Interesting that the Roman tactic seems to have been to move right into shanking range, I can imagine that having a real psychological impact, very aggressive. With a spear formation you can maintain some distance, but Romans with gladius and scutum, they have to get right up in your face. Kind of terrifying, actually.
@@michaeljfoley1during the period of the Republic and early to middle empire Roman troops had substantially better equipment than their enemies. So with much heavier armor the Roman legionary can more safely get in close and is significantly advantaged in grappling range. So having a weapon set that prioritizes getting in close is just playing to their strengths. But by the time of the late empire, the disparity in the equipment closes dramatically with chainmail becoming much more common and padded cloth armor being ubiquitous. So legionaries can no longer rely on having a huge advantage in close quarters due to heavier armor. Thus the need to revert to spears and long swords. Though even then the Romans continue to prefer shorter spears.
Matt Easton is the Scott Manley of arms and armor. Both are bald men from the UK who are experts in particular nerdy fields and are widely respected among their community
Thank you so much for helping dispel the myth that Gladii were a thrust-only sword! If you go back and read the texts, there's on from a soldier describing limbs being removed when enemies would overreach in combat. That in itself proves it had a versatility in the cut, but so many people only know what video games and movies tell them.
I read a very stupid comment under Forge In Fire: Gladius. I can't remember exactly but it's something like this: Gladius is a thrushting weapon, Roman commander will be very pissed if a soldier slash than thrust. That was a so WTF comment. If it's thrusting only weapon why were the edges sharpern?
Famously when Caesar tried to stop routing legionaires, one of the soldiers in panic raised his arm against Caesar, it was cut off by his bodyguard, saving Caesar's life.
Livy's account of the Macedonian wars comes to mind. According to Livy, some of Phillip's men who were used to fighting the Greeks and Illyrians and as a result familiar only wounds caused by javelins and arrows and rarely lances were appalled by the wounds caused by the Spanish sword such as heads cut off from the trunk, arms lopped, necks and shoulders entirely cut through, disembowelments and various other wounds so terrible that were perceived with horror.
Should be obvious that anything with an edge at least had a secondary usage as a cutter/chopper. I don't get why people are so fast to develop these weird ideas about history. Or maybe I do, I could see historians trying to make a name for themselves coming up with "theories" like that to further their name/career.
@@Juel92 Usually, I think these kind of “theories” don’t come from historians (not least because that’s not the kind of thing you make an academic career out of in that field), but from game and/or weapons bros.
If you fighting from the horseback then gladius (as a whole family short swords) it's not ideal weapons. Spatha was introduced as a sword first to the roman cavalry probably from frankish or gallic auxiliary troops (cavalry). In later empire / early Byzanthium period armies were a lot more saturated by horse riders then it was in late republic / early empire so even infantry need a weapon with longer reach. This is ofcourse of many reasons why roman legionaires change theirs equipment. PS. Gavin really looks like cool guy and glad to see him again in your video :)
I think that's part of the answer. Ultimately, I think as Matt said, the gladius was part of a system that involved great armor, shields, training, intimidation (see another post), AND a short stabbing sword that was unbeatable so long as you had all of those together. Lose any of them, with perhaps training being #1, and you are better off reverting to a more generic fighting style. Against cavalry the shield and pilum would be better than a longer sword. But only if you had a really professional, well-trained, and high morale army which the Romans started to lack as time went on.
Problem is people think too much in drawers. Even before the Spatha the Romans had cavalry swords and in fact what we think of Gladius had length variations that completely overlap with the Spatha so you do not have them fit in neat categories. You have swords seeming too short for a Spatha but otherwise seemingly that pattern and others too long for Gladius but otherwise that pattern and everything across a spectrum.
Agreed. The switchover to "longer" bladed weapons was, probably more than anything else, due to the shift in doctrine from blocks of heavy infantry to highly mobile cavalry.
Thanks to Gavin, I felt like I was there, in person, thinking to myself ‘How do I hold my sword for Matt’s benefit without looking awkward?’ P.S. Gavin did great. I hope.
I remember a UA-cam poll asking what the best close range sword was and the gladius won by a long shot despite no mention of it being accompanied by a shield. That surprised me as it was going against the cutlas and the wakizashi.
No hand protection is likely the biggest negative to most Roman-type swords and knives, gladius, pugio, and such weapons. Matt did a video about the evolution of hand protection on swords, and for some reason, more ancient blades just didn't have them, but after they caught on, more and more sword-makers adopted them. Crossguards, basket hilts, etc.
Fencing unarmored with a gladius against a cutlass sounds far from ideal, though all three are close enough that skill & conditioning would be what really matter.
@@dashcammer4322Swords in the ancient world were nearly always used with a shield in the off-hand. You're not defending with the sword at all, so hand protection simply isn't necessary.
@@Tobascodagama A lot of these swords were also, relatively speaking, mass produced. With the simpler technology the romans and other people had on hand, even if they had thought of using hand protection, the expense in time, money, and resources, in producing a large swathe of swords for citizen-soldiers would have been incredibly difficult.
@@dashcammer4322 Interesting fact, the gladius was actually in use around 1355, but it was hidden in plain sight. Swordsmiths at the time cleverly disguised it by giving it a crossguard and a pommel.
I have a soft spot for the Pompeii Gladius with its parallel edges and triangular point, probably because it reminds me of 8bit sword sprites from old games, or my childhood drawings of what i thought a sword looked like
My thoughts on the semispatha is that some were older gladii still in circulation and that others were broken down spathae. Either instance seems to mean it was likely the cheaper option. On a related note, I'd like to learn more about late Roman knives; they seem to blur between sica and seax.
One of the things that I have always loved as a Roman Historian and find very interesting is how Rome would run across something, the gladius hispaniensis, certain ship designs, different armors,. ect and if it seemed effective against what the Romans had or seemed like they could work it into their current methods they would almost absorb it into their system. They might change it up, modify its design a bit, and then just straight use it. That is how Rome got a navy, they partially copied the ship designs from the Carthaginians, modified it to have a Corvus (docking bridge) to turn ship combat back into land combat, and off they went with a semi-effective navy.
It's good to finally see an Albion again! You've been featuring a lot of other sword makers, but we haven't seen an Albion in quite a while. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, it seems like you've possibly sold many of your good old Albions, like your Ringeck and your Poitier...
Funnily enough I filmed a video with the Ringeck today. I still have them all, except the Poitiers, which I did sell... to Gavin rather coincidentally!
@@scholagladiatoria, Ha!! Well, I'm glad that the Poitiers has at least stayed in good hands!😃😂 And I can't wait to see your upcoming video with the Ringeck! It's such a brutally beautiful, pointy, stabby longsword!
@@Kinetic.44 , I would second evster7flick's statement about tolerances, and you could probably say the same about their overall fit and finish. I would also say that it has to do with the fact that Albion's "Next Generation" line, the line most people get, are designed by the amazing swordsmith Peter Johnsson. Peter's abilities, even just as a designer, are not to be underestimated! There's just a certain historical aesthetic to them that sets them apart... or at least HAD set them apart. You see, we find ourselves in an interesting time in terms of the world of production swords. With swords such as those Windlass has produced in collaboration with Matt (and the Royal Armouries?), we're finally starting to see pieces that can compete with Albion, especially for the money.
The sword and shield combination is a distinction without difference - literally EVERYONE had swords and shields. What identifies the Romans is rather that they used javelins instead of spears or pikes. It really should go without saying, in such a context, that the javelin was their primary weapon, just as the spear was that of the 5th century hoplite, or the pike that of the Macedonian phalangite. I mean, think of it this way: if the Roman was a dedicated fighter at close range, employing to good effect his shield and sword for the duration of a battle, then exactly why did he not also carry a spear, spears being also exemplary close-combat weapons and synergizing very well with swords in their differing specialties? I could anticipate your counterarguments to the above with the considerable evidence of battle duration, casualty statistics, contemporary writing, human physical limitations, and other such matters, but since these could also be gained from a brief, free, and entertaining online perusal of recent short-form scholarship on the matter and some rummaging through the contents of Caesar and Polybius, I would encourage you to spare me the effort.
@@melanoc3tusii205 Yes and no, depending on how you define “primary”. The pilum was definitely a key factor in the combination, but arguably because it allowed for a more effective deployment of the sword and shield by disrupting opponent formations and was effective against enemy shields. This would allow the legionaries to then do their bloody sword fights more effectively. (And of course the pilum could also be used as a stabbing spear in a pinch) If we define the pilum as the “primary weapon”, in the sense of the weapon mainly used to kill or incapacitate opponents, you’d expect legionnaires to stand off and pepper their opponents with them, like other types of javelin men from antiquity, and not rely much on their swords. But if the legionaries were mainly javelin units, then it would also not make much sense to weigh them down with a lot of heavy armour, something else that set them aside from the dedicated javelin units of antiquity. By contrast, a Greek hoplite or a Macedonian phalangite would have their thrusting spear as their primary weapon for killing and maiming opponents with their sword as more of a backup.
I also think it is Important to consider Roman military equipment not only in the context of fighting Barbarians or other Mediterranean states, but also against other Romans. Internecine conflict features rather heavily in Roman History, and almost all of the famous Roman civil wars occurred after the implementation of the Gladius. Additionally, most, if not all, of a Roman Soldier’s training partners would be other similarly equipped and trained legionaries. I think that last fact is important when you consider soldiers use their weapons in training much more than they do in battle. So for all the external pressures that influenced the adoption of the gladius paired with the Scutum, it’s longevity as a weapon system, And it’s eventual replacement by spatha and oval shields, must also be analyzed alongside internal pressures and the experience of Romans fighting other Romans. All that is to say, it seems likely to me that Roman soldiers (or atleast the ones with power to commission equipment) found the gladius/scutum/pilum combination suitable against both Romans and non-Romans alike, because we do not see dramatic innovation away from this system during times of war with either internal or external foes.
I think one reason for the longer sword (and slightly small and lighter shields) might be the fact that the late roman army tended to put more emphasis on small scale raiding, that they tended to concentrate fewer soldiers to each battle and (perhaps) that the physical battlefields tended to get larger (fighting in the east vs. the parthians and along the Rein, rather then in fairly narrow valleys in Italy, Greece and so on) So battlefields would see a smaller density of soldiers, meaning that soldiers and units would have to cover a greater area than before, while also having the space to use a longer cutting sword. No longer fighting the type of heavy infantry that they had done before, would also make a longer cutting sword more useful.
Late Rome was in a strategically defensive posture, this is evident in the archeological record with forts. Forces were less trained and on a smaller scale to respond to border incursions.
Interestingly, the Romans started off liking fairly large swords in their infancy. Extant Italian xiphoi finds are larger in comparison to Greek finds, with blade lengths in the region of ~60-70 cm (Campovilano has a blade length of 63cm). La Tene B swords were also quite Widespread in Republican Rome, with blade lengths being similar or a bit larger than the Italic Xiphos. Early Gladius Hispaniensis finds also tend to have blade lengths of around ~65cm.
