar in beginning of the 20th century in the British Army's adoption of the Short Magazine Lee Enfield-- a universal rifle length for all branches of service replacing a long infantry rifle and various lengths of carbine for artillery and cavalry units. This greatly simplified both production and maintenance of these rifles-- no need to maintain separate production lines, or go through gaps in production to tool up to make something different.
Hate to be a pest, but a centimetre scale would be a big help in comparing different kinds of swords.
As Rome aged and took in other people from outside Rome as soldiers, the Roman form of army was eroded and minor changes crept in as time past, and 'pure' Roman influence weakened outside of Rome, allowing these changes to go unchallenged.
I would say they changed their main battle blade so 2,000 years after, some youtuber had a reason to post this video.
Hey unrelated question but are you still doing Project Scythia?
On horseback, the length of a gladius type sword would be very limiting. The Celtic warriors favored fighting from horseback, after Caesar conquered the Celt rebellion, and a peaceful coexistence with Rome insued, many Celts were enlisted in the Roman army as cavalry and scout auxilla. When Roman regular Legionary cavalry saw the advantages of the longer Celtic blades, they were quickly adopted. Later, military training of Legions became much more unstandardized and much more regional in nature. The overwhelming majority of enlisted Legionaries in the late 3rd and 4th centuries were incorporated from many territories which valued a more individual approach to combat than did classically trained Legionaries. A longer sword would have been more appealing for melee battles rather than unit synchronized battles.
I mean, thats was kind of the "secret" to roman military sucess! They would adopt weapons and techniques they saw that were successful and ignored what they thought wasnt necessary!
The Spatha didn't originate in Gallia. The word espada is still used in España. It was adopted from Iberia, where it originated from.
I think he swapped the measurements of the 2!?
You almost got it, you went all around the reasons but came not to the obvious (to me) conclusion.
The gladius was used in the early Roman times when the armies were well trained, financed and professional.
As the years went by, this changed. Rome had less and less money, and their troops were a mix mash of mercenaries, barbaros, and the government had to give everyone "citizenship" which meant nothing later on as everyone became a citizen and it was worthless, sort of like America today.
So, the later armies didn't have the discipline, cohesion, training, motivation and leadership to stand and use the gladius correctly to devastating effect and instead most battles quickly devolved into melees instead, so, a longer sword like your enemies was now needed.
Long swords are a result of better metallurgy I reckon.
It took a while to crack the numerous tightly held secrets that transform iron into steel.
Probably the whole thing can be explained by collapse of disciplined formations. The less you can rely on formation maneuver, the more you have to rely on the power of individual troops. So they would migrate toward the barbarian warrior standard, which had always favored longer weapons while the classical legion was happy to draw enemies close and chainsaw them against the formation.
Amor got better, thus one needed the higher power provided by longer leverage!
Maybe localities had to spend more time fighting their own battles, so the standardization of weapons for coordinated use in a legion declined.
A transition : the beginning of cavalry based armies.
So, how long was it in inches?
No idea how big a mm is :D
People became taller. Needed a bit bigger swords
Spatha > gladius due to tactical shifts favoring cavalry, where the longer sword was more effective
Spatha was adopted from the Iberian peninsula. The only civilization that surpassed the Roman one as a sort of continuation of it
2:11 Gladius length 540-815. Spatha is 430-770. Yet you say Spatha is always longer than Gladius. Something doesn't add up here.