It's really trippy that I just was looking up what manuals or "hema" styles would be applicable to a xiphos like 3 days ago. And now a video pops up for my exact sword of choice (or at least it's mentioned). Mind you the one I have is the 19in blade from zombie tools. My rationale for it wasnt as a paired item with a shield but moreso being used in confined spaces; hallways/ buildings/ ect. Where a longer weapon would be inconvenient and possibly get caught on enviromental hazards. (Theres a goblin slayer referance in here somewhere). Obv at that point the historical/ traditional training for combat goes out the window but I'm still curious if there's a general shortsword manuscript that could serve as a baseline to referance. I've done kali/ escrima before and worked with knives, batons, tonfa, staffs, the horrendous abomination that are nunchucks, butterfly swords, and a very, veryyyy small bit of kendo. So it's far less "how do I swing da cutty thingy" and more "what made this effective historically so I can supplament/ enhance my current technique or notice flaws I hadn't realized existed before. Man that turned into a ramble. Idk if anyone will read this or have any suggestions but if ya do major thanks! Veni, vidi, vici!
I'm a bit late in commenting but even though I know you're an expert and very learned in these things, as a German, it warms my heart to hear a Brit correctly pronouncing "Mainz". Apart from that, as is so often the case with your videos, top notch. Also, as others mentioned, very happy to see the Gladius not being described as "only for thrusting". It's one of "those" misconceptions that appear to be very hard to get out of people's heads. A small remark on the Pilum: Although it kind of went out of fashion in late antiquity (although much later than the Gladius, which was replaced by the Spatha), the concept was so successful that the Franks and those influenced by them (Alamans, Baiuvars, propably also Saxons and Langobards) used a very similar weapon called Ango (or Angon, as I've read in literature). The main difference is in the cross-section: whereas the pilum was (at least as far as I know) usually rectangular/square, the Ango was round. But both were used to impale and stick, either in shields or in people. Both had hooks, making them difficult or impossible to remove, and both had a very long metal rod between the tip and the shaft, making it near impossible to get rid of by hacking it. Some Angons had 5 or 6 feet of metal before the wooden shaft even started, and there are historical accounts of Franks de-shielding opponents by throwing the Ango, then stepping on the shaft. These accounts are somewhat debatable, but if in a battle you get a chance to force down an opponent's shield, you're gonna try.
Thanks for these in depth info on the gladius big shield towards long sword and more rounded shields. I wonder if this could stem from a more offensive Rome with larger formations towards a more defensive smaller lighter forces quickly raiding from cover of say Hadrians wall forts. In a smaller nimbler force you need to fight more individually. Doing quick punitive raids to keep tribes outside (and inside) the Hadrian wall and Rhine line policed. And, I guess at lower cost. 18:37
As far I know, the Spartans also had very short swords. Others laughed that you could practice swallowing them (such a spectacular trick). A little boy in Sparta complained to his mother: "My sword is shorter than my opponent's." The mother replied, "Then come closer." Speaking of the Romans, a few days ago I read interesting information about what kind of field fortifications the Romans made. I was very surprised. Apparently they connected three short poles to form a kind of "anti-personnel hedgehog". Is it true?
@@Arkeo36 So there is this version of this anecdote. But it makes practical sense of course. Supposedly, the Romans were able to achieve a 2:1 tactical advantage thanks to this, because two men with short swords could operate in a narrow section of the fight where there was one opponent with a long sword.
the armour only gets more intricate when you take into account what is depicted on Trajan's Collum with elements found in the gladiatorial arena being adopted widespread by military forces to better defend legs and lower arms from weapons like the Falx. combining these with existing armour like the Lorica Segmentata to create a proto suit of armour.
Great video! Can you address how and why the gladius changed from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire? I've always been intrigued/confused by gladius measurements that suggests the mid-Republican era gladius was a good bit longer than the imperial era gladius.
It may have to do with the transition from the manipular formation to cohorts. The manipular formations were looser as they were developed when fighting the Sabines in the mountains of Italy, and worked well in Spain too. Cohorts were developed after much fighting in Africa with more open terrain and moving back to a tighter formation became more useful as would transitioning to a shorter sword.
@@robo5013 According to Vegetius, the imperial era cohorts of the 1st-2nd centuries had 3 feet of space between each man (so ~6 feet total per person). That is pretty spacious formation. In comparison, most spear formations are much tighter.
The reason for the move away from gladius and scutum shield in the later roman period, is because that fighting system was designed for a specific time in history of large, rigorously trained and organized armies of elite soldiers fighting other large armies. Its all about context as always. After the romans had conquered all the local armies around them, the times changed. They became more about control of the land they owned. They became complacent and wealthy. Life of the wealthy, powerful and capable of upwards mobility, became about that personal rise more so than the goals of the state. And as hard times make hard people, then hard people make soft time...soft times make soft people - and soft people make hard times. Society began to decline and new challengers gnawed at the bits of the empire, struggle and strife became harder to deal with and adaptation had to be made. Armies of hundreds of thousands of trained massive shields and formations became less common and combat devolved more into unorganized skirmishing and for that purpose the gladius and scutum were no longer the best option. There is nothing on earth that is a simple 1 word answer. But also, nothing is all that complicated. it is just human nature. It is just the logical outcome of peoples desires and the times they find themselves in. People always just do the best they can for themselves in the context they exist within. Times changed, so weaponry and tactics and realities of battle all changed. Its just that we try to distill 400 years of history into 1 word or 1 phrase, which keeps us from understandng the truth of the matter.
part of the kit, hurling, spear and knife, for each type and phase of fighting. Also, horsemen need longer swords to reach down, forward and to the side. practical riding horses start at 12.0 hands (4 inches to a hand) and increase thru the ages.
I have to wonder whether smaller units covering larger areas drove some of the changes in equipment. I don't think they had the economy to have enough full legions to cover their territory as densely as they had early on. I remember reading how much of a struggle to finance the legions that they often ran into. If they were forced to cover more area with smaller detatchments then equipment that favored large unit actions would be less effective while equipment that favored small units, individuals and cavalry would be more useful(like longer swords, bigger spears and smaller sheilds that require lesser supply chains or allow more impact from a single soldier) over time that wouls have driven a lot od equipment changes.
My thoughts as well. The Roman economy simply couldnt maintain the 30 odd legions plus auxiliaries in the 4th century. Troops that werent paid had a disturbing tendency to rebel and proclaim their own Emperor...
One of the Roman authors I've read (I think Tacitus, but maybe Pliny the Elder) talks about Roman soldiers charging their enemies and the front rank knocking them down with their scutums and the ranks behind stabbing them while they were on the ground. I wish I could remember the quote. Not sure whether it would really be a practical tactic or how widespread it was if so, but it reinforces the ideas that a) the gladius was intended to be just one part of a larger weapons system incorporating the scutum and pila, and b) the strength of the Roman armies during the period of their peak success lay in their discipline, coordination and teamwork. My guess as to why the gladius fell out of fashion was probably mainly cultural- as time went on fewer Italians wanted to serve in the army and the Empire made greater use of auxiliaries and mercenaries, including the Germans mentioned by Matt. These people would have had their own cultural preferences for particular weapons that might have influenced the military culture as a whole.
The most critical pieces of Roman military equipment were arguably the shovel and pick---the constant entrenchment and protected camp building was a more distinct tactic for them than what they did on the battlefield itself. In reality, it's the level of professionalization and discipline---they could order an army into the field, marching, digging in, and staying there indefinitely before fighting as a disciplined unit, something neighboring states couldn't count on their forces doing reliably.
You briefly mentioned the possibility of a "transitional sword" between gladius and spatha, and the possibility that certain types of soldiers were given those; From practicality alone (it takes a lot of effort, time and money to make new swords for the whole roman army....) I guess, that once the romans wanted to shift to a new sword type, they started out handing the new swords to the troops, where the new swords were thought to make the best use/results. Thus for a short period you would see certain types of soldier carrying the spathas before others. Back in the day, when I served in the Danish army, I was in a transport compagny - bringing supplies to the fighting men. At that time, the army was getting a new rifle system, lighter and with smaller caliber cartridges. We were the last ones to get the new rifles, because we were not supposed to do a lot of fighting.... Again context is key to understanding. 👍💪👍.
It's exactly right that the secret to the success of the gladius was that it was used as part of a weapon _system_ (in conjunction with the scutum), and in conjunction with the close formations and high level of discipline of the Roman army. I have an original French Model 1831 artillery short sword, which was deliberately copied from the Roman gladius (one's depicted in surviving Roman art, rather than archaeological finds, I feel quite certain), and the French artillerymen to whom it was issued did not find it a useful weapon at all. They did find it useful as a machete-like camp tool, and called it the _coupe-chou_ (cabbage chopper). But as a weapon, they didn't think it worth much, and it's not hard to see why; a soldier trying to use one against an enemy armed with a saber or a musket with bayonet attached, would be at a _severe_ reach disadvantage, and would have neither the shield, nor the close formation that were the keys to making this type of sword a world-beating weapon when the Romans used it in the late Republican and early Imperial periods.
The french weapon you talk about had another group of issues leading to a not so stellar weapon Performance. Reach was definitely an issue, but the artillery short sword was far heavier and 'overbuilt' compared to the various types of gladius. It was unwieldy. I think there's a video on the scholagladiatoria channel
@@heavybolter6396 Yeah, the solid brass hilt definitely makes it heavier than ideal for a sword, though that did probably improve its durability for the machete role it more typically played.
The Roman army during the most relevant portion of its military exploits with javelin, shield, and sword did not fight in close order and was not particularly disciplined - those are fallacious retrojections from the late Roman Empire, when they favored thrusting spears.
When it comes to cutting and having the space for it, Polybius describes that each legionary (at the time of the Punic wars, or possibly Macedonian wars it's a bit unclear) would have had at least three square feet to his own to work with in a typical formation. While they could stand tighter than that in specific situations the baseline formation would be spacious and allow the legionaire independent and free movement to ensure they can fight actively within it, and he even says the space between legionaires could be increased if needed as well beyond that.
My lay person instinct is to say. The large shield and short sword were an extreme advantage against people less armored. And then, as the same armor went everywhere. The romans had to adapt and start using different tactics/weapons. Also, maybe something to do with a more individualized Soldier is opposed to fighting as a unit over rough terrain?
"The large shield and short sword were an extreme advantage against people less armored." This begs two questions - why do you think the people they fought against were less armoured, and why do you think that those people, being less armoured, didn't themselves fight with sword and large shield? "And then, as the same armor went everywhere." The same armour *started off* elsewhere, and in fact most of elsewhere had serviceable armour of one variety or another. "Also, maybe something to do with a more individualized Soldier is opposed to fighting as a unit over rough terrain?" As opposed to the Greeks, who developed first dense forces armed with dedicated thrusting spears and then even denser forces armed with massive pikes, and obviously lived on a massive expanse of grassy plains flatter than the average pancake?
The context is also an issue …. The Roman unit sort of functioned like a machine…. The front guy fought for x minutes then the next guy moved up to take his place. Afterall arms get tired.
The part forgotten is for every minute of being used as a weapon, a tool like the Gladius spent HOURS being a work tool like a Machete. Later Sword-ey swords are unitaskers and tend to color peoples impressions of earlier weapons that may represent at the time 3/4ths of an individuals total metal equipment. That hunk of steel has to be worth the carrying.
How much did improvements in metallurgy impact the transformation of the Roman side-arm from the gladius to longer blades? Was the mass-production of blades during the early Empire a factor in shape, and did the move to artisan forging encourage longer blades? Just wondering, beyond the battlefield, how much material sciences played a part.
The evolution from gladius to spatha was more a function of the transition of the major strike arm of the Roman army. The cavalry replaced the infantry as the most important component of the army. The longer spatha was necessary to extended the reach of the infantry when engaged against horsemen. The Romans had been issuing longer swords to their cavalry for centuries and had the technology to produce them.
i have this VR game,gladius... and there best used like this: stab,shield,stab,shield repeat. you hide behind your shield,and just stab away.........its a nice fighting style,its effective. just putting a point in someones face,is very effective. there not made to swing,and parry,there made to stab. a swing would also not puncture armor. they also have a solid grip,this is also better for stabbing. like you have this shield wall,with people stabbing beyond that wall... its kinda like a phalanx,with spears...just with swords. a rapier...is like a modern Gladius,fencing,stabbing people,instead of swinging. its purely focused on discipline.... shield and stab,shield and stab.....that is what you learn your muscles. like i said...its effective,that why they got so big,the Romans. i still envy the Greek phalanx though. but a spear is useless close range. phalanx is bronze age and Romans are early iron age. rapier is far more modern....made more for duels. now gladius is a game not a simulation... but vr simulations can teach us much..... you can simulate weapons,era,and stuff like that. you could simulate a true roman fight. from a history perspective,it could teach people much.
@8:30 A point that often gets lost is that Vegetius is not describing the Roman Army in perpetuity. He's giving relative snap shots of the Imperial Army. By contrast if you dig into modern and ancient literature dealing with the Legions of the Mid and Early Republic you get a very different image: Each Roman Legionary occupied a "tactical box" that's nearly 2m from end to end. Yes, you need more space to cut with a gladius than you do to thrust BUT the Republican Legionary had that space.
I suspect one big thing to remember with regards to the cutting ability of the gladius is, while when your legion fought shoulder to shoulder with your shields and swords stabbing is pretty clearly the way to go. But you didn't always fight in large formations. There were plenty of occasions where formations could be disrupted or you are out in small groups and set upon by enemies or standing as a sentry or something else where you aren't part of a tight knit formation and in those cases the versatility of the blade likely becomes more valuable.
Any info on the steel/iron quality of the gladius? Having the pilum being a relative thin piece of steel being strong enough to withstand bending when stabbed or thrown at an object. That same could have been applied when the gladius waqs only a stabbing sword. Being a wide sharp blade, balanced for good cutting by being leave shaped thus top heavier then a narrow straight sword is a give away that it was used a lot for cutting. And being short and wide also a excellent tool sword when building camps or having to walk through dence forrest, bushes, tall grass areas, having a sword that is a weed cutter and wood carver is making it a multitool really.
Context is everything. From what little I know the substitution of the gladius with a longer sword coincided with the division of the Roman Army into the limitanei and the comitatenses. The size of the legions was also reduced from a theoretical 6000 + auxiliaries to a "legion" of 1000 or so with a higher ratio of light troops, many of whom were missile armed. As an aside I think I remember reading somewhere that in the 3rd century and early 4th century, where Rome was fighting border wars and dealing with internal problems, that the practice had developed of taking roughly 2 cohorts from an established legion's home base and using them , together with similar detachments from other legions, as "firemen" to send to where the latest trouble spot was, these detachments then become the basis of the new legio. The legio in a the comitatenses/field army was thus not so much the main strike force but more intended to act as an "anchor" for the light troops and much improved cavalry to do the main work, plus the size of actual armies was a lot smaller than in the age of Republican and Imperial expansion - never mind that the population had declined and the traditional recruiting grounds of Spain and Illyria were simply not producing the number of quality recruits needed. Where this is going is that while an early imperial legion of 6000 men could be trained to fight shield to shield and occupy a given space, and therefore fill a gap between(for example) 2 woods, a much smaller legion simply couldnt occupy the same space shield to shield with the density of an early Imperial legion, never mind the points made above. Hence the dense formations were simply were not possible, and so the style of fighting had to change, hence the demise of the gladius.
There is a weapon that is regularly ignored and it was used usually in clashing formation. This is probably one of the reason why later they started to used the Sica sword too. Every soldier was wearing on his back a Falcetto, a small Falx with a wooden handle pretty long (enough for two hands) particular shape to not be a harm during most of the marching movements, hold by a little hook and easy to disengage. There were soldiers in the Testudo that actually were specialised in using it. When the first line of the Testudo was opening the shield to stab with the Gladius, some soldiers (even in case of lost of the Gladius itself) were grabbing the Falx with a relative quick movement using it as incredible and terrific weapon to cut the tendons behind the knees, the elbows and the heels. Because at every slash of the Enemy, they were simply grabbing and cutting any limb that was going back to it starting position(for another slash). With the time is became a foldable knife: still to be able to march with it without any unwanted cut. All of this is documented and it was part of the Roman Soldiers Fighting tactic. So: in the Testudo, there was a first line of pilum(s), then Shields and Gladius (mainly),but as closed combat and last resource Shield and Falx. We have always to remember that all the weapons the Roman Soldiers had, were good for many other uses, especially in the Life of the Camps. Gladius and Vanga were used to chop woods and dig trenches. And actually the Falx (Falcetto) (later foldable knife) were used for cooking, eating and surgeries (it was a fundamental tool for the everyday life, more than the Gladius) . They still didn't have Rambo's knife...!
Great video. For the Roman Republic Polybius is a nice source. He writes about the severe injuries a Gladius can inflict via cutting. He also described that the Romans used the Gladius for Cut and Trust. The Romans seem to prefer thrusting against enemies that used longer swords and shields like the Celts. That way the could not use their swords in extreme close combat.But like stated in video another reason could be that when fighting as a unit a thrusting move behind the scutum is easier to use than a overhead swing.
Yep. Seems like thrusting against the Celts and hacking/slashing against the Macedonians/Greeks since the Macedonian Wars is where he talks about heads and limbs being chopped off. But the gladius also seems to have changed in length a few times (going from longer mid Republican ones to shorter imperial era ones).
@@Intranetusa Yes the length changed a lot. The Gladius Hispaniensis was very long. The next iteration of the Gladius the Mainz got already shorter and I believe the shortest of the Gladii was Pompeii type.
That's true. I have completely overlooked the gladiatorial examples. Was not even aware that such a thing existed, to be honest. But it makes sense that there were some special gladii in the gladiatorial context. Gladiators used lots of special weapons.
Curiously, a lot of the Republican Romans would have had La Tene B's... So a fair amount of Romans would have been killing Gauls with Gallic-derived blades!
Great vid. I can imagine the Romans moving to longer swords as cavalry become more prominent on late Roman battlefields. Fighting with the shield and gladius was doubtless effective against opponents on foot, but I suspect they were not so effective if most of your opponents were mounted.
I'd like to see a comparison of gladius vs Ka-bar and what advantages and disadvantages it has. Also which one would you want to use in trench warfare or close quarters combat?
I'd definitely be bringing a gladius to a modern close quarters engagement as a compliment to a battle rifle/carbine with or without bayonet, and hand grenades. When someone lunges out of a door or window to grab your rifle, the sling attatched to the webbing will retain it long enough to draw a gladius from a horizontal sheath behind your back and stab with it as they pull you towards themselves by the rifle sling...
K-Bar is smaller, of course. Lighter and can be carried on more locations of one's body comfortably or conveniently. Shorter reach, though. So one would use knife fighting techniques instead of sword or machete techniques. Both are part of a system or kit of equipment. Gladius might do better than the K-Bar as a digging/entrenching tool. K-Bar is a better substitute for a steak-knife or meal-preparation knife. Compare with the Guhkri and a machete, as well, to make the experiment interesting. :-)
@@libraeotequever3pointoh95 I had been under the assumption that if you train with something like the gladius it would be just as easy if not easier to use in such cases. However, you'd probably have to start out training with it from a younger age type deal.
For machetes, the deeper cross section blades cut deeper. I have a machete with a 3 1/2" deep cross section and it will sink into solid wood about 2" with a good swing. Of course it's hard to get back out after that. But I expect the deep cross section of the gladius to give it considerable chopping potential.
I'm going to create a drinking game for every time Matt mentions context, sword puns, deep penetration and other double entendres etc... I expect we'll be hammered very quickly...
Forgive me if this is a dumb question,I’m still a relative novice to sword history and styles.(I’m more of a firearms guy😂). But what is the difference between a Spatha Sword and a Gladius?
Three additional factors I would add to the gladius being its original size then getting longer over time: 1) It was proportional to the original grain/fruit-fed mediterranean tribes who used it, who were generally smaller and more ectomorphic than the bigger, heavy-protein-raised, long-limbed endomorphic northerners they eventually encountered. The northrons used longer, heavier swords to some extent because they could. 2) The "frontier barbarians" were also more prone to using axes, which changes the whole dynamic. A heavy square ground-hugging shield isn't so good at stopping an axe head's momentum swinging downward from above, so you have to switch to a smaller, more maneuverable shield that is easier to raise up over your head in a hurry. Goodbye scutum, and so the gladius loses some of its context when it loses its partner shield. Obviously, once the romans could hire frisian, norse, or northern keltic mercenaries, that changed the standards on their side as well, as you mentioned. Still, about the only thing anyone could do about the cliff people / suebi was to stay the hell out of their territory, and hope they stayed in it. Sometimes, the best strategy is knowing where to limit your boundaries, as John Cleese put it in "Silverado": "Today, my jurisdiction ends here..." 2) The northern center-grip large round shield, which can be used edge-on from a side stance to maintain space, especially combined with a longer axe, gave considerable range advantage in melee. The shorter gladius is great if you can get within a couple feet of your opponent; but if they have a setup that can hold you off and strike from over a meter away, it just doesn't have the reach, especially if the opponent is already 6 inches taller and longer in the arm. Thus, this late-roman/early-migration arms race/evolution involved both the equipment sets involved, as well as the physical properties of the soldiers themselves.
I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about using the massive shield as an offensive tool. How much of Roman tactics would have been about shoving like a rugby scrum?
When Suetonius fought Boudicca`s army at the battle of Watling street his pre battle speech makes a point of telling his men to bash the enemy with their shields first before using their swords
I recall hearing that the shield shape changed as the spatha became the primary Roman sword. Maybe this was to allow better maneuverability with the longer blade?
In modern times, military surplus weapons tend to be used by reserves or lended to foreign allies for decades after being "replaced" then often finding their way onto the civilian market after that. Based on your own experience as a collector, how late would you expect to find Roman spartha and gladius swords floating around? Based on other swords you've shown I'd expect them all to be pitted wall hangers after a few centuries, and then rusty relics past 500 years. But seems like 200 years after there should still be lots of them around. Say 6th century or so?
Its also been noted that the increasing use of Auxillla troops with their weapon sets had influence on the Regulars Edit: You mentioned it right at the end 👍
@@scholagladiatoria it's a lot to squeeze in short videos. 500 years of history in 10 minutes or less and still get the major points that everybody is going to get you for! 😆👍
I imagine that it is also easier to teach someone how to use it. I remember cutlass being more popular by pirates because it's a bit more chop, not cutting really. Like, imagine like, the M1 carbine and M3 smg, compared to like, a marksman rifle. They might be able to make more of them with the same amount of material as well? There would be so many things to consider other than just how well you can kill with it.
There's a recent as interesting video by Schwerpunkt on the Celtic metallurgic legacy in Roman and Germanic arms & armor. I strongly recommend it for further context
In formation, shield in your left hand sword in the right. Block the man in front of you with your shield and stab the opponent to your right when he raises his arm to do a vertical slash.
I’ve a reproduction Mainz Gladius and it is a really good cutting blade. That said the variation in construction and length in the same period means that some would be more stabby than cutty.
In my eyes, the form of the Gladius and similar swords like the Xiphos give some things away: They have a bulk of material at the tip and thus are somehow a hybrid between an axe and a sword, which does make sense when you consider that soldiers in those times did not only fight with their weapons. They had to march miles and miles through hostile territory, somehow get some food, firewood, buld a camp every day in the evening AND they had to carry all their stuff with them. So, when I would have to walk all the way from, let's say Cunaxa to Greece and carry all my belongings with me, I wouldn't want to carry a seperate axe, a cooking knife, a machete and in case I get into a battle a long sword with me, but instead a tool that I can use to cut down small trees and bushes into firewood, to cut some vegetables or bread or meat and to hack through thick bushes, while I still could use that tool in battle as a not too bad alternative to a long sword - especially since my main weapon would be some kind of spear, which I already have to carry with me - but probably could use as a tent pole at night. So, dual usability would be an important thing to me, as it would be for people who hike or do outdoorsy stuff today is. And since the Romans were the first to realy organize their military and its logistics, at some point in time they might just have been at a point, where it WAS more sustainable, more cheaper and more sensible to use longer swords and instead have some more specialized units in their organization that cook, organize firewood or do all that stuff. A legionary under Caesar would probably while on campaign have to march through gallic or germanic forrests, hunt for food, cut his own fire wood and build his own camp while fending against some Raiders occasionally - while 200 years later his descendant would instead live in a brick or stone built castellum, where food is provided to him by his units cooks, he would buy firewood or meat from the locals who live nearby and the only reason for him having a Gladius would in fact be to fight off barbaric intruders.
What is interesting to me about this, no disrespect to the gladius and the conversation around it, is how so many different groups were using large shields at the time. And we see this time and time again, where different sets of people were using similar weapons and defensive measures at roughly the same time through history, while being enemies, or at least not integrated into eachother society. Makes one think of the amazing attention to detail some folk (whether traders or travlers or prisoners of war) were able to discern about these arms and defensive implements, and then at a later (possibly far later) date, bring them back to their people in order to recreate similar arms and armor. Humans are fascinating.
I think the metallurgy of the time would also favor short stubby blades. As smiths improved steel making and forging techniques, The blades became longer and thinner. As the swords changed the fighting style changed.
What about draw cuts as well? I think we overlook this aspect. Let's say we have stabbed and passed the opponent. 'while withdrawing for another go there's likely to be chances of opportunistic draw cuts. The profile of the blade suggests this would have been part of its design as it carves in this movement.
Man, the pilum scares the crap out of me, I bet it goes through people like butter. I can’t imagine chain Mail doing much against such a narrow tip either.
Could you expand a bit on the bronze-age rapiers in some future video? It seems very intriguing, and after a short search, not much information seems to be available.
@scholagladiatoria, thinking of the Bronze sword, I assume the leaf shape was a trial-and-error evolution from a proto-sword. What do we know about the very earliest swords?
Mr Stabby can get in multiple hits during the time a weilding swing is made!!! & If you get a Celtic chief in chain mail then slashing will likely blunt the tip! Stabbing between the rings & ramming it in can open up a 2.5-3" slit in Celtic chain-mail! As battlefield finds have shown!!!
You forgot a key factor; the closeness of combat after contact was akin to being near the front of the crowd at a concert. Wearing the gladius on the right, allows it to be drawn and wielded well even when packed in like sardines.
Gavin is looking like when you come back from the pub and your mate just took a line of speed and won’t shut up explaining how the Gladius works, yeah man I get it can but we just chill out and watch Eurotrash now.
Perhaps this has already been covered, but I'm fond of a Georgian resto channel, and I've found the blade style of their long dagger/short sword to bear a striking resemblance to the gladius. The hilt style is different, of course, but it does hint that the pattern spread beyond the Empire, and may have stuck around for other reasons elsewhere, for even longer.
I don't know but I wonder if the reason they went to the longer sword was more of a technical issue with working with metal. I think the smith's gained more experience and understanding of black smithing so they were able to make longer thinner blades that were much more reliable. This is just a guess but I know the early northern European blades were not always that well made. Yet in less then 100 years they got to be some very good blades made there. Has anyone ever tested ancient Roman iron to see what the hardness and composition was like? Thanks for the video
the romans in the line used like a chaimshaw white a short blades eat down the attacking enemy's. The romans secret was organisation, training, using units more flexibel als the others, like greek. Ther was many important parts, like combat enginering (including digging). And the economy to hold a huge professional army for centurys.
A stabbing sword also makes sense, in a group formation standpoint, in that it is easier to kill or disable an opponent with a stab than a slash. Particularly when shields are involved. One to two inches thrust into a kill zone of the body is all that is needed. You can either puncture a vital organ or cut a major artery where you would bleed out quickly. One of the favorite kill stabs was a thrust into the liver, which would perforate the hepatic artery and the victim would quickly bleed out. I do agree though that as a weapon system the Gladys and the scutum were highly effective.
Interesting mention about the thrust to the liver(right side of body). Wonder how that could be done in a historic context considering that they used used the blades in the right hand followed by the shield in the left.
@@Froggy-nv7ep Good question. My understanding that this was a tactic used against opponents who were not as heavily armored infantry, such as, the Gauls or if an opponent was knocked off their feet. The larger point though is that the Roman infantry was well trained on these kill points where a shallow stab would be fatal.
My understanding of why the Gladius and Scutum system began disappearing has to do with the changing nature of the empire as a whole. The system described above is highly dependent on rigorous training, drilling, and coordination. This was able to be accomplished easily when Roman citizens saw the professional Army as a mode for upward mobility within the state. I believe this started to change into the 2nd and 3rd centuries as Roman citizens became less and less likely to sign up for the Army (I believe life had improved for the citizens to a point where the hard life of the Army was not as desirable) and recruitment started coming more and more from either mercenary units (who would have already had their own tactics) or migrant warriors from Germania and Gaul who fought for Rome in exchange for citizenship. I imagine that the higher dependence on the cavalry that came with the later imperial period also had something to do with the change in infantry tactics, perhaps a smaller shield allowed for an infantry unit to cover ground quicker which may have become more vital in that time. Great video as always.
Sort of off the specific topic. A friend of mine was reading about medieval murders in York. Among the many baselards, he ran across a reference to a bladed weapon called a "twyfel". I've looked in the OED, but can only find a 1460 reference to "twyfyl" as meaning "doubtful". Have you heard of a sword or knife called a "twyfel"?
I’d really like to see what the dynamics of a later Spartha & Oval Sheild with Plumbata, vs a Gladius, Scutum, and Pilla would be. I suspect the Plubata would have greater range, and maybe more hits, and I wonder if the shift to Spartha and a different sheild indicates a shift in tactics or if one merely necessitates the other.
Interesting that the Roman tactic seems to have been to move right into shanking range, I can imagine that having a real psychological impact, very aggressive. With a spear formation you can maintain some distance, but Romans with gladius and scutum, they have to get right up in your face. Kind of terrifying, actually.
Definitely the right thing to do against pike blocks and spear formations of their enemies.
@@scholagladiatoria Interesting though, how history always reverted back to the spear formation. Even the Romans.
@@michaeljfoley1during the period of the Republic and early to middle empire Roman troops had substantially better equipment than their enemies. So with much heavier armor the Roman legionary can more safely get in close and is significantly advantaged in grappling range. So having a weapon set that prioritizes getting in close is just playing to their strengths.
But by the time of the late empire, the disparity in the equipment closes dramatically with chainmail becoming much more common and padded cloth armor being ubiquitous. So legionaries can no longer rely on having a huge advantage in close quarters due to heavier armor. Thus the need to revert to spears and long swords. Though even then the Romans continue to prefer shorter spears.
@@michaeljfoley1 I suspect as the level of professionalism in the roman army dropped, spears became a safer and more effective option.
*Casually approach Gaul*
Matt Easton is the Scott Manley of arms and armor. Both are bald men from the UK who are experts in particular nerdy fields and are widely respected among their community
Fight safe!?
Scott saved me from so much frustration when learning to play Kerbal Space Program.
@@Carrot421911 Combined they become Kerballish Quart.
Or he's the Ian McCollum of swords. He's sword-jesus.
Wait, you mean they are not the same person?!
Thank you so much for helping dispel the myth that Gladii were a thrust-only sword! If you go back and read the texts, there's on from a soldier describing limbs being removed when enemies would overreach in combat. That in itself proves it had a versatility in the cut, but so many people only know what video games and movies tell them.
I read a very stupid comment under Forge In Fire: Gladius. I can't remember exactly but it's something like this: Gladius is a thrushting weapon, Roman commander will be very pissed if a soldier slash than thrust.
That was a so WTF comment. If it's thrusting only weapon why were the edges sharpern?
Famously when Caesar tried to stop routing legionaires, one of the soldiers in panic raised his arm against Caesar, it was cut off by his bodyguard, saving Caesar's life.
Livy's account of the Macedonian wars comes to mind. According to Livy, some of Phillip's men who were used to fighting the Greeks and Illyrians and as a result familiar only wounds caused by javelins and arrows and rarely lances were appalled by the wounds caused by the Spanish sword such as heads cut off from the trunk, arms lopped, necks and shoulders entirely cut through, disembowelments and various other wounds so terrible that were perceived with horror.
Should be obvious that anything with an edge at least had a secondary usage as a cutter/chopper. I don't get why people are so fast to develop these weird ideas about history. Or maybe I do, I could see historians trying to make a name for themselves coming up with "theories" like that to further their name/career.
@@Juel92 Usually, I think these kind of “theories” don’t come from historians (not least because that’s not the kind of thing you make an academic career out of in that field), but from game and/or weapons bros.
If you fighting from the horseback then gladius (as a whole family short swords) it's not ideal weapons. Spatha was introduced as a sword first to the roman cavalry probably from frankish or gallic auxiliary troops (cavalry). In later empire / early Byzanthium period armies were a lot more saturated by horse riders then it was in late republic / early empire so even infantry need a weapon with longer reach. This is ofcourse of many reasons why roman legionaires change theirs equipment. PS. Gavin really looks like cool guy and glad to see him again in your video :)
Spears were still the ultimate weapon and thats what their Auxiliar used as main weapons. Swords are mainly backup weapons.
I think that's part of the answer. Ultimately, I think as Matt said, the gladius was part of a system that involved great armor, shields, training, intimidation (see another post), AND a short stabbing sword that was unbeatable so long as you had all of those together. Lose any of them, with perhaps training being #1, and you are better off reverting to a more generic fighting style. Against cavalry the shield and pilum would be better than a longer sword. But only if you had a really professional, well-trained, and high morale army which the Romans started to lack as time went on.
Problem is people think too much in drawers. Even before the Spatha the Romans had cavalry swords and in fact what we think of Gladius had length variations that completely overlap with the Spatha so you do not have them fit in neat categories. You have swords seeming too short for a Spatha but otherwise seemingly that pattern and others too long for Gladius but otherwise that pattern and everything across a spectrum.
Agreed. The switchover to "longer" bladed weapons was, probably more than anything else, due to the shift in doctrine from blocks of heavy infantry to highly mobile cavalry.
@@kleinerprinz99ййййййййййййййййййййййййййййййййййййййййййййййййййййййййй 18:37
Thanks to Gavin, I felt like I was there, in person, thinking to myself ‘How do I hold my sword for Matt’s benefit without looking awkward?’ P.S. Gavin did great. I hope.
I was concerned at certain points Matt was going accidentally back himself onto the pointy bit! 😱🤣
I remember a UA-cam poll asking what the best close range sword was and the gladius won by a long shot despite no mention of it being accompanied by a shield. That surprised me as it was going against the cutlas and the wakizashi.
No hand protection is likely the biggest negative to most Roman-type swords and knives, gladius, pugio, and such weapons. Matt did a video about the evolution of hand protection on swords, and for some reason, more ancient blades just didn't have them, but after they caught on, more and more sword-makers adopted them. Crossguards, basket hilts, etc.
Fencing unarmored with a gladius against a cutlass sounds far from ideal, though all three are close enough that skill & conditioning would be what really matter.
@@dashcammer4322Swords in the ancient world were nearly always used with a shield in the off-hand. You're not defending with the sword at all, so hand protection simply isn't necessary.
@@Tobascodagama A lot of these swords were also, relatively speaking, mass produced. With the simpler technology the romans and other people had on hand, even if they had thought of using hand protection, the expense in time, money, and resources, in producing a large swathe of swords for citizen-soldiers would have been incredibly difficult.
@@dashcammer4322 Interesting fact, the gladius was actually in use around 1355, but it was hidden in plain sight. Swordsmiths at the time cleverly disguised it by giving it a crossguard and a pommel.
Finally some ｃｏｎｔｅｘｔ! Hopefully this video will have great ｐｅｎｅｔｒａｔｉｏｎ in the community and help dispel the gladius myths.
hehehe
I have a soft spot for the Pompeii Gladius with its parallel edges and triangular point, probably because it reminds me of 8bit sword sprites from old games, or my childhood drawings of what i thought a sword looked like
And Asterix comics' Romans ...
My thoughts on the semispatha is that some were older gladii still in circulation and that others were broken down spathae. Either instance seems to mean it was likely the cheaper option. On a related note, I'd like to learn more about late Roman knives; they seem to blur between sica and seax.
One of the things that I have always loved as a Roman Historian and find very interesting is how Rome would run across something, the gladius hispaniensis, certain ship designs, different armors,. ect and if it seemed effective against what the Romans had or seemed like they could work it into their current methods they would almost absorb it into their system. They might change it up, modify its design a bit, and then just straight use it. That is how Rome got a navy, they partially copied the ship designs from the Carthaginians, modified it to have a Corvus (docking bridge) to turn ship combat back into land combat, and off they went with a semi-effective navy.
It's good to finally see an Albion again! You've been featuring a lot of other sword makers, but we haven't seen an Albion in quite a while. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, it seems like you've possibly sold many of your good old Albions, like your Ringeck and your Poitier...
Funnily enough I filmed a video with the Ringeck today. I still have them all, except the Poitiers, which I did sell... to Gavin rather coincidentally!
@@scholagladiatoria, Ha!! Well, I'm glad that the Poitiers has at least stayed in good hands!😃😂 And I can't wait to see your upcoming video with the Ringeck! It's such a brutally beautiful, pointy, stabby longsword!
Why are they so expensive compared to other makers? Is it literally just a status symbol thing or what?
@@Kinetic.44Not an expert by any means, but my initial guess would be better tolerances
@@Kinetic.44 , I would second evster7flick's statement about tolerances, and you could probably say the same about their overall fit and finish. I would also say that it has to do with the fact that Albion's "Next Generation" line, the line most people get, are designed by the amazing swordsmith Peter Johnsson. Peter's abilities, even just as a designer, are not to be underestimated! There's just a certain historical aesthetic to them that sets them apart... or at least HAD set them apart. You see, we find ourselves in an interesting time in terms of the world of production swords. With swords such as those Windlass has produced in collaboration with Matt (and the Royal Armouries?), we're finally starting to see pieces that can compete with Albion, especially for the money.
I really only had a passing interest of old weapons until I came across your channel. Really like it. Thank you,
I thoroughly enjoyed this rather pointed study on Roman weaponry. Thank you! Subscribed.
Great video. That sword/shield combo was obviously effective for 100's of years; especially when deployed in large formations.
The sword and shield combination is a distinction without difference - literally EVERYONE had swords and shields. What identifies the Romans is rather that they used javelins instead of spears or pikes. It really should go without saying, in such a context, that the javelin was their primary weapon, just as the spear was that of the 5th century hoplite, or the pike that of the Macedonian phalangite.
I mean, think of it this way: if the Roman was a dedicated fighter at close range, employing to good effect his shield and sword for the duration of a battle, then exactly why did he not also carry a spear, spears being also exemplary close-combat weapons and synergizing very well with swords in their differing specialties?
I could anticipate your counterarguments to the above with the considerable evidence of battle duration, casualty statistics, contemporary writing, human physical limitations, and other such matters, but since these could also be gained from a brief, free, and entertaining online perusal of recent short-form scholarship on the matter and some rummaging through the contents of Caesar and Polybius, I would encourage you to spare me the effort.
@@melanoc3tusii205 Yes and no, depending on how you define “primary”.
The pilum was definitely a key factor in the combination, but arguably because it allowed for a more effective deployment of the sword and shield by disrupting opponent formations and was effective against enemy shields.
This would allow the legionaries to then do their bloody sword fights more effectively. (And of course the pilum could also be used as a stabbing spear in a pinch)
If we define the pilum as the “primary weapon”, in the sense of the weapon mainly used to kill or incapacitate opponents, you’d expect legionnaires to stand off and pepper their opponents with them, like other types of javelin men from antiquity, and not rely much on their swords.
But if the legionaries were mainly javelin units, then it would also not make much sense to weigh them down with a lot of heavy armour, something else that set them aside from the dedicated javelin units of antiquity.
By contrast, a Greek hoplite or a Macedonian phalangite would have their thrusting spear as their primary weapon for killing and maiming opponents with their sword as more of a backup.
I also think it is Important to consider Roman military equipment not only in the context of fighting Barbarians or other Mediterranean states, but also against other Romans. Internecine conflict features rather heavily in Roman History, and almost all of the famous Roman civil wars occurred after the implementation of the Gladius. Additionally, most, if not all, of a Roman Soldier’s training partners would be other similarly equipped and trained legionaries. I think that last fact is important when you consider soldiers use their weapons in training much more than they do in battle. So for all the external pressures that influenced the adoption of the gladius paired with the Scutum, it’s longevity as a weapon system, And it’s eventual replacement by spatha and oval shields, must also be analyzed alongside internal pressures and the experience of Romans fighting other Romans. All that is to say, it seems likely to me that Roman soldiers (or atleast the ones with power to commission equipment) found the gladius/scutum/pilum combination suitable against both Romans and non-Romans alike, because we do not see dramatic innovation away from this system during times of war with either internal or external foes.
I think one reason for the longer sword (and slightly small and lighter shields) might be the fact that the late roman army tended to put more emphasis on small scale raiding, that they tended to concentrate fewer soldiers to each battle and (perhaps) that the physical battlefields tended to get larger (fighting in the east vs. the parthians and along the Rein, rather then in fairly narrow valleys in Italy, Greece and so on) So battlefields would see a smaller density of soldiers, meaning that soldiers and units would have to cover a greater area than before, while also having the space to use a longer cutting sword. No longer fighting the type of heavy infantry that they had done before, would also make a longer cutting sword more useful.
i completely agree, I just wrote a similar comment
Late Rome was in a strategically defensive posture, this is evident in the archeological record with forts. Forces were less trained and on a smaller scale to respond to border incursions.
Interestingly, the Romans started off liking fairly large swords in their infancy.
Extant Italian xiphoi finds are larger in comparison to Greek finds, with blade lengths in the region of ~60-70 cm (Campovilano has a blade length of 63cm). La Tene B swords were also quite Widespread in Republican Rome, with blade lengths being similar or a bit larger than the Italic Xiphos. Early Gladius Hispaniensis finds also tend to have blade lengths of around ~65cm.
It's really trippy that I just was looking up what manuals or "hema" styles would be applicable to a xiphos like 3 days ago. And now a video pops up for my exact sword of choice (or at least it's mentioned). Mind you the one I have is the 19in blade from zombie tools. My rationale for it wasnt as a paired item with a shield but moreso being used in confined spaces; hallways/ buildings/ ect. Where a longer weapon would be inconvenient and possibly get caught on enviromental hazards. (Theres a goblin slayer referance in here somewhere). Obv at that point the historical/ traditional training for combat goes out the window but I'm still curious if there's a general shortsword manuscript that could serve as a baseline to referance.
I've done kali/ escrima before and worked with knives, batons, tonfa, staffs, the horrendous abomination that are nunchucks, butterfly swords, and a very, veryyyy small bit of kendo. So it's far less "how do I swing da cutty thingy" and more "what made this effective historically so I can supplament/ enhance my current technique or notice flaws I hadn't realized existed before.
Man that turned into a ramble. Idk if anyone will read this or have any suggestions but if ya do major thanks!
Veni, vidi, vici!
Yes, a video about the evolution of tactics and armaments will be greatly appreciated
I'm a bit late in commenting but even though I know you're an expert and very learned in these things, as a German, it warms my heart to hear a Brit correctly pronouncing "Mainz".
Apart from that, as is so often the case with your videos, top notch.
Also, as others mentioned, very happy to see the Gladius not being described as "only for thrusting". It's one of "those" misconceptions that appear to be very hard to get out of people's heads.
A small remark on the Pilum: Although it kind of went out of fashion in late antiquity (although much later than the Gladius, which was replaced by the Spatha), the concept was so successful that the Franks and those influenced by them (Alamans, Baiuvars, propably also Saxons and Langobards) used a very similar weapon called Ango (or Angon, as I've read in literature). The main difference is in the cross-section: whereas the pilum was (at least as far as I know) usually rectangular/square, the Ango was round. But both were used to impale and stick, either in shields or in people. Both had hooks, making them difficult or impossible to remove, and both had a very long metal rod between the tip and the shaft, making it near impossible to get rid of by hacking it. Some Angons had 5 or 6 feet of metal before the wooden shaft even started, and there are historical accounts of Franks de-shielding opponents by throwing the Ango, then stepping on the shaft. These accounts are somewhat debatable, but if in a battle you get a chance to force down an opponent's shield, you're gonna try.
Thanks for these in depth info on the gladius big shield towards long sword and more rounded shields.
I wonder if this could stem from a more offensive Rome with larger formations towards a more defensive smaller lighter forces quickly raiding from cover of say Hadrians wall forts.
In a smaller nimbler force you need to fight more individually. Doing quick punitive raids to keep tribes outside (and inside) the Hadrian wall and Rhine line policed.
And, I guess at lower cost. 18:37
I had read long time ago that gladius was good for cutting too. When I handled it felt almost like butcher's cleaver with nasty point for thrusting.
That's a very interesting observation.
Good timing! I literaly just received my Albion Augustus yesterday.
As far I know, the Spartans also had very short swords. Others laughed that you could practice swallowing them (such a spectacular trick). A little boy in Sparta complained to his mother: "My sword is shorter than my opponent's." The mother replied, "Then come closer." Speaking of the Romans, a few days ago I read interesting information about what kind of field fortifications the Romans made. I was very surprised. Apparently they connected three short poles to form a kind of "anti-personnel hedgehog". Is it true?
Yes I touch on Greek swords in the video :-)
@@scholagladiatoria Yes, I saw it, but were the Spartan ones actually shorter than the typical "Greek" ones?
in answer to the inquiry, ‘Why do you use short swords ? ’ said, ‘So that we may get close to the enemy.’ - plutarch's sayings of spartans
@@Zbigniew_Nowakprobably not. People tend to take any classical hellenic story and attribute it to the spartans.
@@Arkeo36 So there is this version of this anecdote. But it makes practical sense of course. Supposedly, the Romans were able to achieve a 2:1 tactical advantage thanks to this, because two men with short swords could operate in a narrow section of the fight where there was one opponent with a long sword.
the armour only gets more intricate when you take into account what is depicted on Trajan's Collum with elements found in the gladiatorial arena being adopted widespread by military forces to better defend legs and lower arms from weapons like the Falx.
combining these with existing armour like the Lorica Segmentata to create a proto suit of armour.
Great video! Can you address how and why the gladius changed from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire? I've always been intrigued/confused by gladius measurements that suggests the mid-Republican era gladius was a good bit longer than the imperial era gladius.
Good question!
It may have to do with the transition from the manipular formation to cohorts. The manipular formations were looser as they were developed when fighting the Sabines in the mountains of Italy, and worked well in Spain too. Cohorts were developed after much fighting in Africa with more open terrain and moving back to a tighter formation became more useful as would transitioning to a shorter sword.
I wish I could read the answer to this question but on most of my UA-cam channels I cannot read comments to people's comments
@@robo5013 According to Vegetius, the imperial era cohorts of the 1st-2nd centuries had 3 feet of space between each man (so ~6 feet total per person). That is pretty spacious formation. In comparison, most spear formations are much tighter.
When did the military of the Republic move from using low-carbon iron swords to high carbon steel swords?
Thank you both for the video ⚔️
The reason for the move away from gladius and scutum shield in the later roman period, is because that fighting system was designed for a specific time in history of large, rigorously trained and organized armies of elite soldiers fighting other large armies. Its all about context as always. After the romans had conquered all the local armies around them, the times changed. They became more about control of the land they owned. They became complacent and wealthy. Life of the wealthy, powerful and capable of upwards mobility, became about that personal rise more so than the goals of the state. And as hard times make hard people, then hard people make soft time...soft times make soft people - and soft people make hard times. Society began to decline and new challengers gnawed at the bits of the empire, struggle and strife became harder to deal with and adaptation had to be made. Armies of hundreds of thousands of trained massive shields and formations became less common and combat devolved more into unorganized skirmishing and for that purpose the gladius and scutum were no longer the best option. There is nothing on earth that is a simple 1 word answer. But also, nothing is all that complicated. it is just human nature. It is just the logical outcome of peoples desires and the times they find themselves in. People always just do the best they can for themselves in the context they exist within. Times changed, so weaponry and tactics and realities of battle all changed. Its just that we try to distill 400 years of history into 1 word or 1 phrase, which keeps us from understandng the truth of the matter.
part of the kit, hurling, spear and knife, for each type and phase of fighting. Also, horsemen need longer swords to reach down, forward and to the side. practical riding horses start at 12.0 hands (4 inches to a hand) and increase thru the ages.
Excellent video! Thanks to both of you!
I have to wonder whether smaller units covering larger areas drove some of the changes in equipment. I don't think they had the economy to have enough full legions to cover their territory as densely as they had early on. I remember reading how much of a struggle to finance the legions that they often ran into. If they were forced to cover more area with smaller detatchments then equipment that favored large unit actions would be less effective while equipment that favored small units, individuals and cavalry would be more useful(like longer swords, bigger spears and smaller sheilds that require lesser supply chains or allow more impact from a single soldier) over time that wouls have driven a lot od equipment changes.
My thoughts as well. The Roman economy simply couldnt maintain the 30 odd legions plus auxiliaries in the 4th century. Troops that werent paid had a disturbing tendency to rebel and proclaim their own Emperor...
I appreciate how safe these boys are around the pointy stabies.
One of the Roman authors I've read (I think Tacitus, but maybe Pliny the Elder) talks about Roman soldiers charging their enemies and the front rank knocking them down with their scutums and the ranks behind stabbing them while they were on the ground. I wish I could remember the quote. Not sure whether it would really be a practical tactic or how widespread it was if so, but it reinforces the ideas that a) the gladius was intended to be just one part of a larger weapons system incorporating the scutum and pila, and b) the strength of the Roman armies during the period of their peak success lay in their discipline, coordination and teamwork.
My guess as to why the gladius fell out of fashion was probably mainly cultural- as time went on fewer Italians wanted to serve in the army and the Empire made greater use of auxiliaries and mercenaries, including the Germans mentioned by Matt. These people would have had their own cultural preferences for particular weapons that might have influenced the military culture as a whole.
Seems like a valid tactic. Heard it before also.
The most critical pieces of Roman military equipment were arguably the shovel and pick---the constant entrenchment and protected camp building was a more distinct tactic for them than what they did on the battlefield itself.
In reality, it's the level of professionalization and discipline---they could order an army into the field, marching, digging in, and staying there indefinitely before fighting as a disciplined unit, something neighboring states couldn't count on their forces doing reliably.
You briefly mentioned the possibility of a "transitional sword" between gladius and spatha, and the possibility that certain types of soldiers were given those;
From practicality alone (it takes a lot of effort, time and money to make new swords for the whole roman army....) I guess, that once the romans wanted to shift to a new sword type, they started out handing the new swords to the troops, where the new swords were thought to make the best use/results. Thus for a short period you would see certain types of soldier carrying the spathas before others.
Back in the day, when I served in the Danish army, I was in a transport compagny - bringing supplies to the fighting men. At that time, the army was getting a new rifle system, lighter and with smaller caliber cartridges. We were the last ones to get the new rifles, because we were not supposed to do a lot of fighting....
Again context is key to understanding.
👍💪👍.
Could you talk of La Tené Swords?
As it happens, I've been learning more about them recently.
@@scholagladiatoria that would be nice. They are quite special.
It's exactly right that the secret to the success of the gladius was that it was used as part of a weapon _system_ (in conjunction with the scutum), and in conjunction with the close formations and high level of discipline of the Roman army. I have an original French Model 1831 artillery short sword, which was deliberately copied from the Roman gladius (one's depicted in surviving Roman art, rather than archaeological finds, I feel quite certain), and the French artillerymen to whom it was issued did not find it a useful weapon at all. They did find it useful as a machete-like camp tool, and called it the _coupe-chou_ (cabbage chopper). But as a weapon, they didn't think it worth much, and it's not hard to see why; a soldier trying to use one against an enemy armed with a saber or a musket with bayonet attached, would be at a _severe_ reach disadvantage, and would have neither the shield, nor the close formation that were the keys to making this type of sword a world-beating weapon when the Romans used it in the late Republican and early Imperial periods.
The french weapon you talk about had another group of issues leading to a not so stellar weapon Performance. Reach was definitely an issue, but the artillery short sword was far heavier and 'overbuilt' compared to the various types of gladius. It was unwieldy. I think there's a video on the scholagladiatoria channel
@@heavybolter6396 Yeah, the solid brass hilt definitely makes it heavier than ideal for a sword, though that did probably improve its durability for the machete role it more typically played.
The Roman army during the most relevant portion of its military exploits with javelin, shield, and sword did not fight in close order and was not particularly disciplined - those are fallacious retrojections from the late Roman Empire, when they favored thrusting spears.
The first thing I noticed in this was 'I've got that exact jumper!!'
I like how Gavin smiles getting back his gladius )))
When it comes to cutting and having the space for it, Polybius describes that each legionary (at the time of the Punic wars, or possibly Macedonian wars it's a bit unclear) would have had at least three square feet to his own to work with in a typical formation. While they could stand tighter than that in specific situations the baseline formation would be spacious and allow the legionaire independent and free movement to ensure they can fight actively within it, and he even says the space between legionaires could be increased if needed as well beyond that.
My lay person instinct is to say. The large shield and short sword were an extreme advantage against people less armored. And then, as the same armor went everywhere. The romans had to adapt and start using different tactics/weapons. Also, maybe something to do with a more individualized Soldier is opposed to fighting as a unit over rough terrain?
"The large shield and short sword were an extreme advantage against people less armored."
This begs two questions - why do you think the people they fought against were less armoured, and why do you think that those people, being less armoured, didn't themselves fight with sword and large shield?
"And then, as the same armor went everywhere."
The same armour *started off* elsewhere, and in fact most of elsewhere had serviceable armour of one variety or another.
"Also, maybe something to do with a more individualized Soldier is opposed to fighting as a unit over rough terrain?"
As opposed to the Greeks, who developed first dense forces armed with dedicated thrusting spears and then even denser forces armed with massive pikes, and obviously lived on a massive expanse of grassy plains flatter than the average pancake?
The context is also an issue …. The Roman unit sort of functioned like a machine…. The front guy fought for x minutes then the next guy moved up to take his place. Afterall arms get tired.
I have a gladius machete and I can def say it is one hell of a chopper/ cutter. They're excellent blades.
The part forgotten is for every minute of being used as a weapon, a tool like the Gladius spent HOURS being a work tool like a Machete. Later Sword-ey swords are unitaskers and tend to color peoples impressions of earlier weapons that may represent at the time 3/4ths of an individuals total metal equipment. That hunk of steel has to be worth the carrying.
Hi Matt, could you pls make a vid about keeping your weapons in shape (maintenance, rust-removal, oils, etc). thx!
How much did improvements in metallurgy impact the transformation of the Roman side-arm from the gladius to longer blades? Was the mass-production of blades during the early Empire a factor in shape, and did the move to artisan forging encourage longer blades? Just wondering, beyond the battlefield, how much material sciences played a part.
The evolution from gladius to spatha was more a function of the transition of the major strike arm of the Roman army. The cavalry replaced the infantry as the most important component of the army. The longer spatha was necessary to extended the reach of the infantry when engaged against horsemen. The Romans had been issuing longer swords to their cavalry for centuries and had the technology to produce them.
i have this VR game,gladius...
and there best used like this: stab,shield,stab,shield repeat.
you hide behind your shield,and just stab away.........its a nice fighting style,its effective.
just putting a point in someones face,is very effective.
there not made to swing,and parry,there made to stab.
a swing would also not puncture armor.
they also have a solid grip,this is also better for stabbing.
like you have this shield wall,with people stabbing beyond that wall...
its kinda like a phalanx,with spears...just with swords.
a rapier...is like a modern Gladius,fencing,stabbing people,instead of swinging.
its purely focused on discipline....
shield and stab,shield and stab.....that is what you learn your muscles.
like i said...its effective,that why they got so big,the Romans.
i still envy the Greek phalanx though.
but a spear is useless close range.
phalanx is bronze age and Romans are early iron age.
rapier is far more modern....made more for duels.
now gladius is a game not a simulation...
but vr simulations can teach us much.....
you can simulate weapons,era,and stuff like that.
you could simulate a true roman fight.
from a history perspective,it could teach people much.
Nice. Would like to see more Gladius content.
You move around a lot when you do these videos, and with the way Gavin was holding his gladius I admit I got concerned a couple times in the video. =)
That is a good context. Thank you.
@8:30 A point that often gets lost is that Vegetius is not describing the Roman Army in perpetuity. He's giving relative snap shots of the Imperial Army. By contrast if you dig into modern and ancient literature dealing with the Legions of the Mid and Early Republic you get a very different image: Each Roman Legionary occupied a "tactical box" that's nearly 2m from end to end. Yes, you need more space to cut with a gladius than you do to thrust BUT the Republican Legionary had that space.
I suspect one big thing to remember with regards to the cutting ability of the gladius is, while when your legion fought shoulder to shoulder with your shields and swords stabbing is pretty clearly the way to go. But you didn't always fight in large formations.
There were plenty of occasions where formations could be disrupted or you are out in small groups and set upon by enemies or standing as a sentry or something else where you aren't part of a tight knit formation and in those cases the versatility of the blade likely becomes more valuable.
Any info on the steel/iron quality of the gladius? Having the pilum being a relative thin piece of steel being strong enough to withstand bending when stabbed or thrown at an object. That same could have been applied when the gladius waqs only a stabbing sword.
Being a wide sharp blade, balanced for good cutting by being leave shaped thus top heavier then a narrow straight sword is a give away that it was used a lot for cutting. And being short and wide also a excellent tool sword when building camps or having to walk through dence forrest, bushes, tall grass areas, having a sword that is a weed cutter and wood carver is making it a multitool really.
Context is everything. From what little I know the substitution of the gladius with a longer sword coincided with the division of the Roman Army into the limitanei and the comitatenses. The size of the legions was also reduced from a theoretical 6000 + auxiliaries to a "legion" of 1000 or so with a higher ratio of light troops, many of whom were missile armed.
As an aside I think I remember reading somewhere that in the 3rd century and early 4th century, where Rome was fighting border wars and dealing with internal problems, that the practice had developed of taking roughly 2 cohorts from an established legion's home base and using them , together with similar detachments from other legions, as "firemen" to send to where the latest trouble spot was, these detachments then become the basis of the new legio.
The legio in a the comitatenses/field army was thus not so much the main strike force but more intended to act as an "anchor" for the light troops and much improved cavalry to do the main work, plus the size of actual armies was a lot smaller than in the age of Republican and Imperial expansion - never mind that the population had declined and the traditional recruiting grounds of Spain and Illyria were simply not producing the number of quality recruits needed.
Where this is going is that while an early imperial legion of 6000 men could be trained to fight shield to shield and occupy a given space, and therefore fill a gap between(for example) 2 woods, a much smaller legion simply couldnt occupy the same space shield to shield with the density of an early Imperial legion, never mind the points made above.
Hence the dense formations were simply were not possible, and so the style of fighting had to change, hence the demise of the gladius.
Thank you for the context, "oh Captain, my Captain." Cheers!
My pleasure
There is a weapon that is regularly ignored and it was used usually in clashing formation. This is probably one of the reason why later they started to used the Sica sword too. Every soldier was wearing on his back a Falcetto, a small Falx with a wooden handle pretty long (enough for two hands) particular shape to not be a harm during most of the marching movements, hold by a little hook and easy to disengage. There were soldiers in the Testudo that actually were specialised in using it. When the first line of the Testudo was opening the shield to stab with the Gladius, some soldiers (even in case of lost of the Gladius itself) were grabbing the Falx with a relative quick movement using it as incredible and terrific weapon to cut the tendons behind the knees, the elbows and the heels. Because at every slash of the Enemy, they were simply grabbing and cutting any limb that was going back to it starting position(for another slash). With the time is became a foldable knife: still to be able to march with it without any unwanted cut. All of this is documented and it was part of the Roman Soldiers Fighting tactic. So: in the Testudo, there was a first line of pilum(s), then Shields and Gladius (mainly),but as closed combat and last resource Shield and Falx. We have always to remember that all the weapons the Roman Soldiers had, were good for many other uses, especially in the Life of the Camps. Gladius and Vanga were used to chop woods and dig trenches. And actually the Falx (Falcetto) (later foldable knife) were used for cooking, eating and surgeries (it was a fundamental tool for the everyday life, more than the Gladius) . They still didn't have Rambo's knife...!
Great video. For the Roman Republic Polybius is a nice source. He writes about the severe injuries a Gladius can inflict via cutting. He also described that the Romans used the Gladius for Cut and Trust. The Romans seem to prefer thrusting against enemies that used longer swords and shields like the Celts. That way the could not use their swords in extreme close combat.But like stated in video another reason could be that when fighting as a unit a thrusting move behind the scutum is easier to use than a overhead swing.
Yep. Seems like thrusting against the Celts and hacking/slashing against the Macedonians/Greeks since the Macedonian Wars is where he talks about heads and limbs being chopped off. But the gladius also seems to have changed in length a few times (going from longer mid Republican ones to shorter imperial era ones).
@@Intranetusa Yes the length changed a lot. The Gladius Hispaniensis was very long. The next iteration of the Gladius the Mainz got already shorter and I believe the shortest of the Gladii was Pompeii type.
The gladiatorial examples also often get overlooked, and it seems some of them were really small - more of a dagger really, but shaped like a sword.
That's true. I have completely overlooked the gladiatorial examples. Was not even aware that such a thing existed, to be honest. But it makes sense that there were some special gladii in the gladiatorial context. Gladiators used lots of special weapons.
Curiously, a lot of the Republican Romans would have had La Tene B's... So a fair amount of Romans would have been killing Gauls with Gallic-derived blades!
Poor guy, standing behind Matt and watching out for every singly twitch so that the point and the edge stays out of the way of harm XD.
Great vid. I can imagine the Romans moving to longer swords as cavalry become more prominent on late Roman battlefields. Fighting with the shield and gladius was doubtless effective against opponents on foot, but I suspect they were not so effective if most of your opponents were mounted.
Wait Gavin doesn't wear his Roman Legionnaires outfit all the time?! I know I would. 😂
I'd like to see a comparison of gladius vs Ka-bar and what advantages and disadvantages it has. Also which one would you want to use in trench warfare or close quarters combat?
I'd definitely be bringing a gladius to a modern close quarters engagement as a compliment to a battle rifle/carbine with or without bayonet, and hand grenades.
When someone lunges out of a door or window to grab your rifle, the sling attatched to the webbing will retain it long enough to draw a gladius from a horizontal sheath behind your back and stab with it as they pull you towards themselves by the rifle sling...
@@SonsOfLorgar sarcasm?
K-Bar is smaller, of course. Lighter and can be carried on more locations of one's body comfortably or conveniently.
Shorter reach, though. So one would use knife fighting techniques instead of sword or machete techniques.
Both are part of a system or kit of equipment.
Gladius might do better than the K-Bar as a digging/entrenching tool. K-Bar is a better substitute for a steak-knife or meal-preparation knife.
Compare with the Guhkri and a machete, as well, to make the experiment interesting. :-)
@@libraeotequever3pointoh95 I had been under the assumption that if you train with something like the gladius it would be just as easy if not easier to use in such cases. However, you'd probably have to start out training with it from a younger age type deal.
Five and a half minutes before the guest gets a word in edgewise. Matt might have a new record.
For machetes, the deeper cross section blades cut deeper. I have a machete with a 3 1/2" deep cross section and it will sink into solid wood about 2" with a good swing. Of course it's hard to get back out after that. But I expect the deep cross section of the gladius to give it considerable chopping potential.
I'm going to create a drinking game for every time Matt mentions context, sword puns, deep penetration and other double entendres etc... I expect we'll be hammered very quickly...
Excellent video. Thank you! Love the gladius.
Our pleasure!
I'd really love to see a gladius vs. jian video since they are so similar!
Forgive me if this is a dumb question,I’m still a relative novice to sword history and styles.(I’m more of a firearms guy😂). But what is the difference between a Spatha Sword and a Gladius?
I like how he gave him a blade. Handle to the opponent. Just like my grandfather taught me.
I'd love you to do a video about why swords got longer and shields shrank as I've always wondered this
Three additional factors I would add to the gladius being its original size then getting longer over time:
1) It was proportional to the original grain/fruit-fed mediterranean tribes who used it, who were generally smaller and more ectomorphic than the bigger, heavy-protein-raised, long-limbed endomorphic northerners they eventually encountered. The northrons used longer, heavier swords to some extent because they could.
2) The "frontier barbarians" were also more prone to using axes, which changes the whole dynamic. A heavy square ground-hugging shield isn't so good at stopping an axe head's momentum swinging downward from above, so you have to switch to a smaller, more maneuverable shield that is easier to raise up over your head in a hurry. Goodbye scutum, and so the gladius loses some of its context when it loses its partner shield.
Obviously, once the romans could hire frisian, norse, or northern keltic mercenaries, that changed the standards on their side as well, as you mentioned. Still, about the only thing anyone could do about the cliff people / suebi was to stay the hell out of their territory, and hope they stayed in it. Sometimes, the best strategy is knowing where to limit your boundaries, as John Cleese put it in "Silverado": "Today, my jurisdiction ends here..."
2) The northern center-grip large round shield, which can be used edge-on from a side stance to maintain space, especially combined with a longer axe, gave considerable range advantage in melee. The shorter gladius is great if you can get within a couple feet of your opponent; but if they have a setup that can hold you off and strike from over a meter away, it just doesn't have the reach, especially if the opponent is already 6 inches taller and longer in the arm.
Thus, this late-roman/early-migration arms race/evolution involved both the equipment sets involved, as well as the physical properties of the soldiers themselves.
I enjoy the videoes, are you on any alternative platforms?
great video, thank you
Glad you liked it!
I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about using the massive shield as an offensive tool. How much of Roman tactics would have been about shoving like a rugby scrum?
When Suetonius fought Boudicca`s army at the battle of Watling street his pre battle speech makes a point of telling his men to bash the enemy with their shields first before using their swords
I recall hearing that the shield shape changed as the spatha became the primary Roman sword. Maybe this was to allow better maneuverability with the longer blade?
In modern times, military surplus weapons tend to be used by reserves or lended to foreign allies for decades after being "replaced" then often finding their way onto the civilian market after that. Based on your own experience as a collector, how late would you expect to find Roman spartha and gladius swords floating around? Based on other swords you've shown I'd expect them all to be pitted wall hangers after a few centuries, and then rusty relics past 500 years. But seems like 200 years after there should still be lots of them around. Say 6th century or so?
Its also been noted that the increasing use of Auxillla troops with their weapon sets had influence on the Regulars
Edit:
You mentioned it right at the end 👍
Yeah, I meant to mention it much earlier, but got there in the end 😉
@@scholagladiatoria it's a lot to squeeze in short videos. 500 years of history in 10 minutes or less and still get the major points that everybody is going to get you for! 😆👍
One inrnb office kdichrb i wasnt to die dhdbf lmn okay i am waiting good and yes i am waiting uere now i am standing on it no yes okqy weell i see
13:56 training & teamwork/more individual etc changed? Rome was going through a lot changes just then.
How prevalent do you think the other type of short sword(kopis/falcata) was around the mediterranean compared to the straight swords?
I imagine that it is also easier to teach someone how to use it. I remember cutlass being more popular by pirates because it's a bit more chop, not cutting really. Like, imagine like, the M1 carbine and M3 smg, compared to like, a marksman rifle. They might be able to make more of them with the same amount of material as well? There would be so many things to consider other than just how well you can kill with it.
There's a recent as interesting video by Schwerpunkt on the Celtic metallurgic legacy in Roman and Germanic arms & armor. I strongly recommend it for further context
In formation, shield in your left hand sword in the right. Block the man in front of you with your shield and stab the opponent to your right when he raises his arm to do a vertical slash.
I’ve a reproduction Mainz Gladius and it is a really good cutting blade. That said the variation in construction and length in the same period means that some would be more stabby than cutty.
In my eyes, the form of the Gladius and similar swords like the Xiphos give some things away: They have a bulk of material at the tip and thus are somehow a hybrid between an axe and a sword, which does make sense when you consider that soldiers in those times did not only fight with their weapons. They had to march miles and miles through hostile territory, somehow get some food, firewood, buld a camp every day in the evening AND they had to carry all their stuff with them.
So, when I would have to walk all the way from, let's say Cunaxa to Greece and carry all my belongings with me, I wouldn't want to carry a seperate axe, a cooking knife, a machete and in case I get into a battle a long sword with me, but instead a tool that I can use to cut down small trees and bushes into firewood, to cut some vegetables or bread or meat and to hack through thick bushes, while I still could use that tool in battle as a not too bad alternative to a long sword - especially since my main weapon would be some kind of spear, which I already have to carry with me - but probably could use as a tent pole at night. So, dual usability would be an important thing to me, as it would be for people who hike or do outdoorsy stuff today is.
And since the Romans were the first to realy organize their military and its logistics, at some point in time they might just have been at a point, where it WAS more sustainable, more cheaper and more sensible to use longer swords and instead have some more specialized units in their organization that cook, organize firewood or do all that stuff. A legionary under Caesar would probably while on campaign have to march through gallic or germanic forrests, hunt for food, cut his own fire wood and build his own camp while fending against some Raiders occasionally - while 200 years later his descendant would instead live in a brick or stone built castellum, where food is provided to him by his units cooks, he would buy firewood or meat from the locals who live nearby and the only reason for him having a Gladius would in fact be to fight off barbaric intruders.
What is interesting to me about this, no disrespect to the gladius and the conversation around it, is how so many different groups were using large shields at the time. And we see this time and time again, where different sets of people were using similar weapons and defensive measures at roughly the same time through history, while being enemies, or at least not integrated into eachother society. Makes one think of the amazing attention to detail some folk (whether traders or travlers or prisoners of war) were able to discern about these arms and defensive implements, and then at a later (possibly far later) date, bring them back to their people in order to recreate similar arms and armor. Humans are fascinating.
I think the metallurgy of the time would also favor short stubby blades. As smiths improved steel making and forging techniques, The blades became longer and thinner. As the swords changed the fighting style changed.
What about draw cuts as well? I think we overlook this aspect. Let's say we have stabbed and passed the opponent. 'while withdrawing for another go there's likely to be chances of opportunistic draw cuts. The profile of the blade suggests this would have been part of its design as it carves in this movement.
Man, the pilum scares the crap out of me, I bet it goes through people like butter. I can’t imagine chain Mail doing much against such a narrow tip either.
If you search in my videos you can see ☺️
Could you expand a bit on the bronze-age rapiers in some future video? It seems very intriguing, and after a short search, not much information seems to be available.
@scholagladiatoria, thinking of the Bronze sword, I assume the leaf shape was a trial-and-error evolution from a proto-sword. What do we know about the very earliest swords?
Mr Stabby can get in multiple hits during the time a weilding swing is made!!! & If you get a Celtic chief in chain mail then slashing will likely blunt the tip! Stabbing between the rings & ramming it in can open up a 2.5-3" slit in Celtic chain-mail! As battlefield finds have shown!!!
You forgot a key factor; the closeness of combat after contact was akin to being near the front of the crowd at a concert. Wearing the gladius on the right, allows it to be drawn and wielded well even when packed in like sardines.
Gavin is looking like when you come back from the pub and your mate just took a line of speed and won’t shut up explaining how the Gladius works, yeah man I get it can but we just chill out and watch Eurotrash now.
Perhaps this has already been covered, but I'm fond of a Georgian resto channel, and I've found the blade style of their long dagger/short sword to bear a striking resemblance to the gladius. The hilt style is different, of course, but it does hint that the pattern spread beyond the Empire, and may have stuck around for other reasons elsewhere, for even longer.
I don't know but I wonder if the reason they went to the longer sword was more of a technical issue with working with metal. I think the smith's gained more experience and understanding of black smithing so they were able to make longer thinner blades that were much more reliable. This is just a guess but I know the early northern European blades were not always that well made. Yet in less then 100 years they got to be some very good blades made there. Has anyone ever tested ancient Roman iron to see what the hardness and composition was like? Thanks for the video
Hello. I've seen some parts of a broken Gladius Hispaniensis in Numantia
the romans in the line used like a chaimshaw white a short blades eat down the attacking enemy's.
The romans secret was organisation, training, using units more flexibel als the others, like greek. Ther was many important parts, like combat enginering (including digging). And the economy to hold a huge professional army for centurys.
A stabbing sword also makes sense, in a group formation standpoint, in that it is easier to kill or disable an opponent with a stab than a slash. Particularly when shields are involved. One to two inches thrust into a kill zone of the body is all that is needed. You can either puncture a vital organ or cut a major artery where you would bleed out quickly. One of the favorite kill stabs was a thrust into the liver, which would perforate the hepatic artery and the victim would quickly bleed out.
I do agree though that as a weapon system the Gladys and the scutum were highly effective.
Interesting mention about the thrust to the liver(right side of body). Wonder how that could be done in a historic context considering that they used used the blades in the right hand followed by the shield in the left.
@@Froggy-nv7ep Good question. My understanding that this was a tactic used against opponents who were not as heavily armored infantry, such as, the Gauls or if an opponent was knocked off their feet.
The larger point though is that the Roman infantry was well trained on these kill points where a shallow stab would be fatal.
My understanding of why the Gladius and Scutum system began disappearing has to do with the changing nature of the empire as a whole. The system described above is highly dependent on rigorous training, drilling, and coordination. This was able to be accomplished easily when Roman citizens saw the professional Army as a mode for upward mobility within the state. I believe this started to change into the 2nd and 3rd centuries as Roman citizens became less and less likely to sign up for the Army (I believe life had improved for the citizens to a point where the hard life of the Army was not as desirable) and recruitment started coming more and more from either mercenary units (who would have already had their own tactics) or migrant warriors from Germania and Gaul who fought for Rome in exchange for citizenship. I imagine that the higher dependence on the cavalry that came with the later imperial period also had something to do with the change in infantry tactics, perhaps a smaller shield allowed for an infantry unit to cover ground quicker which may have become more vital in that time. Great video as always.
Sort of off the specific topic. A friend of mine was reading about medieval murders in York. Among the many baselards, he ran across a reference to a bladed weapon called a "twyfel". I've looked in the OED, but can only find a 1460 reference to "twyfyl" as meaning "doubtful". Have you heard of a sword or knife called a "twyfel"?
I’d really like to see what the dynamics of a later Spartha & Oval Sheild with Plumbata, vs a Gladius, Scutum, and Pilla would be. I suspect the Plubata would have greater range, and maybe more hits, and I wonder if the shift to Spartha and a different sheild indicates a shift in tactics or if one merely necessitates the other.
A slightly more modernized version would do pretty good for trench raiding & as a last ditch melee weapon inside buildings/other tight spaces etc.